More though how is the punishment just ? Demotion to a different competition feels wrong if the multi ownership is such a bad thing. If it’s wrong the sanction should be expulsion and the ownership forbidden.
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.
It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
More though how is the punishment just ? Demotion to a different competition feels wrong if the multi ownership is such a bad thing. If it’s wrong the sanction should be expulsion and the ownership forbidden.
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.
It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.
It's not about finding someone doing something wrong and then throwing the book at then to prove a point. It's about preventing the possibility of the appearance of collusion in a competition.
More though how is the punishment just ? Demotion to a different competition feels wrong if the multi ownership is such a bad thing. If it’s wrong the sanction should be expulsion and the ownership forbidden.
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.
It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.
It's not about finding someone doing something wrong and then throwing the book at then to prove a point. It's about preventing the possibility of the appearance of collusion in a competition.
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.
But I guess if the rule is just about possible conflicts of interest in European only comps then I I don’t know why Palace are surprised I guess. Would seem a simple thing to rule on.
If it’s about control / size of ownership then it all starts getting murky I suppose.
My fear is that should we ever reach such dizzy heights our own complex structure will Sod’s Law hurt us ☹️😉😆
More though how is the punishment just ? Demotion to a different competition feels wrong if the multi ownership is such a bad thing. If it’s wrong the sanction should be expulsion and the ownership forbidden.
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.
It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.
It's not about finding someone doing something wrong and then throwing the book at then to prove a point. It's about preventing the possibility of the appearance of collusion in a competition.
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.
But I guess if the rule is just about possible conflicts of interest in European only comps then I I don’t know why Palace are surprised I guess. Would seem a simple thing to rule on.
If it’s about control / size of ownership then it all starts getting murky I suppose.
My fear is that should we ever reach such dizzy heights our own complex structure will Sod’s Law hurt us ☹️😉😆
My response was related to the bid I bolded in your post- Players and fans are penalised because of others. I agreed with that argument for the other 91 clubs but not for the stripey wankers' players and fans. I never indicated there was an advantage for those 91 sets of players and fans, just no disadvantage.
More though how is the punishment just ? Demotion to a different competition feels wrong if the multi ownership is such a bad thing. If it’s wrong the sanction should be expulsion and the ownership forbidden.
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.
It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.
It's not about finding someone doing something wrong and then throwing the book at then to prove a point. It's about preventing the possibility of the appearance of collusion in a competition.
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.
But I guess if the rule is just about possible conflicts of interest in European only comps then I I don’t know why Palace are surprised I guess. Would seem a simple thing to rule on.
If it’s about control / size of ownership then it all starts getting murky I suppose.
My fear is that should we ever reach such dizzy heights our own complex structure will Sod’s Law hurt us ☹️😉😆
My response was related to the bid I bolded in your post- Players and fans are penalised because of others. I agreed with that argument for the other 91 clubs but not for the stripey wankers' players and fans. I never indicated there was an advantage for those 91 sets of players and fans, just no disadvantage.
My misreading then.
How very mature of you to have that view! 😉😆
In all seriousness and in the cold light of day regardless of rivalry it is a harsh call from the supporters perspective.
I assume they will appeal if they think they have a chance of a loop hole / mitigation. I wonder if they knew all along this might happen? (I didn’t follow the possibility closely at all)
More though how is the punishment just ? Demotion to a different competition feels wrong if the multi ownership is such a bad thing. If it’s wrong the sanction should be expulsion and the ownership forbidden.
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.
It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.
It's not about finding someone doing something wrong and then throwing the book at then to prove a point. It's about preventing the possibility of the appearance of collusion in a competition.
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.
But I guess if the rule is just about possible conflicts of interest in European only comps then I I don’t know why Palace are surprised I guess. Would seem a simple thing to rule on.
If it’s about control / size of ownership then it all starts getting murky I suppose.
