What am I missing?

[Sleeping Giants]

We are accused of:
1. Signing a player owned by a third party agent BEFORE the FA's rule against it was effected.
2. Using an unregistered agent....who apparantly seems to be very much registered after all.
3. Falsifiying documents at the time of extending his contract.....What exactly was there to falsify?....The Football League had already ratified his signing. By this point, surely he was no longer "owned" by a 3rd party but was instead a QPR player anyway??

Confused?

[Quaz]

same here mate, very confused.

[qpr1882]

We are accused of:
1. Signing a player owned by a third party agent BEFORE the FA's rule against it was effected.
2. Using an unregistered agent....who apparantly seems to be very much registered after all.
3. Falsifiying documents at the time of extending his contract.....What exactly was there to falsify?....The Football League had already ratified his signing. By this point, surely he was no longer "owned" by a 3rd party but was instead a QPR player anyway??

Confused?

.com

[LOOPYHOOP]

.co.uk.......

[qpr1882]

Ahh, right you are.

[silvercue]

we will have to wait and see the detail. I am sure the FA think they have something to go on.

[swanleyhoop]

What I can't understand is, the FL didn't have a rule regarding 3rd parties until September, when Rangers then sought advice, were told to make a payment and did; if they didn't have any rules until then, how can we break a rule which didn't exist?
The unlicensed agent now turns out to be licensed...
And we got some admin wrong within a new rule which we hadn't dealt with before being operated by people for whom English is a 2nd language (mitigating??)
And the FA say that, at no time was Faurlin ineligible?

So what EXACTLY have we done?
The more I see, and the more I think about it, the more confused I get by the whole saga. Can't believe a good lawyer won't be able to get the whole lot thrown out, tbh.

[baz]

Ok here is a legal article on the rules and the whole FA FL thing.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume7/number2/geey/

The FL did not have rules in place at the time of signing, the FA had rules in place in August 2009 relating to any transfer from July 4th 2009.

There is a conflict between the league rules at the time and the FA rules, however it is the FA that sanctions both the leagues and the clubs themselves, so its argued here that the FA's rules take precedence.

There is a very specific procedure for buying out a 3rd party economic rights situation which involves all payments going through the FA.

Clearly because of the conflict in the rules the FA have given us the chance to buy out the contract without sanction, now pure guess work on my part here but I'm guessing that we have not done the payment and process as we are supposed to and because of that we are being charged with not declaring the 3rd party on the player registration in the first instance, then not declaring who we paid in the second instance. There are a number of possibilities as to the agent charge that could be quite seperate from this italian guy, especially if there was a middle man operating on behalf of the economic rights holders who it has been reported elsewhere are also agents.