Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Palace and Europe ?
Comments
-
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.bobmunro said:
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.valleynick66 said:Bucking the trend but I have sympathy.Players and fans are penalised because of others.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.It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.0 -
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.valleynick66 said:
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.bobmunro said:
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.valleynick66 said:Bucking the trend but I have sympathy.Players and fans are penalised because of others.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.It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
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.6 -
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.Chizz said:
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.valleynick66 said:
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.bobmunro said:
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.valleynick66 said:Bucking the trend but I have sympathy.Players and fans are penalised because of others.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.It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
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.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 ☹️😉😆1 -
valleynick66 said:
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.Chizz said:
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.valleynick66 said:
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.bobmunro said:
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.valleynick66 said:Bucking the trend but I have sympathy.Players and fans are penalised because of others.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.It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
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.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.0 -
My misreading then.bobmunro said:valleynick66 said:
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.Chizz said:
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.valleynick66 said:
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.bobmunro said:
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.valleynick66 said:Bucking the trend but I have sympathy.Players and fans are penalised because of others.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.It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
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.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.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)1 -
Bollocks to mature, I hope they’re kicked out completelyvalleynick66 said:
My misreading then.bobmunro said:valleynick66 said:
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.Chizz said:
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.valleynick66 said:
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.bobmunro said:
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.valleynick66 said:Bucking the trend but I have sympathy.Players and fans are penalised because of others.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.It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
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.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.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)7 -
valleynick66 said:
My misreading then.bobmunro said:valleynick66 said:
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.Chizz said:
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.valleynick66 said:
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.bobmunro said:
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.valleynick66 said:Bucking the trend but I have sympathy.Players and fans are penalised because of others.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.It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
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.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.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)6 -
I concur, it’s Palace so I won’t shed any tears5
-
Fuck thatstonemuse said:
Bollocks to mature, I hope they’re kicked out completelyvalleynick66 said:
My misreading then.bobmunro said:valleynick66 said:
@bobmunro comment (I assume partly in jest) was about the 91 others. In that case they had no advantage.Chizz said:
The UEFA ruling is to prevent two or more clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition. Removing Palace prevents this.valleynick66 said:
But my point was how is this (specific) punishment just? That doesn’t compensate the 91.bobmunro said:
I 100% concur with that argument - and it absolutely applies to 91 of the current 92 league clubs.valleynick66 said:Bucking the trend but I have sympathy.Players and fans are penalised because of others.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.It’s saying you are just a little bit wrong with your ownership.
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.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.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)
I hope they get kicked out of the league.
Start again in non league football and shove your 500 year history up your arse.11 -
Them calling themselves FA Cup Champions is enough for me, it’s winners FFS
3 -
Sponsored links:
-
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.0
-
The Angela Rayner approach to disputes.jose said: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.1 -
Palace fans are having a march from Norwood clock tower to the dump on Tuesday, that'll show UEFA.....16
-
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/crystal-palace-missed-several-emails-35544736
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.
10 -
What a great idea. We should show some support for this and message a palace fan and say to him see you next Tuesday….twiggyaddick said:Palace fans are having a march from Norwood clock tower to the dump on Tuesday, that'll show UEFA.....5 -
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 appeal2
-
They will surely appeal as they have nothing to lose by doing so.Grovenuts said: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
However CAS rejected Drogheda's recent appeal so i'm not sure why Palace would be any different.5 -
Is there no chance of an appeal being seen as frivolous and them being kicked out all together?7
-
No, they have a legal right to appeal their decision to an independent body (CAS). It will fail but they have the right to do soAthletico Charlton said:Is there no chance of an appeal being seen as frivolous and them being kicked out all together?0 -
Hopefully they appeal and UEFA finally notice Bronby are already in the conference and Palace get booted out of that competition too!7
-
Sponsored links:
-
"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.7
-
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.YTS1978 said:"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.5 -
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.TelMc32 said:
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.YTS1978 said:"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.
Edit. And that's before a load of teenagers in wrestling masks start "marching" from Norwood Junction to that shit hole in protest lol1 -
I think Chizz or someone like Chizz should e mail CAS and point out that Bronby are in The Conference, which surely also disqualifies Palace.randy andy said:Hopefully they appeal and UEFA finally notice Bronby are already in the conference and Palace get booted out of that competition too!1 -
Not sure how, but it looks like UEFA have cleared that conflict. A shame, as it would have been funny seeing Brighton taking their place!Covered End said:
I think Chizz or someone like Chizz should e mail CAS and point out that Bronby are in The Conference, which surely also disqualifies Palace.randy andy said:Hopefully they appeal and UEFA finally notice Bronby are already in the conference and Palace get booted out of that competition too!2 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c89e2ljkjllo
Funny to see how pissed off they are after winning the FA Cup.6 -
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?8 -
Pathetic sized protest too. We had more people than that outside The Valley against Roland.jimmymelrose said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c89e2ljkjllo
Funny to see how pissed off they are after winning the FA Cup.3 -
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.3 -
Champions of the FA Cup, you meanjimmymelrose said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c89e2ljkjllo
Funny to see how pissed off they are after winning the FA Cup.4
