QuoteThat's a really good ideaOriginally Posted by sbgawa
I still say the whole thing is a joke. Put the shares in a blind trust while still running the show and you are fine.
The Forest example is the clearest of all. Owner publically bollicking the Manager even though in UEFA's eyes he isnt running Forest.
Personally i think theyd be better off just saying if two clubs are owned by the same owner both revert to the 1st qualifying round for the compeittion and play each other there.
Otherwise its just multi club ownership free for all behind rules that are a con
That's a really good idea
Tbf, it's not like they're trying to keep s.o. from the Big Five in at the expense of a club from outside that group.
Anyhow, the BBC offers this interpretation of UEFA's motives:
"Uefa's decision to postpone their ruling was not a shock to Crystal Palace.
Enquiries made on Friday has led BBC Sport to believe that there is major concern among leading figures at Selhurst Park that Uefa doesn't want to rule on the matter - but wants the decision taken out of its hands by the DNCG, the regulatory body of French football.
If Lyon's relegation stands, Palace should be in next season's Europa League. If Lyon win their appeal, then Uefa will have to rule whether John Textor, who currently owns shares in both clubs, has held significant control at Palace.
Palace dispute that Textor held major control at the club and argue they are not in breach of Uefa's multi-club ownership regulations.
There is some sense at Palace that certain figures at Uefa are sympathetic with their predicament - that they earned the right to compete in next season's Europa League through sporting endeavours.
However, there is clearly a sense that the case isn't straightforward otherwise Uefa would have ruled in their favour by now."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/crmvv2p8jelo
Bear in mind, too, that if UEFA should have to rule on this matter, then it would be open to either Lyon or Palace to appeal to CAS, where they might have a stronger case than eg Drogs.
While I suspect that they're pleased that at least the PL's entrant this season could be a new team, rather than just another one from "the usual suspects".
Except that at Forest, Marinakis is the boss 100% - no opposition, Trust or no Trust.
Whereas at Palace, Textor has long been at odds with other major shareholders. Meaning that if he did put his shares in a trust, it would effectively be "blind" i.e. he'd lose whatever influence he has. Which he's clearly not prepared to do for no return, meaning he's looking to sell the shares instead.
Can't agree, since in those circumstances the owner (singular) would just decide which club he would prefer to go through, and instruct the other club's manager accordingly. Which would be completely against the spirit of free and fair competition.
In the end, it must be for UEFA to decide, on the basis of sporting merit.
100% or in the case of Textor 45% if you believe had he stayed on he would have had no significant control over club decsions (the UEFA test) just becasue he put the shares in a blind trust you are imo dreaming.
He has cashed out of Palace at the top end of valuations with them in Europe for the first time.
I also think it wouldnt be as easy as picking which team to win, its literally impossible to make that happen in real life, its illeagal for a start match fixing and impossible to keep quiet. The Manager (who you will probably be sacking soon enough) couldnt be trusted to keep quiet for ever and what about the players......and their families / Mates.
Does anyone have the dates and times for LOI teams involved in Europe?
Plus - the players can do whatever they want when on the pitch. And you can't sack them if they refuse to play along with whatever they're told to do.
Wiki is usually your best source there as kick-off times get announced.
So Conference League and Champions League.
Undoubtedly in the case of Marinakis, but Textor is different, since he's been arguing with the other Directors virtually since he arrived.
As for "cashing out", why would he voluntarily divest himself of control over the most valuable club in the Group? Sure, he might have received top dollar (though maybe not seeing as he was a forced seller), but people like that value control and power over money, which is only a means to those ends.
If it were that difficult to fix, why don't UEFA just permit both sides to enter?
Naive in the extreme imo.
P.S. Dunno if I've posted it on here before, but there is an incredible piece of investigative journalism on drugs, corruption and violence in Greece here in this link:
https://newrepublic.com/article/1592...uption-scandal
It's well worth sitting doen with a cup of tea to read through it - a ceratin large, bearded Greek gentleman with an interest in football both in Greece and abroad appears about half way through.
That's a crazy story, can't wait to see how it turns out!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks