LOI In Europe 2025

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiki Balboa

Pretty sure Palace were always safe because Textor only owned 30%.

Anything I read, Palace seemed very confident it was a non-issue.

---

Textor owns 43% (Well Eagle football group does) and its enough of an issue for them that he is trying to sell the entirety of his share w/ the owner of the NY Jets being the latest suitor. I think its because even though he is technically a minority owner he owns the largest stake in the club. The next biggest I can see is 10%.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/a...s/cqj7n8dkjg4o

On the coefficient aspect I hope its more akin to what Stu has said with Droghedas potential opponents essentially given a walkover rather than an expulsion and replacement with another countries team. That opens a whole lot of questions for UEFA around how they select Droghedas replacement and I cant imagine any association being happy if a team from a league with similar coefficient to them is given essentially free points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiki Balboa

Pretty sure Palace were always safe because Textor only owned 30%.

Anything I read, Palace seemed very confident it was a non-issue.

---

That's not the feel I get off the BBC article? And don't think it ties in with selling his shares either? Textor's group owns 43% per here, which is still a minority stake, but UEFA rules are around a significant say in the running of the clubs and 43% probably falls under that remit.

That second article does mention that Palace are confident no rules have been broken, but not sure if their actions back that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbgawa

So with an odd number of teams in the Conference league now ...im assuming Rovers get a bye into Round two as top seed??

To be honest id rather play the match, gutted for the Drogs supporters.
Cant see them winning at CASS , id say thats a face saving effort from the Board

Might help us in the LEague if its true i suppose

---

Yeah rovers would take the 2nd qualifying round place. Wouldn’t help rovers in the league though given the game that’s meant to be between the two 1st round ties has been brought forward to this Monday, meaning Rovers would just have an extended idle period before the Cup game at home to Wexford.

On that point, if they don’t get into Europe, Drogs (who play 6 league games in the next 4 weeks) would then only have 1 game between the 5th and 31st of July which is their FAI Cup game against Crumlin

Presumably Drogheda have budgeted on being in Europe too, which would be quite a hole to fill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Presumably Drogheda have budgeted on being in Europe too, which would be quite a hole to fill

---

Ideally, it should be the owners' responsibility to fill that hole, as they created the problem in the first place. But when is the world ever ideal...

On the topic of replacement, as I understand it, Rovers would replace Drogheda in Q2. The Q1 spot which would then be vacated by Rovers should be taken by another Irish team if there were another one who applied for a license. In the absence of that, another team from Q1 would move to Q2 as there is an uneven number of teams in Q1 then. That should be the cup winner of the highest ranked country that has a cup winner in Q1 (Albania).

Barry Landy does a good job on all things Drogheda in his 'Love Is The Drog' Substack. He says:
'Teams that have been admitted to UEFA competitions in the past despite having been part of multi-club ownership groups and having to plead their case to UEFA’s Club Financial Control body include Manchester United, Manchester City, Nice, Girona, Red Bull Salzburg, Red Bull Leipizg, Aston Villa, Vitoria Guimaraes, AC Milan, Toulouse, Brighton and Hove Albion and Union Saint-Gilloise'.
Not sure how these have managed to dodge the bullet, and Drogheda haven't. It'll be big news if Palace get booted out.

Whatever about the fortunes of Drogheda. I can’t believe no other PD side applied for a European licence. Real amateur hour stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ger121

Whatever about the fortunes of Drogheda. I can’t believe no other PD side applied for a European licence. Real amateur hour stuff.

---

Genuinely can’t get my head around that at all. There were tweets, posts on here and articles published in November highlighting the potential issue that could arise so the fact that it’s been as publicly known about as that absolutely shocks me that Derry or any other club for that matter didn’t apply for a licence. It’s something Pats have benefitted from twice in the last 14 years, sending in an application when Fingal and Waterford hadn’t got their ducks in a row.

