Flavio Banned for unlimited period

[Tarbie]

I'm absolutely certain this will lead to Flavio failing the "Fit & Proper Person" test, which in turn prevents him from being listed as club chairman and/or being the majority shareholder in any football league club. This leads on to 2 very important questions:

1.) Is Flavio officially listed as the Chairman of the QPR Board of Directors?.....Pete cast some doubt upon this earlier this week.

2.) Will anyone else (i.e Bernie, the Mittals or a new inverstor) be willing to buy out Flavio's majority shareholding?

I would assume that if Bernie and/or the Mittals were to continue at QPR it would be only as long as Flavio left altogether as they would no longer wanted to be associated with Flavio.

Very worrying times indeed. I just hope there is some truth in the rumours that the Mittals may be prepared to buy out Flavio's shares.

[gerrysmullet]

Interesting that the "cheat", Nelson Piquet, the only person so far who has admitted to the supposed crime, gets away without sanctions. F1 is still the same circus it has always been.

The teams engineer Pat Symonds has admitted it as well, which is why he is banned for five years and not life like briatore who denied everything.

[Robbo]

I'm absolutely certain this will lead to Flavio failing the "Fit & Proper Person" test, which in turn prevents him from being listed as club chairman and/or being the majority shareholder in any football league club. This leads on to 2 very important questions:

1.) Is Flavio officially listed as the Chairman of the QPR Board of Directors?.....Pete cast some doubt upon this earlier this week.

2.) Will anyone else (i.e Bernie, the Mittals or a new inverstor) be willing to buy out Flavio's majority shareholding?

It doesn't matter if he's not officially listed as Chairman of QPR.
Football League rules state "Any shareholder or director must be removed if they are banned by a recognised sport's governing body."

It's really that simple.

[Nodge70]

IIRC - "Fit and Proper Person" tests are only carried out as part of the PL/FL due diligence process when NEW owners/majority shareholders are taking over.

There is, as far as I can recall, no precedent of a current incumbent chairman/owner being forcibly removed of their own shares (PERSONAL MONEY!) by any organising body. The closest I can think of is when Owen Oyston was convicted of ra.pe and couldn't fulfill his Chairmans duties and handed it over to his son, Karl.

I can't see a legal way that the FL/FA can forcibly remove FB, effectively an action that could deprive him of millions of pounds when a) he hasn't been proven to have committed any breach of football regulation and b) there is no guarantee that he could find a willing buyer.

Would the FL/FA really risk it? Can't see it myself. Would be incredibly inequitable and directly opposed to natural justice.

And I say all this as someone who is pretty "anti" what FB has done to the clubs traditions

[qpr_matt]

IIRC - "Fit and Proper Person" tests are only carried out as part of the PL/FL due diligence process when NEW owners/majority shareholders are taking over.

There is, as far as I can recall, no precedent of a current incumbent chairman/owner being forcibly removed of their own shares (PERSONAL MONEY!) by any organising body. The closest I can think of is when Owen Oyston was convicted of ra.pe and couldn't fulfill his Chairmans duties and handed it over to his son, Karl.

I can't see a legal way that the FL/FA can forcibly remove FB, effectively an action that could deprive him of millions of pounds when a) he hasn't been proven to have committed any breach of football regulation and b) there is no guarantee that he could find a willing buyer.

Would the FL/FA really risk it? Can't see it myself. Would be incredibly inequitable and directly opposed to natural justice.

And I say all this as someone who is pretty "anti" what FB has done to the clubs traditions

The argument would be, was it his money being used or was it money from our sponserships etc being used?

[Robbo]

IIRC - "Fit and Proper Person" tests are only carried out as part of the PL/FL due diligence process when NEW owners/majority shareholders are taking over.

There is, as far as I can recall, no precedent of a current incumbent chairman/owner being forcibly removed of their own shares (PERSONAL MONEY!) by any organising body. The closest I can think of is when Owen Oyston was convicted of ra.pe and couldn't fulfill his Chairmans duties and handed it over to his son, Karl.

