Brighton and Union Saint-Gilloise, Milan and Toulouse: can they play in Europe in the same season?

[seso]

Who would have thought in the beginning of the season that these two clubs would qualify for European competitions!!??

[belfootstats]

According to the UEFA regulations, two clubs “controlled” by the same owner cannot compete in Europe at the same time. But it seems this definition of “controlled” is up to interpretation. Hence why the people at Union Saint-Gilloise says they expect no problem that the two clubs can play in Europe in the same season.

So if they are controlled by the same person which one would not participate? Unfair IMO!

https://documents.uefa.com/r/Regulation ... hip-Online

Article 5 Integrity of the competition / multi-club ownership

5.01
To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (i.e. UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Europa Conference League), the following criteria apply:

No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition; or
have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

5.02
If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition, in accordance with the following criteria (applicable in descending order):

the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the most prestigious UEFA club competition (i.e., in descending order: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League or UEFA Europa Conference League);
the club which was ranked highest in the domestic championship giving access to the relevant UEFA club competition;
the club whose association is ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A).

5.03
Clubs that are not admitted are replaced in accordance with Paragraph 4.09.

5.04
This article is not applicable if any of the cases listed under Paragraph 5.01 happens between a club directly qualified to the UEFA Champions League group stage and one qualified for any stage of the UEFA Europa Conference League.

The way Union Saint-Gilloise’s legal ownership structure was setup at the takeover in 2018 there shouldn’t be any issue with the regulations, they don’t fall under any of the hypothesis listed above

- Brighton doesn’t “hold or deal in the securities or shares of USG” nor is “involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance” or “have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance” of USG.

- As for the owner they partly share (Tony Bloom, the rest of Union’s shares being owned by Alex Muzio, not involved at Brighton) they also meet the criteria:

“No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition”.

Tony Bloom doesn’t have any involvement with Union’s management, neither does he have a seat at the board (directly or indirectly).

“No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club”

Alex Muzio’s has the majority voting rights. Bloom can’t do any of the things described here. He’s a “minority silent investor”

[amenina]

So if they are controlled by the same person which one would not participate? Unfair IMO!

https://documents.uefa.com/r/Regulation ... hip-Online

Article 5 Integrity of the competition / multi-club ownership

5.01
To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (i.e. UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Europa Conference League), the following criteria apply:

No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition; or
have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

5.02
If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition, in accordance with the following criteria (applicable in descending order):

the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the most prestigious UEFA club competition (i.e., in descending order: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League or UEFA Europa Conference League);
the club which was ranked highest in the domestic championship giving access to the relevant UEFA club competition;
the club whose association is ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A).

5.03
Clubs that are not admitted are replaced in accordance with Paragraph 4.09.

5.04
This article is not applicable if any of the cases listed under Paragraph 5.01 happens between a club directly qualified to the UEFA Champions League group stage and one qualified for any stage of the UEFA Europa Conference League.

The way Union Saint-Gilloise’s legal ownership structure was setup at the takeover in 2018 there shouldn’t be any issue with the regulations, they don’t fall under any of the hypothesis listed above

- Brighton doesn’t “hold or deal in the securities or shares of USG” nor is “involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance” or “have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance” of USG.

- As for the owner they partly share (Tony Bloom, the rest of Union’s shares being owned by Alex Muzio, not involved at Brighton) they also meet the criteria:

“No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition”.

Tony Bloom doesn’t have any involvement with Union’s management, neither does he have a seat at the board (directly or indirectly).

“No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club”

Alex Muzio’s has the majority voting rights. Bloom can’t do any of the things described here. He’s a “minority silent investor”

Good to know!

What about Milan and Toulouse? Anybody know their situation?

[Firnen]

UEFA will not ban clubs for having the same owner.

They will agree to some technicality and both will play. I don't know why people fret over this.

[amenina]

The CFCB renders decisions on multi-club ownership cases for the 2023/24 UEFA club competitions

Friday, July 7, 2023

The CFCB First Chamber accepted the admission of Aston Villa FC (ENG) and Vitoria Sport Clube (POR); Brighton & Hove Albion FC (ENG) and Royal Union Saint-Gilloise (BEL); AC Milan (ITA) and Toulouse FC (FRA) to the UEFA club competitions for the 2023/24 season

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/news/02 ... decisions/

The First Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB First Chamber) had previously opened proceedings against:

- Aston Villa FC (ENG) and Vitória Sport Clube (POR);

- Brighton & Hove Albion FC (ENG) and Royal Union Saint-Gilloise (BEL); and

- AC Milan (ITA) and Toulouse FC (FRA)

due to a potential conflict with the multi-club ownership rule provided for in Article 5 of the UEFA club competitions regulations.

