I suspect that Textor's agreement to sell his Palace shares to Johnson will be the get out of jail free card that everyone is looking for, and they'll allow both clubs to remain in the UEFA Cup. Probably the correct decision as well.
Legally I think Palace should be out, it's no use selling the shares after the deadline. Just as with our points deduction. We broke the stupid rules and got punished. Palace have broken the stupid rules and should get punished.
Morally I think us staying in the Conference is probably correct. But I won't cry for Palace if it doesn't happen, I don't recall a great Palace outburst when we got punished for breaking our stupid rule, which was comparable as it was about timing too.
Maybe I shouldn't be so sure that they'll be fine, but morally it seems like Textor's departure means that there's no conflict of interest in the Europa League next season between Palace and Lyon. Still, as Less says I'm not going to be too upset about their timing issue biting them in the ass if it does, for the reasons he says.
Thing is, he hasn't yet. He's agreed to sell his shares. But it's not done. Needs ratifying by the FA and the new guy needs to pass the fit and proper test. What happens if he doesn't? UEFA surely can't make a decision now (and it really does need to be now as it's way overdue) on the basis of something that isn't certain yet. Textor could theoretically change his mind still ! That's even before we get to the point that the deadline for this was March.
Yes, there is no conflict of interest now… but there was at the time of the deadline. Palace’s board took their eye off the ball, big time.
Sure, the rules suck. But they are the rules.
I have thought all along that UEFA will find a way to fudge it, because… well, it’s UEFA, innit? But if they kicked Drogheda out (which they did, a few weeks ago), they should kick Palace out.
[bugbear]
There is no such thing as a fit and proper persons test in the Premier League and hasn't been for years. The Owners & Directors Test is an incredibly simple rubber stamping exercise, essentially:
do they own shares in another Premier League clubs
are they currently bankrupt (not are they poor, or do they have enough money, but as in actually.legally bankrupt)
are they banned from being a company director
have they been a director of a club that went bust on their watch
[/bugbear]
Football fans seem obsessed with the idea that there's supposed to be some kind of deep forensic analysis of finance and character leading up to a carefully considered decision as to whether an individual should be allowed to take ownership of this treasured asset, but in reality it's a test that anyone with an internet connection and 15 minutes spare can conduct.
Woody Johnson is a massive cunt and there isn't a shadow of a doubt that he will pass the test.
The football regulator will quietly dispense with even that rudimentary of a test and ownership approvals will be based upon strategic political value. Football is the vehicle, not the point.
A government appointed independent regulator can be set up with a charter, and legislation put on the statute books to provide both power to enact it's remit, and to enshrine the standards of its behaviour in law. In the event that doesn't look good, government can be subject to criticism, campaigning, and ultimately voted out, if they don't regulate the regulator, or bring forward amended legislation.
You still haven't explained anything about your model, or even whether you want some form of regulation at all. It's just all gone a bit reform like frothing. Heavy on emotive statements, completely absent of detail.
You don't know what a regulator will do until its set up, consultation undertaken, the legislation enacted, and the practice scrutinised. We do know what it will continue to look like without it.