Textor money v Blitzer money

theorist 09 Apr 22 6.36pm
Belgian premier League B RWDM v. Waasland-Beveren Tonight. RWD Molenbeek is Textor money (majority), while WB is Blitzer money ('Bolt Group'). All in all, it is only for bragging rights. However,.... RWDM, having clinched second place in the Belgian Premier League B, will play the 17th place team in BPL A for the chance of promotion to the Belgian top tier, and if successful will gain access to the possibility of European League participation. Using the champions league as an example, although the UEFA ownership rules encompass all UEFA leagues simultaneously, what would happen if both Palace and RWDM qualified? The answer from the Champions League bylaws is that Mr Textor would have to divest from one of the clubs. Which one: Palace? RWD Molenbeek? The ownership divestment obligation is in place when the same individual is the majority or a minority owner of the two clubs. As they are not specifically precluded in the rules, the rules might provide opportunity for a temporary divestment (blind trust?) or alternate arrangements. Food for thought..... [Link] Edited by theorist (09 Apr 2022 7.25pm) Edited by theorist (09 Apr 2022 7.27pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

theorist 09 Apr 22 6.36pm

Belgian premier League B
RWDM v. Waasland-Beveren
Tonight.

RWD Molenbeek is Textor money (majority), while WB is Blitzer money ('Bolt Group'). All in all, it is only for bragging rights.
However,....

RWDM, having clinched second place in the Belgian Premier League B, will play the 17th place team in BPL A for the chance of promotion to the Belgian top tier, and if successful will gain access to the possibility of European League participation. Using the champions league as an example, although the UEFA ownership rules encompass all UEFA leagues simultaneously, what would happen if both Palace and RWDM qualified? The answer from the Champions League bylaws is that Mr Textor would have to divest from one of the clubs. Which one: Palace? RWD Molenbeek?

The ownership divestment obligation is in place when the same individual is the majority or a minority owner of the two clubs.

As they are not specifically precluded in the rules, the rules might provide opportunity for a temporary divestment (blind trust?) or alternate arrangements.

Food for thought.....

[Link]

Edited by theorist (09 Apr 2022 7.25pm)

Edited by theorist (09 Apr 2022 7.27pm)