My fear is that should we ever reach such dizzy heights our own complex structure will Sod’s Law hurt us ☹️😉😆
My response was related to the bid I bolded in your post- Players and fans are penalised because of others. I agreed with that argument for the other 91 clubs but not for the stripey wankers' players and fans. I never indicated there was an advantage for those 91 sets of players and fans, just no disadvantage.
My misreading then.
How very mature of you to have that view! 😉😆
In all seriousness and in the cold light of day regardless of rivalry it is a harsh call from the supporters perspective.
I assume they will appeal if they think they have a chance of a loop hole / mitigation. I wonder if they knew all along this might happen? (I didn’t follow the possibility closely at all)
Bollocks to mature, I hope they’re kicked out completely
More though how is the punishment just ? Demotion to a different competition feels wrong if the multi ownership is such a bad thing. If it’s wrong the sanction should be expulsion and the ownership forbidden.
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.
It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.
It's not about finding someone doing something wrong and then throwing the book at then to prove a point. It's about preventing the possibility of the appearance of collusion in a competition.
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.
But I guess if the rule is just about possible conflicts of interest in European only comps then I I don’t know why Palace are surprised I guess. Would seem a simple thing to rule on.
If it’s about control / size of ownership then it all starts getting murky I suppose.
My fear is that should we ever reach such dizzy heights our own complex structure will Sod’s Law hurt us ☹️😉😆
My response was related to the bid I bolded in your post- Players and fans are penalised because of others. I agreed with that argument for the other 91 clubs but not for the stripey wankers' players and fans. I never indicated there was an advantage for those 91 sets of players and fans, just no disadvantage.
My misreading then.
How very mature of you to have that view! 😉😆
In all seriousness and in the cold light of day regardless of rivalry it is a harsh call from the supporters perspective.
I assume they will appeal if they think they have a chance of a loop hole / mitigation. I wonder if they knew all along this might happen? (I didn’t follow the possibility closely at all)
Why thank you
It's Palarse ffs - fuck'em (fans, players, and owners)
More though how is the punishment just ? Demotion to a different competition feels wrong if the multi ownership is such a bad thing. If it’s wrong the sanction should be expulsion and the ownership forbidden.
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.
It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.
It's not about finding someone doing something wrong and then throwing the book at then to prove a point. It's about preventing the possibility of the appearance of collusion in a competition.
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.
But I guess if the rule is just about possible conflicts of interest in European only comps then I I don’t know why Palace are surprised I guess. Would seem a simple thing to rule on.
If it’s about control / size of ownership then it all starts getting murky I suppose.
My fear is that should we ever reach such dizzy heights our own complex structure will Sod’s Law hurt us ☹️😉😆
My response was related to the bid I bolded in your post- Players and fans are penalised because of others. I agreed with that argument for the other 91 clubs but not for the stripey wankers' players and fans. I never indicated there was an advantage for those 91 sets of players and fans, just no disadvantage.
My misreading then.
How very mature of you to have that view! 😉😆
In all seriousness and in the cold light of day regardless of rivalry it is a harsh call from the supporters perspective.
I assume they will appeal if they think they have a chance of a loop hole / mitigation. I wonder if they knew all along this might happen? (I didn’t follow the possibility closely at all)
Bollocks to mature, I hope they’re kicked out completely
Fuck that I hope they get kicked out of the league.
Start again in non league football and shove your 500 year history up your arse.
Crystal Palace could style it out by telling the authorities they’re all a bunch of wankers, and then announcing they’re withdrawing from all European competition next season and for the foreseeable.
Crystal Palace could style it out by telling the authorities they’re all a bunch of wankers, and then announcing they’re withdrawing from all European competition next season and for the foreseeable.
But while the Palace boss appeared to blame UEFA for their poor communication - he instead indicated the club simply failed to see notifications in January.
That is despite them being sent to the only email address Palace list in the Premier League handbook that is circulated to stakeholders at the start of every season.
