https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82534
That's irrelevant as one of their significant owners owns a stake in Lyon who as they finished higher in the table than Palace get the place in the Europa League. Squirming to get out of pretty cast iron rules has been undignified. Forest would be in a similar position but their Slob owner divested ownership to comply.
West Ham won the Conference league and I doubt their supporters thought it was a downgrade (compared to the Europa league) after they'd won it.NottsClaret wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:02 pmThey've a good chance of winning the Conference League, once they get over the disappointment of this. I do feel for their fans, must be gutted.
* Yes, I know rules are rules.
I think some ways the conference league might not be the punishment in terms of demotion some think it is. I'd back them as better favourites than competing in europa & on that basis maybe another shot at it unlikely to win the FA cup again anytime soon.NottsClaret wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:02 pmThey've a good chance of winning the Conference League, once they get over the disappointment of this. I do feel for their fans, must be gutted.
* Yes, I know rules are rules.
Although strangely was still on the pitch talking to the manager after giving up control (not ownership) ...claret wizard wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:09 pmThat's irrelevant as one of their significant owners owns a stake in Lyon who as they finished higher in the table than Palace get the place in the Europa League. Squirming to get out of pretty cast iron rules has been undignified. Forest would be in a similar position but their but their Slob owner divested ownership to comply.
Hopefully this will start to see the reduction in multi club ownerships (but I doubt it), just more money for accountants and lawyers to bend rules that have been set with absolutley the best intentions.
It's relevant that they had their most successful season under multi ownership
Jan schweele isn't to be taken lightly. I think they had already made their mind up anyway but obligated to see the appeal out.claret wizard wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:15 pmAs I say, lawyers and accountants doing wizardry to bend the rules. Obviously Forest have better lawyers than Palace.
100% agree. That was my original point. It’s a massive down side to multi club ownership. Lessons need to be learned. Doesn’t mean that the Palace fans should be happy though.claret wizard wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:09 pmThat's irrelevant as one of their significant owners owns a stake in Lyon who as they finished higher in the table than Palace get the place in the Europa League. Squirming to get out of pretty cast iron rules has been undignified. Forest would be in a similar position but their Slob owner divested ownership to comply.
Hopefully this will start to see the reduction in multi club ownerships (but I doubt it), just more money for accountants and lawyers to bend rules that have been set with absolutley the best intentions.
They might not be right now at this moment in time but that would quickly change if they end up winning the conference league.
They’ll be Glad all Over.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:34 pmThey might not be right now at this moment in time but that would quickly change if they end up winning the conference league.
Just the world in general to be honest, the bigger the crime etc.daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:59 pmIt's the worst of all worlds to have a system where multi-club ownership is fine for anyone with a big club or a savvy owner involved but penalised occasionally for smaller clubs.
The first sentence isn't quite true. One of their significant (but still minority) owners as at 1st March owned a stake in Lyon. Palace's point was that he was a minority owner, he had fallen out with the board, he was in process of selling his shares, and there was sod all that Palace could do about making him put his shares into one of these bogus "blind trusts". And that as from July, he was no longer an owner.claret wizard wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:09 pmThat's irrelevant as one of their significant owners owns a stake in Lyon who as they finished higher in the table than Palace get the place in the Europa League. Squirming to get out of pretty cast iron rules has been undignified. Forest would be in a similar position but their Slob owner divested ownership to comply.
Hopefully this will start to see the reduction in multi club ownerships (but I doubt it), just more money for accountants and lawyers to bend rules that have been set with absolutley the best intentions.
It’s all money to the lawyers…..dsr wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 4:15 pmThe first sentence isn't quite true. One of their significant (but still minority) owners as at 1st March owned a stake in Lyon. Palace's point was that he was a minority owner, he had fallen out with the board, he was in process of selling his shares, and there was sod all that Palace could do about making him put his shares into one of these bogus "blind trusts". And that as from July, he was no longer an owner.
Palace wouldn't have been banned under the rules that applied last year, and I believe they wouldn't be banned under the rules that will apply next year.
And remember the rules aren't all that simple. They can't be simple, because they have to be framed in such a way that Red Bull Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg are deemed to have nothing in common that gives any one party significant influence over both clubs. When you're trying to frame the rules in such a way that they can prove black is sometimes white, then it has to be complicated.