Transfer news LIVE: Liverpool join Gyokeres battle, £40m Kerkez ANNOUNCED, Chelsea ‘close in on Gittens'
Crystal Palace boost
Crystal Palace could be cleared to play their first European campaign this week - as a direct consequence of Lyon's shock relegation in France.
Uefa competitions chiefs will meet in Nyon on Friday to make a final decision on Palace's eligibility to play in the Europa League.
But the barriers that could have denied the Eagles their opportunity to make club history have been significantly eased by the decision of French football's financial regulator to demote 'Les Gones' over the club's soaring debts.
Under Uefa regulations, clubs that are part of a shared ownership group cannot compete in the same competition.
Lyon are part of the Eagle Football group owned by US businessman John Textor, who had a 44.9 per cent stake in Palace despite being kept at arms length by Steve Parish and Americans Josh Harris and Dave Blitzer.
Despite his limited role at Selhurst Park, Uefa were concerned that Textor's ownership stake breached those regulations.
And while Palace qualified for the Europa League after their FA Cup win over Manchester City, Lyon's sixth-placed finish in Ligue 1 gave them priority.
However, the decision by the French authorities - Lyon announced they would appeal - is understood to be likely to ease Palace's path.
Assuming the French Football Federation now withdraws its nomination of Lyon - all teams competing in Europe must be put forward officially by their national association - Nyon insiders expect the Club Financial Control Body will now rule in Palace's favour.
A decision could come immediately after the meeting although Eagles fans may have to wait until the start of next week before confirmation as the Palace situation is among a number of decisions that are on the agenda.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
New Olympics chief Kirsty Coventry vows IOC will ‘ensure fairness' for female athletes
Kirsty Coventry has said there is now 'overwhelming support' among International Olympic Committee members to protect the female category in a significant shift in its gender eligibility policy. Coventry, who was chairing her first meetings as the IOC's new president, said that a taskforce of scientists and international federations would be set up within weeks to come up with a new policy. It follows the controversy around the Paris 2024 boxing tournament after two athletes – Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting – won gold medals despite having been disqualified from the previous year's World Championships for allegedly failing to meet gender eligibility criteria. World Boxing, which has since been recognised by the IOC as the sport's international federation, has introduced mandatory sex testing and said Khelif would not be able to compete in the female category until she undergoes the test. Khelif has always insisted she was born a woman, has lived as a woman and has competed as a woman. The IOC faced criticism for its handling of the row in Paris and for a perceived failure to lead on this issue more widely. Coventry indicated that the IOC would not revisit the allocation of medals from Paris and said the organisation wanted to 'look forward' and not back. Announcing the shift in policy, Coventry said: 'There was overwhelming support that we should protect the female category. And with that, we will set up a working group made up of experts and international federations. 'It was agreed by the members that the IOC should take a leading role in this,' she added. 'And that we should be the ones to bring together the experts and the international federations and ensure that we find consensus. 'We understand that there will be differences depending on the sports. But it was fully agreed that as members that, as the IOC, we should make the effort to place emphasis on protection of the female category.' Coventry's remarks followed two days of 'Pause and Reflect' workshops in Lausanne, where the new IOC president spoke to members about their concerns and how to push the organisation forward. Sign up to The Recap The best of our sports journalism from the past seven days and a heads-up on the weekend's action after newsletter promotion 'It was very clear from the members that we have to protect the female category, first and foremost,' she said. 'We have to do that to ensure fairness. And we have to do it with a scientific approach. And with the inclusion of the international federations who have done a lot of work in that area.' The new policy is expected to ban transgender and athletes with a difference of sex development from competing in the female category. However Coventry was clear there would be no changes to results of previous Olympics. 'We are not going to be doing anything retrospectively,' she said. 'We are going to be looking forward. From the members that were here, it was 'what are we learning from the past and how are we going to leverage that and move that forward to the future'.'
