The law is an ass – and with every passing day its enforcement appears to resemble a donkey derby.
UEFA first introduced rules on multi-club ownership in 1998. The aim was to prevent collusion. How is that working out? In recent times Red Bull Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg have competed in the Champions League, as have Girona and Manchester City, who both come under the City Football Group.
Why? Because their owners, well aware of the steps needed, ticked the relevant boxes in time. Indeed, when it looked like Nottingham Forest and Olympiakos may both qualify for the Champions League – and potentially breach the rules – Evangelos Marinakis did what everyone else in that position does and placed his shares in Forest into a blind trust.
What Palace are guilty of is not colluding with Lyon, who are owned by former major shareholder John Textor, but of failing to play along with the game.
Unsurprisingly, they are now in war mode at Selhurst Park ahead of an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The shovels are out and it would appear that the digging is unearthing all manner of dirt.
As Mail Sport has revealed, Palace are expected to demand that UEFA hands over what they believe are bombshell emails and texts that exist between the governing body and Nottingham Forest.
Crystal Palace should not be blamed for their situation – they simply failed to play along with UEFA’s game
UEFA introduced multi-club ownership rules to prevent collusion, but that has hardly worked
Other clubs, such as Manchester City (left) and Girona (right), have been allowed to play in the Champions League in the same season because their owners ticked the right boxes in time
Crystal Palace are being denied a historic achievement – it is impossible not to feel sympathy
Nottingham Forest and Olympiacos owner Evangelos Marinakis was allowed to make changes in April, beyond the March 1 deadline – but the enemy here is UEFA, not his clubs
They are firmly of the view that the documents prove that Forest were given extra time beyond the March 1 deadline to comply with the rules. As it turned out, Marinakis was removed as a person of significant control of NF Football Investments, the vehicle that owns the club, on April 30.
Should Palace succeed with their demand, they believe the documents would represent the smoking gun they need to present to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as it would clearly indicate double standards.
Furthermore, UEFA’s case stands and falls on the March 1 deadline, which was brought forward for this season. Confirmation of an extension for one and not another would at the very least raise serious questions.
When Mail Sport asked chairman Steve Parish for his observations following Palace’s crunch hearing at UEFA HQ, he declined to comment.
However, earlier this week, he took a swipe at the ‘beneficiaries’. ‘If there wasn’t someone who wanted to get in as a consequence, then there wouldn’t be a problem,’ he told The Rest is Football podcast. ‘People have to look at themselves in terms of what they do. Some people say it’s fine, some say it’s not. I don’t have control of that. I have control of the arguments we put forward to UEFA.’
But Forest are looking out for, rather than at, themselves, which ironically is the sole thing every Premier League club has in common. At the City Ground they were aware of the initial deadline and of the issue and reacted accordingly, albeit even if they did need additional time. As things transpired, Forest did not qualify for the Champions League and so there may be an element of the red herring.
It is impossible not to feel sympathy for Palace and their fans. The enemy here, however, lies at the side of Lake Geneva, rather than the River Trent.
