Crystal Palace UEFA Demotion
Source: Highlights: “One of the greatest injustices” | Steve Parish “devastated” by Crystal Palace demotion
Date: [presumably not much long after the UEFA decision came out, as the interview considers the immediate response]
Subject: Crystal Palace FC demoted from Europa League to Conference League by UEFA due to what is considered a breach of multi-club ownership rules, and the club’s reaction and appeal.
Executive Summary
Steve Parish: We feel so strongly because we genuinely feel, and I don’t know what the motivation would be to do this, I have got to say that out there because I can’t understand it if you’re an England fan or a Palace fan, I think we rightfully qualified for the competition. Parish says the judgment is such “a terrible injustice” on a “ridiculous technicality” of minority shareholder John Textor’s previous association with the Lyon (Eagle Football) that he feels compelled to seek the support of Crystal Palace fans. He argues that Crystal Palace was not in violation of the rules, could not have adhered to the specific rule in any case, and that Textor had not exercised the imaginary key role that was suggested. The club are set to appeal and call for an intervention from UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin, and claim the punishment is out of proportion compared to other clubs.
Trending and Most Important Themes and Notions
“One of the Greatest Injustices” — Devastation and Injustice:
Key Soundbite: Steve Parish goes to town, saying that the decision is a “terrible injustice” and “one of the biggest injustices that have ever happened in European football.” He is “gutted for most importantly the fans,” as well as “the players, for the supporters, for the staff”.
Dream Denied: The club’s FA Cup triumph was monumental for what it was; one post-match analysis described it as “winning the lottery and going to the counter and you don’t get the prize.” This demotion “really takes something away from what was an amazing story” and deprives players and fans of a “game-changing moment” and an experience they might “never get to experience again.”
The “Ridiculous Technicality” – Multi-Club Ownership Rule:
The Rule Itself: Crystal Palace was relegated for a rule about controlling interest in a few clubs if they are owned by the same person, technically based on that other dude (John Textor, through Eagle Football) and his crossover at Lyon.
Club’s Defence – No Decisive Influence: Parish is adamant that John Textor or Eagle Football did not “exert decisive influence over Crystal Palace.” “Everyone knows we’re not signing a multi club, Everyone knows we don’t have any staff from Lyon, we don’t have any players from Lyon; no loans, no direct transactions, I don’t know what telephone numbers to call anybody there before this process started.” He thinks that “they proved to them beyond all reasonable doubt that John didn’t have a map.”
Rule Would Be Unenforceable for Palace: Parish claims that the rule would be “impossible for Crystal Palace, the majority owners of Crystal Palace, to comply with.” You had a minority shareholder (Textor) who now required “either to sell or place their shares in trust,” yet the “club had no power to compel them to do that.” He says,, How do you make a rule and penalise the club for a rule they couldn’t adhere to?”.
The Fake Deadline and What Came After:
Deadline -March 1, 2019: The rule ordered the matter to be resolved by March 1, 2019. Parish brands this date “incongruous” and “arbitrary,” pointing out that “there’s no other rule around the license as a deadline,” and other clubs are still dealing with issues way past this time
Issue Now Resolved: Crucially, however, Woody Johnson is buying John Textor’s shares in a deal that is “approved by the Premier League” and that he is “99.99999 recurring… 100% certain that that will go ahead”. Which is to say “by the time we even reach the draw of the competition, t, he two clubs will have nothing whatsoever to do with each other”. Parish finds that “pretty incongruous when it’s the competition that will have teams in it that are part of a multi club, who have leveraged being part of a multi club to gain entry to the competition.”
Disproportionate Sanction and Perceived Bias:
Punishment Severity: Parish contends the punishment is too great “for the crime.” Other clubs “go above and beyond the financial regulations and get a fine,” while Palace “miss a date,” sort it out”, and “basically get kicked out of the competition.” This is an “utterly disproportionate sanction.”
Aggregated treatment of “lesser” clubs: The Guardian’s Barney Ronay reports that Crystal Palace may not have been given the same level of consideration as Spurs because it doesn’t possess “European heritage.” “Do you think UEFA would do the same with a Barcelona or a Real Madrid? I don’t think I don’t I don’t think, of course I think that you know they probably would have found a way. He believes Palace is “not in UEFA’s orbit,” and highlights that they were never directly informed of the rule change. He believes the rule came about “to resolve an issue that was created not by us but by other clubs in different seasons, and we’ve just been inadvertently caught up in it.”
Appeal and Call for Intervention:
Planned Appeal: Crystal Palace “will appeal,” and they are “looking at all of the options.” They will tell us that “John would not have had decisive influence because he just wouldn’t have.”
Parish Calls for Čeferin’s Intervention: Parish hopes that UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin will intervene, saying “we think it’s possible for MrČeferinn or someone to do that”. We should remember he “ran on a platform of supporting small clubs, and he was there to support them against the Super League. “If it’s right, there’s always a way to overturn an injustice if there is a will.”
Financial and Sporting Impact:
Financial blow: The reduction to the Conference League is a huge financial loss – around “half” of what can be earned in the Europa League, which “would be worth 20 million euros worth off.
Sporting Disruption: The lack of clarity has been “all-consuming,” and resulted in a “huge legal bill,” and taking “far too much time and energy.” It’s a “big distraction” for club planning, player recruitment, and retention.
Wider Football Community Support:
Massive supportParish talks about “overwhelming” support from “Forest fans, from pundits, from everyone in football”. He says, “I don’t think there’s been a bit written that doesn’t think that we should be in the competition, not one bit written that I’ve seen that says you know we we we deserve to nocompeteon.”
Fan Call to Action: He calls for fans to “make their feelings known in a peaceful…civilised manner” as “UEFA get that”.
Unresolved Issues *In no particular order of importance or potential, hence the same numerical value.
What precedent is there for the president of UEFA, Aleksander Čeferin, to overrule an independent body’s decision?
What is the exact wording of UEFA’s multi-club ownership rule that Crystal Palace are accused of breaching, a nd what is UEFA’s official interpretation of “decisive influence?
How, one must now wonder, will UEFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) have dealt with such an argument when they are told that the “problem” of Tebor’s ownership doesn’t even exist yet and will be solved before a ball is even kicked?
What are some precedents for cases like those in European football, especially other clubs suspected to be in multi-club structures still allowed to play in the same competitions (e.g, Red Bull, Manchester City/Nice)?
According to the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) panel, why does Crystal Palace’s evidence that Textor had no decisive influence fail?