The main idiots here are Derry's board given they would’ve been first in line for the spot. Galway would’ve been next and after that clubs are probably thinking ah sure Derry or Galway will apply and get it if Drogheda miss out etc, so the crime lessens the lower down the table you go but Jesus it’s a serious open goal miss from the clubs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Straightstory

Barry Landy does a good job on all things Drogheda in his 'Love Is The Drog' Substack. He says:
'Teams that have been admitted to UEFA competitions in the past despite having been part of multi-club ownership groups and having to plead their case to UEFA’s Club Financial Control body include Manchester United, Manchester City, Nice, Girona, Red Bull Salzburg, Red Bull Leipizg, Aston Villa, Vitoria Guimaraes, AC Milan, Toulouse, Brighton and Hove Albion and Union Saint-Gilloise'.
Not sure how these have managed to dodge the bullet, and Drogheda haven't. It'll be big news if Palace get booted out.

---

They managed it because they followed the deadlines and rules. Drogheda didn't, simple stuff really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ger121

Whatever about the fortunes of Drogheda. I can’t believe no other PD side applied for a European licence. Real amateur hour stuff.

---

Does anyone know with FAI's LOI licensing applications does that include UEFA licensing applications? For example in Wales/FAW both their domestic and UEFA licensing are co-ordinated in the same process, FAW had 10 clubs apply for a UEFA license for 2025-26 with 8 clubs accepted and 2 refused

https://faw.cymru/news/club-licensin...instance-body/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total hoofball

Does anyone know with FAI's LOI licensing applications does that include UEFA licensing applications? For example in Wales/FAW both their domestic and UEFA licensing are co-ordinated in the same process, FAW had 10 clubs apply for a UEFA license for 2025-26 with 8 clubs accepted and 2 refused

https://faw.cymru/news/club-licensin...instance-body/

---

The FAI Licensing Manual mentions the UEFA licensing timetable begins immediately after the New Year, with applications needing to be submitted by the end of March, so every Premier club, at least, would have plenty time to get such ducks in a row:

https://support.faiconnect.ie/wp-con...ing-Manual.pdf

In LoI anything can happen, club that have the resources at minimum shoud have put in for a licence as its not as if clubs havent been bumped before. If a club has recently been in Europe surely its a formality, update dates, housekeeping stuff. Our own licencing shoud be aligned as much as possible with UEFA anyway. Only reason I dont have even a tiny bit of irritation that even Dundalk didnt is that the pitch would hardly get a licence and its pretty busy for a skeleton staff already but even if hammered its a bit of a ranking point and a wedge of cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

. If a club has recently been in Europe surely its a formality, update dates, housekeeping stuff. Our own licencing shoud be aligned as much as possible with UEFA anyway.

---

Was thinking there can't be much difference between a Premier licence and a UEFA one, especially for a side like Derry who were in Europe last year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by culloty82

The FAI Licensing Manual mentions the UEFA licensing timetable begins immediately after the New Year, with applications needing to be submitted by the end of March, so every Premier club, at least, would have plenty time to get such ducks in a row:

https://support.faiconnect.ie/wp-con...ing-Manual.pdf

---

The process actually needs to begin well ahead of January. The January date is by when mainly non-commercial info needs to be submitted (I suspect much of that is covered by your Premier Licence work done that proceeds UEFA deadlines. The March date is the by when financials are submitted and the application goes forward.

The vast majority of Irish League Premiership clubs apply for and get a UEFA Licence each year, regardless of their chances of qualifying. It makes good business sense to do so as it is a good measure. It is also easier to maintain the standard it sets, rather than having to start from a lower base. That's why I am shocked how few LOI clubs seem to follow the UEFA process through. There really isn't that big a jump to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealJohn91

They managed it because they followed the deadlines and rules. Drogheda didn't, simple stuff really.

---

Well the difference from most is Silkeborg only qualified just over a week ago.
If Uefa allow teams to qualify so late, they should probably allow amendments to applications after that stage (even if most things need to be in place).

