I don't know who the Spurs keeper is but Fulham's second goal will do a nice job of taking all the attention off Pickford on MOTD.
I don't know who the Spurs keeper is but Fulham's second goal will do a nice job of taking all the attention off Pickford on MOTD.
As far as I can work out he’s one of those keepers that’s very popular because he can kick it to his full backs’ feet without falling over, without any consideration of the fact that he can’t do the basics expected of a goalkeeper.
A Fulham win was probably the result of the three we least wanted, but it is funny to see that nice Mr Frank's team being booed off at home.
Watching MOTD, why are all the Newcastle players wearing goalkeeper kits?
I didn't have Fulham 4 Man City 5 on my coupon.
Palace verdict has been published: www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/11604_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._.pdf
Anyone fancy picking through it and seeing whether there's anything that justifies blaming us for their obvious breach of the rules (however stupid those rules may be)?
I did see something online, I assume from that report, which referenced Steve Parish's contract of employment in which it was clear that he "is contractually prohibited from approving certain decisions without board approval, of which John Textor was one of the four voting members.". Which is clearly the fault of Marinakis.
AI summary:
This document is the Arbitral Award (CAS 2025/A/11604) delivered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the case between Crystal Palace Football Club (CPFC) (Appellant) and the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Nottingham Forest Football Club (NFFC), and Olympique Lyonnais (OL) (Respondents).
Summary of the Arbitral Award
1. Core Dispute
The case concerned the application of UEFA's Multi-Club Ownership (MCO) rule (Article 5.01 of the UEFA Club Competitions Regulations) for the 2025/26 season. Both CPFC and OL had qualified for the UEFA Europa League (UEL) on sporting merit. However, a UEFA body had found that both clubs were in a Multi-Club Ownership situation due to the involvement of Mr. John Textor in both clubs, and therefore one club had to be excluded from the UEL.
2. Key Facts and UEFA's Initial Decision
Multi-Club Ownership: The CAS Panel reviewed the finding that Mr. John Textor's involvement in both CPFC and OL, through entities like Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited, constituted a breach of the MCO rules as at the set compliance deadline.
Compliance Deadline: The assessment date by which clubs had to comply with the MCO rule was March 1, 2025.
CPFC's Arguments: CPFC argued that the March 1st deadline should not apply, that a strict application was unfair, and that it should have been allowed to "cure" the breach after the deadline (for example, by selling Mr. Textor's shares, which CPFC later agreed to do in June 2025).
Application of Tie-Breaker (Appealed Decision): Both clubs failed the MCO criteria and qualified for the UEL, which is the same level of competition. Under Article 5.02 of the UEL Regulations, a tie-breaker rule is applied. The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) applied the second criterion: the club that was ranked highest in its domestic championship.
OL finished 6th in the French Ligue 1 in 2024/25.
CPFC finished 12th in the English Premier League in 2024/25.
CFCB Decision: The CFCB First Chamber decided to accept OL's admission to the 2025/26 UEL and reject CPFC's admission to the UEL, accepting CPFC's admission to the 2025/26 UEFA Conference League (UECL).
3. CAS Panel's Conclusion
The CAS Panel dismissed the appeal filed by CPFC and confirmed the decision of the UEFA CFCB.
The Panel specifically found that:
On March 1, 2025, CPFC was in breach of Articles 5.01(b) and 5.01(c) of the UEL Regulations.
No discretionary practice exists to allow a club to "cure" a breach after the assessment date of March 1, 2025.
OL was correctly admitted to the UEL pursuant to Article 5.02(b) of the UEL Regulations (based on its higher domestic league ranking).
CPFC was validly admitted to the UECL under the relevant exception provisions (Article 5.04).
I then asked it if Nottingham Forest had done anything wrong. Using about 300 words it clearly said no. Ha.
But surely UEFA would have just ignored it if we hadn't told on them?
I don't trust AI, yesterday DJ X told me I really know my hip hop, and my knowledge is on point.
Can we get the points back for last Sunday now?
It's all a bit sensationalized though I think, the FA/PL have always known about his betting syndicate and they audit it every year to make sure it's not betting on anything that would be a conflict of interest.
Sunderland have just taken the lead at Liverpool.
Leeds now 3-1 up.
But but but Championship clubs that come up can’t compete……