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
Canadian funds shelve $6 billion sale of renewables company Cubico, sources say
LONDON/NEW YORK, June 26 - Two Canadian pension funds have halted a long-running auction for renewable energy developer Cubico Sustainable Investments that they had hoped could be valued at more than $6 billion, including debt, three people familiar with the matter said. The Montreal-based Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP) and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP) decided to explore a sale of the company that operates wind and solar farms across Europe, North and South America and Australia, nearly two years ago, when low-carbon energy companies were enjoying a period of rising valuations. However, the offers made were not enough to persuade the shareholders to agree to a sale, two of the people said. The process was not expected to restart imminently, one of the people and a third one said. Some bidders valued Cubico at around 5 billion euros ($5.9 billion) including debt, two of the sources said. Spanish infrastructure fund Qualitas Energy and KKR-backed power producer ContourGlobal were among the parties interested, the people said. Cubico, PSP, Qualitas, ContourGlobal and OTPP declined to comment. A representative for KKR had no immediate comment. Some investor interest in the sector has waned, especially in the United States, due in part to a rush for more power sources, including polluting ones, to meet soaring power demand for artificial intelligence projects, and Donald Trump's continued support for fossil fuels on his return to office. The owners originally expected the sale to fetch a valuation, including debt, of around 10 times Cubico's 2023 earnings of $625 million before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, Reuters reported previously. The process had attracted interest from at least one corporate utility as well as financial firms betting that clean power companies would become more valuable as governments pushed to reduce planet-warming emissions. Bankers were hoping Trump's drive to loosen regulations would drive a deals boom, but market volatility and geopolitical concerns have hampered some activity so far. Counting all its concentrated solar power and transmission line technology, Cubico has a total 2.8 gigawatts of generation capacity. It was formed in 2015 when the two funds partnered with Banco Santander. They bought equal shares of the Spanish bank's stake in 2016. ($1 = 0.8538 euros)
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The arithmetic is tricky for a Shell bid for BP today. Next year may be different
BP is a sitting duck for a takeover bid by most criteria. Its share price has underperformed rivals' for years. The latest strategic 're-set' was a bits-and-pieces production involving disposals, which do not happen overnight, plus a dilution of green energy ambitions that upset one sub-set of shareholders and didn't go far enough according to another. Meanwhile, the chair, Helge Lund, exits next year, pursued by an activist investor. So Shell, the most credible possible bidder by a distance, would be asleep at the wellhead if it were not taking a look and calculating what costs could be removed, which development licences it fancies and how regulators and governments might react. That's standard stuff, and Shell, one assumes, will have maintained a version of such modelling for about 20 years, which is roughly as long as tales of a combination of the two companies have been running. But here comes a response to media reports that was as definitive as these things tend to come: Shell says it has 'no intention' of making an offer for BP, a statement that takes it off-side as a bidder for six months under Takeover Panel rules. One should still remember the small print about the circumstances in which the Panel's Rule 2.8 does not apply, because two are not unimaginable – somebody else taking a pop, or BP's board agreeing to a bid. But Shell also said it 'has not been actively considering making an offer' and 'has not made an approach', which was a strong signal to the market to cool its jets. The share prices of the two companies, after a brief burst of excitement in New York trading, went back to where they were. We're also back to the same place in terms of pin-pointing the biggest obstacle to a deal: Shell's share price. Or, more precisely, it is Shell management's loud declarations that its shares are dirt cheap and therefore should be bought by the company itself in large quantities for cancellation. Buy-backs have run at $3bn or more for 14 quarters in a row. 'I have said in the past that we want to be value hunters,' Wael Sawan, the chief executive, said in May. 'Today, value hunting – in my view – is buying back more Shell.' That doesn't in itself rule out mega bids, but it sets 'an incredibly high bar,' as the finance director, Sinead Gorman, put it. The thinking makes sense. Any £60bn-plus bid for an ailing rival would inevitably involve Shell issuing oodles of new paper. That is tricky to justify if you genuinely believe your acquisition currency is seriously undervalued and you add value by maintaining buy-backs. BP is not a must-do deal for Shell, as argued here previously. The arithmetic might work if BP's board agreed to roll over and be bought at a tiny takeover premium – but that possibility must be remote. None of which is to deny the industrial logic in a combination. There probably are huge costs that could be ripped out. Panmure Liberum's analyst notes that BP has more than 100,000 staff, yet Shell delivers far higher returns with 96,000. Equally, one could imagine Shell offering to buy chunks of BP's oil and gas acreage but not the whole company, something that is not excluded under Rule 2.8. But the takeover dance feels like it requires Shell's share price to be higher to make the numbers work. On that front, the recent trend is in the right direction but more progress is surely needed, which is why a 'nothing for six months' statement is costless from Shell's point of view. Next year the arithmetic may stack up more easily. As for BP, this is starting to feel like a proper crisis. Its share price has drifted even lower since the unveiling in February of the supposedly 'exciting' new strategy. Disposals to ease the strain on the balance sheet remain a work in progress. One assumes a new chair, with authority to re-set the re-set, will be found before the six months are up. But the appointment can't come soon enough.