I can't see a legal way that the FL/FA can forcibly remove FB, effectively an action that could deprive him of millions of pounds when a) he hasn't been proven to have committed any breach of football regulation and b) there is no guarantee that he could find a willing buyer.

Would the FL/FA really risk it? Can't see it myself. Would be incredibly inequitable and directly opposed to natural justice.

And I say all this as someone who is pretty "anti" what FB has done to the clubs traditions

Football League Rule: "Any shareholder or director must be removed if they are banned by a recognised sport's governing body."

Might make it more awkward, but the key word is "removed".
Not just prevented.

[Stedders]

I think asking a driver to crash, and in doing so putting the lives of the driver, other drivers, and the crowd at risk is far worse than someone diving in the penalty area, although that needs to be stamped out of course.

I am not condemning Briatore as a person, I have never net him, but his actions in this case were pretty bad and he has been punished for them. What it means for QPR is another matter. I sense that a lot of people on this board want him out mostly because they feel a different investor will spend more on transfers, reduce prices and not interfere with team selection... I guess we'll see.

[Sprocket]

spot on stedders!

[MYU]

Ferrari and Michael Schumacher have cheated for years on the TV screen, why have they never been done for cheating?

The race where Rubens Barrichello had to slow down for half a lap to let Schumacher pass was classed as cheating and people must have lost big time money!

If that's not race fixing than what is it?

[Quaz]

Ferrari and Michael Schumacher have cheated for years on the TV screen, why have they never been done for cheating?

you cannot work that out....oh dear...all about money.

[Nodge70]

Ferrari and Michael Schumacher have cheated for years on the TV screen, why have they never been done for cheating?

The race where Rubens Barrichello had to slow down for half a lap to let Schumacher pass was classed as cheating and people must have lost big time money!

If that's not race fixing than what is it?

Slowing down a bit is substantially different from ploughing a car into a wall that could cause untold damage to driver, spectator, track and stewards.

[Jamie]

Ferrari and Michael Schumacher have cheated for years on the TV screen, why have they never been done for cheating?

as have Benetton who were found guilty of using an illegal fuel-rig when Jos Verstappens car went up in flames, risking his life for a few extra tenths cut off a pitstop.....

who was in charge of Benetton at the time? One Flavio Briatore....

Michael Schumacher crashed into Damon Hill in Adelaide 94 and was never punished, who was his manager? One Flavio Briatore....

[MYU]

It's still cheating and Michael Schumacher had crashed into drivers to win the championship.

That's cheating which ever way you look at it!

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone should be treated the same but it don't work like that!

[Jamie]

It's still cheating and Michael Schumacher had crashed into drivers to win the championship.

That's cheating which ever way you look at it!

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone should be treated the same but it don't work like that!

but then if you think Schumi shouldve been prosecuted for cheating at Ferrari, then by that token, Benetton shouldve been prosecuted for their cheating with an illegal fuel rig

Benetton under Briatore were also accused of cheating by using Traction Control when it was banned however they claimed it was only used in testing and got away with it

[Bernie's Barnet]

Slowing down a bit is substantially different from ploughing a car into a wall that could cause untold damage to driver, spectator, track and stewards.

Can't say I really care much about anything that happens in F1 really, but I do seem to remember Schumacher driving Damon Hill off the track to ensure he and not Damon won the world title. Was there not also similar danger of untold damage to drivers, spectators, track and stewards?

Wasn't it Eddie Irvine who recently said that F1 is a war, and teams/drivers/etc would do everything necessary to get results. Does this sound like an environment where cheating is otherwise unknown?

It's no coincidence that Piquet has managed to keep his mouth shut about all this until he lost his job. I think we can safely assume he hasn't been overcome with a sense of guilt about the whole thing the minute he's lost his job. Sounds more like an effort at blackmail where his bluff was called.

Don't particularly like Briatore or a lot of what he has done at QPR, but I find it laughable the number of people on this board jumping up and down in indignation because of their sudden concern for the moral and ethical welfare of F1.