Thread by @DaleJohnsonESPN

A thread on the Crystal Palace's Europa League demotion, outlining:

1) Why Palace broke the multi-club ownership rules
2) Why Palace's appeal had little chance of success
3) How precedent was key
4) Why the Forest Blind Trust was an irrelevance
5) Contradictions

A lot of the coverage has, understandly, centred around Palace's case to get the ruling overturned.

Yet if you are to understand the story, you need to know the background.

And for that, UEFA's 2023 European Club Finance and Investment Landscape Report is very important.

One of the findings of that report was that 33% of clubs from the "Top Five" leagues form part of wider multi-club structures.

It added that:

“The rise of multi-club investment has the potential to pose a material threat to the integrity of European club competitions”.

Fast forward to 2023-24, and UEFA makes it clear there is going to be a tightening of regulations.

Man United and Girona are allowed in the UEL and UCL despite the MCO clash with Nice and Man City respectively.

But UEFA was clear that a Blind Trust was a temporary measure.

The rules were further tightened in October 2024 to bring the deadline to be compliant from June 3 (as was the case for United and City) to March 1.

And this is why making representations to past cases was never going to hold water. Palace was ALWAYS about the date.

So, what rule did Palace break? Well, two very clear ones.

Firstly, John Textor had a controlling interesting in Lyon, and 43.9% of Palace.

MCO rules forbid a person holding more than 30% of two clubs. This was an immediate trigger for "decisive influence."

But just as important, Textor was on the board of both clubs.

In fact, despite all of Palace's arguments, Companies House shows that Textor was still on the Crystal Palace board on June 18 - 25 days after the likely MCO breach was known.

For comparison:

In June 2023, Aston Villa reduced their stake in Vitoria from 46% to 29%, transferring 17% back.

Villa also removed representation on the board of directors of Vitoria.

This made both compliant to play in the Conference League.

Palace had to do similar.

And this is where the first case of precedent comes in.

In rejecting the appeal of FK DAC 1904 from their explusion from the Conference League, CAS said one person was "able to exercise a decisive influence in the decision-making of both clubs" by being on both boards.

In addition, CAS found that "the change of the assessment date (from June 3 to March 1) was in accordance with the procedures established by the UEFA Statutes."

This made it very difficult for Palace to win. But there was an earlier precedent, too.

In its ruling on Drogheda, CAS had already stated that the date change "was properly communicated by UEFA and that DUFC knew or ought to have known about this change."

Also importantly for Palace's appeal, CAS "rejected DUFC’s submissions on alleged unequal treatment by UEFA."

Which brings us to Nottingham Forest, and how Palace tried to use the Blind Trust which Evangelos Marinakis created in case both Forest and Olympiakos were in the Champions League.

Why is it an irrelevance? Because it wasn't tested for compliance by UEFA's control board.

Much of the reporting around Forest has been presumutious, that the Blind Trust was accepted and official.

It was official in factual terms, but with UEFA clamping down on dates there was no evidence that it would have been accepted by the CFCB.

Indeed, the CAS ruling on Palace stated that "regulations are clear and do not provide flexibility to clubs that are non-compliant on the assessment date."

Is this a firm and strict line? Is there really no flexibility for official process to have begun on March 1?

Strasbourg lost their last two games of the Ligue 1 season to finish 7th.

Had Strasbourg won both to finish 3rd, MCO rules would have locked Chelsea out of the Champions League with Aston Villa promoted in their place.

Chelsea and Strasbourg were reported to be working on a Blind Trust in April and May, but there was no confirmation this had been done.

So, by the strict March 1 application of the rule, Chelsea (4th) would have lost their place in the UCL with Strasbourg (3rd) staying in.

The March 1 deadline is more likely to catch clubs who do not expect to qualify for Europe. Why would you create a Blind Trust this early if you don't think you need one?

It's why Palace, FK DAC 1904 and Drogheda (due to Silkeborg) all suffered.

But the inconsistency between the MCO and competition rules does need to be looked at.

UEL rules specifically prioritise cup winners.

So Lyon, who are only in the UEL because PSG won the French cup, getting priority over a team that literally won a cup is a nonsense.

But make no mistake, this issue is here to stay.

UEFA is going head to head to challenge the increasing spread of MCOs across Europe.

Before this summer no club had been impacted by MCO rules. Now three have been.

However, until a Man City/Girona or Man United/Nice is penalised, the perception will remain of only going after smaller clubs.

NB: It's standard for CAS to rule that both parties should pay their own legal costs.

CAS code states that "the Panel has discretion to grant the prevailing party a contribution towards its legal fees" but it would be unusual when both parties have considerable financial means.

So you certainly cannot say that both parties paying their own legal costs has an indication as to the validity of Palace's case.

As the code notes, it's about "the complexity and the outcome of the proceedings, as well as the conduct and financial resources of the parties."