Because when the deadline is it looked like Forest could have been in the UCL.
This isn't UEFA against Palace. You haven't played by the rules and it's a consequence of your ownership model.
I'm struggling with your logic here, apart from you are staunchly pro Palace.
The rules seem pretty clear and you have just broken them.
Ah, of course, yeah Forest were unlucky not to qualify for the CL after such a good season. Thanks for that.
I agree that it's not UEFA against Palace but it's clear that the rules are not fit for purpose. If they were a ruling would have been made weeks ago.
As you have previously said, we have a Board of Directors, we are entirely independent, we are not in an MCO, which we are being assessed by . The rules were designed for those clubs which are in MCO ownership.
My logic is simple. Palace are not part of an MCO which the rules (such as they are) were designed to cover. Textor, who owned an MCO, was separately, an investor in Palace. He was a Board member but Palace's Board constitution devolves all operational decision making to Steve Parish as Executive Chairman. Textor therefore has no day to day input or responsibilities with regard to operational matters. He can, and has, expressed his opinion on any number of matters as a Board member but that is neither control nor significant influence. Palace are now in a place that because of the inadequacies of the rules and the way that they have been by passed/ ignored in the past (Man City / Girona for example) UEFA are desperate not to rule either way to avoid any challenge which will expose these inadequacies and open them up to further scrutiny / appeal. Therefore Lyon being relegated would be a stroke of luck for UEFA as it would mean there would likely be no ruling to appeal. None of this is good but;
The rules are not clear (I suspect that you are thinking only of the blind trust deadline here which I have explained is not relevant for Palace) and we have not broken any rules. The blind trust is only for clubs where a person has control or significant interest in more than one club. UEFA have yet to rule on that point so we have, as yet not broken any rules.
Lastly, I would be staunchly pro Palace. I'm a Palace fan since 1968. But I have also made a study of the rules here. We have had enough balls ups down the years to recognise another one. We generally hold our hands up and say "typical Palace". But in this case that would be wrong.
Of course we may yet not be allowed to enter, and had we been able to put Textor's shares in a blind trust by March 1 we would be ok, but we didn't break any rules by not doing so. The rules would be broken only if UEFA rule Textor had significant interest or control over more than one club in the same competition. A blind trust is only UEFA's a way of circumnavigating UEFA's own rules. MCO is a mess and it's only going to get worse.
www.bbc.co.uk
