Lots of threads, I know. But can anyone answer me..

[Goddard]

... I have no clue as to how big the punishment could be.

It's a charge (well, 7 actually) that have been brought against us, and we are the first club to face them under the current rules, which as far as I can see were ammended in 2009, AFTER the Tevez saga.
So there is no precedent here to go by. It's a landmark case that will set the standard for future cases like this.

I've heard of teams being kicked out of cup competitons for "fielding an ineligable player". That's a fact.

So.... is, or has Faurlin ever been, an ineligable player for QPR?
And was Tevez ruled ineligable?

[Jeffro]

The Bristol city / Showumni case is the most nearest to this and they got like a 30k fine!!

[winalotto]

I honestly reckon a big fine will come our way if proven, no points deducted, but it has to be proved. The one thing that worries me is what this is doing to the teams morral, how are they all reacting at what is the most important part of the season.

[swanleyhoop]

According to the FA, Faurlin has NEVER been ineligible -- having an unlicensed agent doesn't change that, as clearly the registration process itself was done correctly.

While we're talking about unlicensed agents, and somone saying Faurlin's agent was his MUM (could it be her?), am I right in saying that AT's agent is his DAD? Is he licensed? If not, we could have more **** heading our way.

[Goddard]

But, has Faurlin ever been an ineligable player?
That's the key word here, for me.

Or is this all about admin/agent f*ck ups?

[The White City General]

... I have no clue as to how big the punishment could be.

It's a charge (well, 7 actually) that have been brought against us, and we are the first club to face them under the current rules, which as far as I can see were ammended in 2009, AFTER the Tevez saga.
So there is no precedent here to go by. It's a landmark case that will set the standard for future cases like this.

I've heard of teams being kicked out of cup competitons for "fielding an ineligable player". That's a fact.

So.... is, or has Faurlin ever been, an ineligable player for QPR?
And was Tevez ruled ineligable?

The thing that I don't understand is were we actually legible to play Faurlin? Which from what I read we were.

The case against us is based from what I can see on 3rd party unlicensed agents, false documents and failure to comply with FA once the issue had been flagged up to them. Therefore if I have this right all this talk of 3pts per game over a six game period is rubbish.

However, in the case of Luton they got hit with 10pt deduction for using unlicensed agents a verdict which the FA over-ruled the Football League did they not?

[dave58]

Thing I'm bothered about is will clubs be able to take us into court for damages i.e. Sheff utd V WHU. Cardiff Swansea Leeds Norwich Forest And whoever gets close enough to be in the promotion shake up for missing our on promo to prem

[alexferguson60]

If we're honest, no-one ****ing knows.

[80sCasual]

... I have no clue as to how big the punishment could be.

It's a charge (well, 7 actually) that have been brought against us, and we are the first club to face them under the current rules, which as far as I can see were ammended in 2009, AFTER the Tevez saga.
So there is no precedent here to go by. It's a landmark case that will set the standard for future cases like this.

I've heard of teams being kicked out of cup competitons for "fielding an ineligable player". That's a fact.

So.... is, or has Faurlin ever been, an ineligable player for QPR?
And was Tevez ruled ineligable?

Someone posted this earlier not sure where but i cut it onto another document incase needed so here it is, it may answer your question.

This player appeared in 6 games between August 2010 - September 2010 before the FL discovered the 3rd party interest in the player. The FL instructed QPR to buy out the 3rd party interest... prior to accepting a new extended contract for the player.

Under FL rules 40.1 this breach makes the player ineligible to play in it's competitions. Under FL rule 40.2 a club WILL be deducted 3 points for every match in which it plays an ineligible player - 18 points minimum for QPR if found guilty.

Not good eh?

[The White City General]

Someone posted this earlier not sure where but i cut it onto another document incase needed so here it is, it may answer your question.

This player appeared in 6 games between August 2010 - September 2010 before the FL discovered the 3rd party interest in the player. The FL instructed QPR to buy out the 3rd party interest... prior to accepting a new extended contract for the player.

Under FL rules 40.1 this breach makes the player ineligible to play in it's competitions. Under FL rule 40.2 a club WILL be deducted 3 points for every match in which it plays an ineligible player - 18 points minimum for QPR if found guilty.

Not good eh?

So if that the case then why has the football league refered this to FA? The football league already have the rules laid out to punish the club. The question is are we being charged for fielding an ilegible player or not, I don't think we are its all the other stuff I thought we were?

[Toni German]

It has to be an 18 point deduction according to the rules.

[Ric-Roc]

Someone posted this earlier not sure where but i cut it onto another document incase needed so here it is, it may answer your question.

This player appeared in 6 games between August 2010 - September 2010 before the FL discovered the 3rd party interest in the player. The FL instructed QPR to buy out the 3rd party interest... prior to accepting a new extended contract for the player.

Under FL rules 40.1 this breach makes the player ineligible to play in it's competitions. Under FL rule 40.2 a club WILL be deducted 3 points for every match in which it plays an ineligible player - 18 points minimum for QPR if found guilty.

Not good eh?

I did

[EYR]

It has to be an 18 point deduction according to the rules.

If its that cut and dried why hasnt it been imposed? The FL/FA has obviously done their homework?

Its seems Faurlin has been ok'd to play,so that leaves the other issues.

[Rebel R's]

It has to be an 18 point deduction according to the rules.

Worst case,but if this is the case we won't even make the play offs

[Loftladder]

It has to be an 18 point deduction according to the rules.

This is nonsense.

(1) The Football League have not charged the club with any breach of their rules

(2) The charges brought by the FA have nothing to do with fielding an ineligible player