I can’t wait to hear there argument - “Yes, we knew about the regulations, but we’re pretty crap and did nothing because we didn’t expect to win anything. Then, by accident, we did win something, but we were in contravention of the regulations we’d knowingly ignored. But it not our fault, we didn’t know we were going to win, and now we’re being punished unfairly for not doing our job, having no confidence in the team, and generally making a mess of things”.
Palace are expected to take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas).
"At the end of the day it's an injustice, just by a couple of admin errors. We qualified for it," Nick Philpot from the Red and Blue Review podcast said at the march.
"We won the cup - it should be we go into it without any question about it.
"You're penalising the entire club and the fanbase. Why would you do that?"
Last week, Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish called the decision "a bad day for football" and "a terrible injustice".
"We've been locked out of a European competition on the most ridiculous technicality," he said. "Supporters of all clubs should be devastated for us."
A bad day for football, well it couldn’t say a bad day at the office, as that’s what got them in this mess.
Why should any other club care about this? There's bigger problems in English football than Steve Parish not checking his emails.
The media should be all over what's going on at Morecambe not giving media coverage to Steve Parish bleating away about how unfair what European competition they're in.
Apart from the general hilarity of the situation, I've not had a real view as to whether Palace's position has any real merit or not, not least because I'm not aware of UEFA's rules.
The BBC Football website does, however, state that:
"In the governing body's rulebook, a club is required to prove they are not "simultaneously involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition" (my emphasis).
Given that Textor's Eagle Football owned (and continues to own) a 43% stake in Palace (and a 77% stake in Lyon), how can they credibly argue that they are not in breach of the rule set out above, the purpose of which is to prevent collusion ?
It's all very well for Steve Parish to witter on, saying that "we know, unequivocally, that John [Textor] didn't have decisive influence over the club", but"decisiveness" is not the test. There are also sound practical and policy reasons for drafting the ambit of the rules broadly, given that it is very difficult for the authorities to know what is really going on behind the scenes at football clubs.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport is unpredictable (Man City won their appeal a few years back) but, given Textor's 43% ownership, I find it difficult to see how, they will reverse UEFA's decision and find in favour of Palace.
I just don't understand why you'd ever own 43% of a business but apparently in effect be a silent partner with no real say in the day to day running of the club. The whole thing sounds like complete and utter nonsense to try and cover for their incompetence.
Comments
Read your emails.
The media should be all over what's going on at Morecambe not giving media coverage to Steve Parish bleating away about how unfair what European competition they're in.
The BBC Football website does, however, state that:
"In the governing body's rulebook, a club is required to prove they are not "simultaneously involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition" (my emphasis).
Given that Textor's Eagle Football owned (and continues to own) a 43% stake in Palace (and a 77% stake in Lyon), how can they credibly argue that they are not in breach of the rule set out above, the purpose of which is to prevent collusion ?
It's all very well for Steve Parish to witter on, saying that "we know, unequivocally, that John [Textor] didn't have decisive influence over the club", but"decisiveness" is not the test. There are also sound practical and policy reasons for drafting the ambit of the rules broadly, given that it is very difficult for the authorities to know what is really going on behind the scenes at football clubs.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport is unpredictable (Man City won their appeal a few years back) but, given Textor's 43% ownership, I find it difficult to see how, they will reverse UEFA's decision and find in favour of Palace.