No club would want to put their ownership into a blind trust just in case they qualify for Europe and then they don't.
Of course this blind trust thing is just a nonsense way for City Group, Ineos, Red Bull etc and others to own multiple football clubs playing in UEFA competitions and not be in breach of the rules.

If Uefa really wanted to stop multi club ownerships, they'd prevent any of these loopholes and specify the club from the lower association is the one that qualifies for Europe. Soon enough most multi club ownerships would be terminated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Straightstory

Barry Landy does a good job on all things Drogheda in his 'Love Is The Drog' Substack. He says:
'Teams that have been admitted to UEFA competitions in the past despite having been part of multi-club ownership groups and having to plead their case to UEFA’s Club Financial Control body include Manchester United, Manchester City, Nice, Girona, Red Bull Salzburg, Red Bull Leipizg, Aston Villa, Vitoria Guimaraes, AC Milan, Toulouse, Brighton and Hove Albion and Union Saint-Gilloise'.
Not sure how these have managed to dodge the bullet, and Drogheda haven't.

---

Dunno about the others, but re BHA and USG, when both qualified for the Europa League in 2023/24, BHA owner Tony Bloom sold his majority shareholding in USG to allow both teams to compete in that season's competition:
https://rusg.brussels/en/news/statem...r-alex-muzio-0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Straightstory

It'll be big news if Palace get booted out.

---

Aiui, Palace were hoping they'd be ok since Textor didn't own a majority stake, just 47%. However UEFA were still concerned because the other shareholders only owned 10% each, meaning Textor could have effective control. Consequently, Textor is desperately trying to sell his shares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

Only reason I dont have even a tiny bit of irritation that even Dundalk didnt is that the pitch would hardly get a licence and its pretty busy for a skeleton staff already but even if hammered its a bit of a ranking point and a wedge of cash.

---

Larne's pitch wasn't up to UEFA standard either last season, but they still applied for, and gained, a European Licence, on the basis that they'd play their home games at Windsor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealJohn91

They managed it because they followed the deadlines and rules. Drogheda didn't, simple stuff really.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigEars

Well the difference from most is Silkeborg only qualified just over a week ago.
If Uefa allow teams to qualify so late, they should probably allow amendments to applications after that stage (even if most things need to be in place).

---

Except that with a summer league, Drogs/LOI teams all qualify v.early, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Except that with a summer league, Drogs/LOI teams all qualify v.early, no?

---

Well yes they do, however most countries have everything wrapped up a month before Denmark.
Having 5+ weeks vs 1 to engage with UEFA and make changes if necessary is a huge difference.

It's a lot easier to make an argument to Uefa (or CAS if necessary) if you've already divested shares/created a blind trust, like other clubs have done, even if it's post March deadline, than asking them if they'll just let you in or do you need to change the business structure.
At that stage it's a lot easier for Uefa to just say 'sorry, too late".

A bit mad that the LOI as whole will be hurt by this through losing UEFA co-efficient, and maybe that Europa League spot. If Rovers are replacing Drogheda (ie. they are being replaced not just straight eliminated), I cant see how the ruling is LOI has 4 teams in the competitions, not 3.

I would feel a bit bitter about that. I am sure there is some rule somewhere that states it - but functionally, its stupid to me.

Also, does not reflect well on the competency of Chairperson and Sinn Fein TD Joanna Byrne, who, along with the rest of the board, missed this and seemed to be shocked by the news. Thats a big hole in their budget now. Poster above is right, Irish teams are some of the first to qualify for European, so plenty of time for this to have been flagged.

Must be some worries that those investors would just drop Drogheda now.

Also, weird for me that Drogheda are claiming to be the 'little guy', when they are part (and benefiting) of the very problem many people hate with modern football of multi-club ownership.

Doesnt reflect well on every other LOI Premier team too that didnt apply for UEFA licence when they should have been a bit clued in to the problems that Drogheda might have had.

Overall, this years embarrassing episode for the league.