Having watched the Parrish interview on sky I thought he displayed the usual rhetoric for the supporters sake but when he talked about the appeal it seemed a bit half hearted, I believe he knew this was coming and they had broken the rules, it wouldn't surprise me if they don't appeal
Having watched the Parrish interview on sky I thought he displayed the usual rhetoric for the supporters sake but when he talked about the appeal it seemed a bit half hearted, I believe he knew this was coming and they had broken the rules, it wouldn't surprise me if they don't appeal
They will surely appeal as they have nothing to lose by doing so.
However CAS rejected Drogheda's recent appeal so i'm not sure why Palace would be any different.
"Notwithstanding the fact that even if I'd received it, what could I have done? I couldn't make somebody do it. They passed this rule so there was nothing we could do"....well you could have done something in January Steve, if you'd checked the inbox, as the deadline was in March! Helmet.
"Notwithstanding the fact that even if I'd received it, what could I have done? I couldn't make somebody do it. They passed this rule so there was nothing we could do"....well you could have done something in January Steve, if you'd checked the inbox, as the deadline was in March! Helmet.
Pathetic excuse that CAS will laugh out of court. Parish didn’t have to get Textor to sell his shares. He only needed to place them in a blind trust. Having tried to claim that Textor had no operational control at Palace, this shouldn’t have been an issue at all. It’s an administrative cock up, pure and simple and they haven’t a leg to stand on.
"Notwithstanding the fact that even if I'd received it, what could I have done? I couldn't make somebody do it. They passed this rule so there was nothing we could do"....well you could have done something in January Steve, if you'd checked the inbox, as the deadline was in March! Helmet.
Pathetic excuse that CAS will laugh out of court. Parish didn’t have to get Textor to sell his shares. He only needed to place them in a blind trust. Having tried to claim that Textor had no operational control at Palace, this shouldn’t have been an issue at all. It’s an administrative cock up, pure and simple and they haven’t a leg to stand on.
Exactly. Parish likes to be seen as the guy in charge at Palace, despite not being the money man, so this really is on him! He should probably just hold his hands up and accept the slightly lesser European adventure at this point, as it getting a bit embarrassing, even by their standards.
Edit. And that's before a load of teenagers in wrestling masks start "marching" from Norwood Junction to that shit hole in protest lol
Why is part time Simon Jordan lookalike Steve Parrish going with " every club should be supporting us". No you fucked up and didn't check your emails , deal with the consequences.
Does he actually believe half the nonsense he's said recently?
If I was a Palace fan I would be seriously pissed off... With the clubs owners and administers. There are simple ways around this that other clubs have already done and their ineptitude meant they left it too late, breached deadlines and broke rules. Why should Europe then bend those rules to allow them to stay in the competition? How is a governing body following its own rules which the clubs knew about and had plenty of notice for, and injustice. Nob heads the lot of them.
Comments
It's not about finding someone doing something wrong and then throwing the book at then to prove a point. It's about preventing the possibility of the appearance of collusion in a competition.
My response was related to the bid I bolded in your post- Players and fans are penalised because of others. I agreed with that argument for the other 91 clubs but not for the stripey wankers' players and fans. I never indicated there was an advantage for those 91 sets of players and fans, just no disadvantage.
In all seriousness and in the cold light of day regardless of rivalry it is a harsh call from the supporters perspective.
I hope they get kicked out of the league.
Start again in non league football and shove your 500 year history up your arse.
But while the Palace boss appeared to blame UEFA for their poor communication - he instead indicated the club simply failed to see notifications in January.
That is despite them being sent to the only email address Palace list in the Premier League handbook that is circulated to stakeholders at the start of every season.
However CAS rejected Drogheda's recent appeal so i'm not sure why Palace would be any different.
Edit. And that's before a load of teenagers in wrestling masks start "marching" from Norwood Junction to that shit hole in protest lol
Funny to see how pissed off they are after winning the FA Cup.
Does he actually believe half the nonsense he's said recently?
Why should Europe then bend those rules to allow them to stay in the competition? How is a governing body following its own rules which the clubs knew about and had plenty of notice for, and injustice. Nob heads the lot of them.