What games did FAurlin play in between August-October??

[qblockpete]

Its not even about him being ineligible. He always has been

But the case relates to September 2010-October 2010 at the time he was given a improved contract. He played 1 game and 1 as sub? (not sure withlut looking).

I suspect and don't know for sure...

We get him on a low contract after all we've had the likes of Pellicori, Tomassi, ledesma and parejo before, it then turns out actually this kid Faurlin is class and the only way we can keep him, is with an improved contract. This is where I feel the stumbling block is, because we have allegedly not submitted the details to the FA in the proper way.

Not sure why since october 2010 everything has been okay, but even the FA themselves say it related to Sept10-October 10

[Shania]

Queens Park Rangers say they broke no rules when signing the Argentinian midfielder Alejandro Faurlín in July 2009, even though it has emerged that Faurlín's former club, Instituto de Córdoba, were paid nothing when Faurlín left for QPR. The club has been charged with seven breaches of Football Association rules in relation to the Faurlín signing and the renegotiation of his contract last October, the most important of which allege that Faurlín continued to be owned by a third party for the whole of the 2009-10 season.

Third-party ownership of players was banned by the Premier League and FA after the Carlos Tevez affair and QPR have become the first club to be charged with breaching that prohibition. If the charges are proved, then QPR, clear leaders of the Championship, are considered almost certain to be docked points which could cost them promotion.

QPR still describe Faurlín's signing on their own website as a "three-year deal worth £3.5m". However, sources in Argentina have confirmed that Instituto, who play in Argentina's second division, did not receive a penny when Faurlín left for QPR.

There is, though, some confusion about the significance of that. QPR's description of the deal as "worth" £3.5m does not, said sources close to the club's case, mean they ever stated they paid £3.5m to Instituto. QPR are refusing to comment on the details beyond their statement that they will be "denying all the charges," so nobody at the club will explain publicly what they mean by saying the deal was "worth" £3.5m.

However, sources close to the club's case claim it did not mean they paid Instituto the £3.5m, so they argue it is not damning that Instituto did not receive any money. All payments by English clubs when buying overseas-based players have to go through the FA as a clearing house, so the FA has known since July 2009 that no payment was made to Instituto, despite QPR's description that the deal was "worth" £3.5m.

The club is expected to argue that in fact Faurlín had come to the end of his contract with Instituto and was therefore "on a Bosman", available on a free transfer. In the club's annual report and accounts for the year to 31 May 2010, Ishan Saksena, the chairman of QPR Holdings, which owns the club, described the arrival of Faurlín and Adel Taarabt, then on loan from Tottenham Hotspur, as QPR's "most notable" signings. However, no fee was ascribed to the signing of either player.

QPR will argue to the independent commission, which the FA is to convene, that they signed Faurlín on a free transfer and he was not owned by a third party. It is understood the FA alleges the registration of Faurlín, who has excelled in the Championship, was in fact owned by an Argentinian company.

As West Ham were not even charged with third-party ownership because the rule was not in place when Tevez was signed in 2006, but were still fined £5.5m over irregularities, QPR are expected to face huge penalties if the FA's charges are proved.

It is thought that the other three charges, relating to use of an "unauthorised agent" and that QPR and its chairman, Gianni Paladini, submitted false documentation when renegotiating Faurlín's contract in October, are not as significant. The agent involved is now known to have been Peppino Tirri, well known in Italy. He does hold an official Fifa agent's licence, but it is understood the FA is alleging he was not also registered here, as the FA requires. Being "unauthorised" in that way is not as serious for a club as dealing with an agent who holds no licence.


FA arent as seriously worried about agent being unlicenced says here

From where is that piece taken from??

[qblockpete]

The Guardian

Which by all accounts is written by a top journo

[swanleyhoop]

Its not even about him being ineligible. He always has been

But the case relates to September 2010-October 2010 at the time he was given a improved contract. He played 1 game and 1 as sub? (not sure withlut looking).

I suspect and don't know for sure...

We get him on a low contract after all we've had the likes of Pellicori, Tomassi, ledesma and parejo before, it then turns out actually this kid Faurlin is class and the only way we can keep him, is with an improved contract. This is where I feel the stumbling block is, because we have allegedly not submitted the details to the FA in the proper way.

Not sure why since october 2010 everything has been okay, but even the FA themselves say it related to Sept10-October 10

He played two games, one as an unused sub, and one we drew, one we won -- 4 points at the most, Pete.

[Shania]

The Guardian

Which by all accounts is written by a top journo

Thanks!!

[bbedford]

It does not matter what games he played in because we have not been charged with fielding an ineligible player.

[stanley75]

I haven't read all this thread (I am losing the will with this topic tbh) but I am not sure where the 18 point thing came from nor why it would matter how many he played or not. The change , if proven will be of misconduct and nothing to do with eligibility or not. It is whether we have breached FA rules to prevent third party ownership of League players. If proven the penalty is wholly discretionary, set by the Football Regulatory Authority. There is a liist in the FA Regulations of variations on what those penalties might be which includes pretty much anything but there is no formula for point deductions for this.

While with all that discretion and doubt around the truth we can't tell much but we can tell any deduction will not be 18 points or anything like it. That would be wholly disproportionate to the graver offence of buying advantage (effectively) by going into administration which we know is 10. Disproportionate, as any lawyer will tell you, is what will lose you a judicial review so I am as sure as I can be they will go under that number if they go down that road at all.

[Ric-Roc]

I haven't read all this thread (I am losing the will with this topic tbh) but I am not sure where the 18 point thing came from nor why it would matter how many he played or not. The change , if proven will be of misconduct and nothing to do with eligibility or not. It is whether we have breached FA rules to prevent third party ownership of League players. If proven the penalty is wholly discretionary, set by the Football Regulatory Authority. There is a liist in the FA Regulations of variations on what those penalties might be which includes pretty much anything but there is no formula for point deductions for this.

While with all that discretion and doubt around the truth we can't tell much but we can tell any deduction will not be 18 points or anything like it. That would be wholly disproportionate to the graver offence of buying advantage (effectively) by going into administration which we know is 10. Disproportionate, as any lawyer will tell you, is what will lose you a judicial review so I am as sure as I can be they will go under that number if they go down that road at all.

Good post.

[Stuieang]

He played two games, one as an unused sub, and one we drew, one we lost -- 4 points at the most, Pete.

But we didnt lose 1st game till December?

[swanleyhoop]

But we didnt lose 1st game till December?

Sorry, meant we drew one and WON one.

[WeAreQPR12]

Makes you wonder whether is was actually injured or we realised it was a risk if we picked him during that period. Seems very strange how it coincided with the injury

[Shania]

The Guardian

Which by all accounts is written by a top journo

David Conn is top notch It seems like!!

[stanistheman]

He played two games, one as an unused sub, and one we drew, one we lost -- 4 points at the most, Pete.

If those are the two games, then surely only the 1 point gained should be deducted.

However, I have just seen the later e-mails where the statement was corrected, so ignore this

[alwaysqpr]

i thought faurlin played 4 full games during september-october last year? obviously not including the ipswich game

[swanleyhoop]

i thought faurlin played 4 full games during september-october last year? obviously not including the ipswich game

No, He started at Ipswich on 13th Sep, he missed Leicester away (18 Sep), then Donny at home, Millwall at home and Palace away, and was an unused sub on October the 16th against Norwich at home.
As far as anyone can make out, that is the period between the rule coming in and Rangers sorting out the contract/registration etc.

So the points in question (even though the FA have already said he WAS eligible during that period anyway) are the 3 at Ipswich and the 1 against Norwich (still counts, even though he didn't get off the bench -- daft!)