Following the implementation of significant changes by the clubs and their related investors, the CFCB First Chamber accepted the admission of the aforementioned clubs to the UEFA club competitions for the 2023/24 season. The CFCB found that the significant changes implemented brought the clubs into compliance with the multi-club ownership rule, considering that as of today:

• No club, either directly or indirectly, holds or deals in securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;

• No club is a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;

• No one has any power whatsoever or is simultaneously involved, directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition; and

• No one has control or decisive influence over more than one club in a UEFA club competition.

More specifically, the significant changes that were implemented relate to the ownership, governance and financing structure of the concerned clubs. These changes substantially restrict the investors’ influence and decision-making power over more than one club, ensuring compliance with the multi-club ownership rule.

Some of the significant actions taken include:

• significant reduction of the investors’ shareholding in one of the clubs, or transfer of the effective control and decision making of one of the clubs to an independent party;

• significant restrictions in the ability to provide financing to more than one club;

• no representation on the board of directors and no capacity to directly appoint new directors on the board of more than one club;

• no ability to participate in the general assembly or ability to participate in key decisions such as the approval of the budgets of more than one club; and

• no ability to exercise control over more than one club at the level of the board of directors or their general assemblies through veto rights or contractual arrangements entered into with other shareholders.

Furthermore, as additional evidence of their independence, all concerned clubs accepted the following conditions:

• The clubs will not transfer players to each other, whether permanently or on loan, directly or indirectly, until September 2024;

• The clubs will not enter into any kind of cooperation, joint technical or commercial agreements; and

• The clubs will not use any joint scouting or player database.

The CFCB First Chamber will continue to monitor the above-mentioned clubs to ensure that the multi-club ownership rule continues to be complied with going forward.

[Firnen]

It was a given that no club would be banned for this reason, some pleone have clearly no idea (or are convincing themselves that their own ideas about how things should be are seriously examined by UEFA) about how UEFA operates.

[amenina]

It was a given that no club would be banned for this reason, some pleone have clearly no idea (or are convincing themselves that their own ideas about how things should be are seriously examined by UEFA) about how UEFA operates.

I don't think they will be banned either, but it is still interesting to see that 1) UEFA did at least go through a "process" to determine whether they fulfill the requirements; 2) The clubs have to take some additional measures, e.g., no transfers between the clubs for one year until September 2024, so this lasts even after this season ends.

[amenina]

It was a given that no club would be banned for this reason, some pleone have clearly no idea (or are convincing themselves that their own ideas about how things should be are seriously examined by UEFA) about how UEFA operates.

I don't think they will be banned either, but it is still interesting to see that 1) UEFA did at least go through a "process" to determine whether they fulfill the requirements; 2) The clubs have to take some additional measures, e.g., no transfers between the clubs for one year until September 2024, so this lasts even after this season ends.

Also, I did not know that Aston Villa and Vitoria SC are under the same ownership.

[rpo.castro]

Also, I did not know that Aston Villa and Vitoria SC are under the same ownership.

Yes, VSports. They resigned from board so they could comply with UEFA regulations.
There are more clubs but with less %.
Most I Liga Portuguese clubs are owned at some extent by foreign people. Top 3 clubs are exceptions.

Braga: Qatar Sports Investments 21,7%. Club Association has 37%, 24 % diluted by small investors and 17% by a shady unknown investor that we belive being the current chairman.

Vitória SC: 46% V Sports (they say they will reduce to 29%)

Casa Pia: MSD Capital (same owner as Spezia).

Famalicão: 85% Idan Offer (also owns 33% of Atlético Madrid)

Boavista: 51% Gerard Lopez (who still owns Bordeaux and Mouscron, from Belgium, had own previously Lille and Lotus F1 team).

Vizela: Edmund Chu, canadian-chinese guy that found Kosmos with Pique

Gil Vicente: unknow investors. They say they are "africans".

Estoril: David Blitzer: Managing partner of Philadelphia 76ers and New Jersey Devils (by HBSE), General partner of Crystal Palace and Owner of Real Salt Lake, AD Alcorcón, S.K. Beveren, ADO Den Haag and Brøndby IF.

Portimonense: Theodoro Fonseca, brazillian guy that sells players.

Santa Clara: Brazillian guy, vice (but not owner) of Cruzeiro (Brazil)

Chaves is own by a local businessman since I can remember.

Arouca, Rio Ave, Maritimo and Paços de Ferreira were the only ones beside Porto, Benfica and Sporting not owned by external griups/people. But Maritimo, Paços and Rio Ave have announced they want to sell.

In II Liga and even III Liga scenario is the same. Quite often the so called investor disappeares leaving the club in bankrupcy.