OK another stupid FA question Pete or any other fa rule book expert

[GARO1967]

Ok, driving me nuts this whole hearing thing and p**sed off about not being able to fully enjoy our best season in ages. Now promise to stop asking stupid questions but i think i have been trying to work out every eventuality and this is my last one.

So if the FA find us guilty and charge us on May 6th with say a sizeable points deduction so we will not be champions or even automatically promoted does that take immediate effect even if we want to appeal, or can we appeal immediately and have to have another hearing at a later date, thus we will still be crowned champions at the leeds game. This obviously effects play off finals etc.

My big worry is that they give us a large points deduction which comes into immediate effect which means by default they will give the title to the runners up and we have not time to challenge the decision in any way and even if we try to appeal its too late.

[maccatwo]

As said before that the timing of this heaing all points to a fine. There is no way we would allow points deduction happen with out appealing against if it means us finishing 2nd or below. This could lead to a nightmaire for the FA and league on who goes up who plays who in playoff etc.

[qblockpete]

The FA could clear it all up by telling the fans the fine penalty if found guilty...........

The club could have not drawn it out this long.........


In all of this who suffers? Yes, the fans............

Do they care, doubt it.........

The reality is Faurlin has always been eligible

Why we were told the deal was worth 3.5 million is anyone's guess. Have a feeling at the time it was to appease the fans, who craved a big signing. Quite surprisingly after all the dross we had, he turns out to be class which has lead to all this..

It came at a time it was under Football League jurisdiction, but they had no powers to deal with it and passed it onto the FA, who probably since October have been trying to get to the bottom of it.

I have no doubt with faurlin still playing and the fact the FA simply cannot deduct points which in effect would re-structure the league after its finished is even on the agenda.

THE FA want pounds for the alleged mess-up and we argue we never deliberately done any wrongdoing.

If we appeal a fine, it will go on and on, the fact is a points deduction is not even on the agenda though convincing the fans is another matter.

Would help if FA simply said if found guilty, this is what Queens park rangers FC expect to be faced with, instead you have fans left in limbo.

[Bluehoop]

Pete - or anyone else:
Do we know why the FA have delegated responsibility to an independant body and does anyone know the basis of their appointment. That is to say, what, if any, legal jurisdiction does their decision hold - the point being, if there is no legal jurisdiction, there csan be no right (or route) to Appeal.
You are totally right of course that a little more transparency from the FA would have been helpful.

[qblockpete]

Definite right to appeal.

This originally came under the football league and the FA need for it to go with an Independent tribunal.

much of it will legal jargon, lots of pointing to certain laws and each party finding angles on them to prove a point.

Its the FA who want their pound of flesh (money) and its up to the Tribunal to see if the case warrants it.

[stanley75]

Pete - or anyone else:
Do we know why the FA have delegated responsibility to an independant body and does anyone know the basis of their appointment. That is to say, what, if any, legal jurisdiction does their decision hold - the point being, if there is no legal jurisdiction, there csan be no right (or route) to Appeal.
You are totally right of course that a little more transparency from the FA would have been helpful.

This is their constitution. They split the disciplinary from the rest for good reasons (though some of it clearly hasn't worked as one of them was to divorce the accusations of self-interest from the business of determining fines etc)!

You can appeal but you need grounds for it to be allowed and as far as I can see it would not help here - indeed given the totally discretionary nature of the powers of the authority they could up the punishment for the appeal. The power they have is absolute and absolutely discretionary. That is why no one can answer what the punishment is. There is no tariff.

On the other hand no one seems to have accused us of fielding and ineligible player or otherwise profiting on the pitch from this so points deduction will be a big leap. But that is my opinion. The 10 points for admin is pitched to stop the advantage gained by fielding players you can't afford. It is quite a leap to see how an advantage was gained here. But we do not know the ins and outs. To be fair to the FA - which I admit gauls a bit - they don't tend to bring totally off the wall or malicious charges so there is some smoke around this. Question will remain how much but it will remain till 6 May so I would relax and wait and see.

[Bluehoop]

This is their constitution. They split the disciplinary from the rest for good reasons (though some of it clearly hasn't worked as one of them was to divorce the accusations of self-interest from the business of determining fines etc)!

You can appeal but you need grounds for it to be allowed and as far as I can see it would not help here - indeed given the totally discretionary nature of the powers of the authority they could up the punishment for the appeal. The power they have is absolute and absolutely discretionary. That is why no one can answer what the punishment is. There is no tariff.

On the other hand no one seems to have accused us of fielding and ineligible player or otherwise profiting on the pitch from this so points deduction will be a big leap. But that is my opinion. The 10 points for admin is pitched to stop the advantage gained by fielding players you can't afford. It is quite a leap to see how an advantage was gained here. But we do not know the ins and outs. To be fair to the FA - which I admit gauls a bit - they don't tend to bring totally off the wall or malicious charges so there is some smoke around this. Question will remain how much but it will remain till 6 May so I would relax and wait and see.

Interesting read - if, as you and Pete both suggest, there is an Appeal process, then where is the forum for such an Appeal? If you consider firstly that you suggest that the "tribunal's" ruling will be totally discretionary and secondly that Pete says it is all based on legal principles, I fail to see how you can challenge their decision on a legal basis given that they have absolute discretion and any Appeal (in a legal context) can only succeed if the Judge (other appointed body) has erred on a point of law? I say the caveat of "discretion" enables the independant body to reach any conclusion it likes, based on their understanding and interpretation of the position and give a decision based purely on that understanding. You cannot appeal such a discetionary ruling just because it doesn't concur with your own. You simply can't argue that they are wrong in law when all they have done is consider the facts and reach an informed but discretionary opinion.

That is why I queried the appointment of this commission and any Appeal process. Is it not possible that the parties have agreed that this should not be litigated, due to the enourmous potential legal costs, and that the most economical solution was to appoint an independant body on the understanding that both parties would be bound by the outcome?

[stanley75]

Interesting read - if, as you and Pete both suggest, there is an Appeal process, then where is the forum for such an Appeal? If you consider firstly that you suggest that the "tribunal's" ruling will be totally discretionary and secondly that Pete says it is all based on legal principles, I fail to see how you can challenge their decision on a legal basis given that they have absolute discretion and any Appeal (in a legal context) can only succeed if the Judge (other appointed body) has erred on a point of law? I say the caveat of "discretion" enables the independant body to reach any conclusion it likes, based on their understanding and interpretation of the position and give a decision based purely on that understanding. You cannot appeal such a discetionary ruling just because it doesn't concur with your own. You simply can't argue that they are wrong in law when all they have done is consider the facts and reach an informed but discretionary opinion.

That is why I queried the appointment of this commission and any Appeal process. Is it not possible that the parties have agreed that this should not be litigated, due to the enourmous potential legal costs, and that the most economical solution was to appoint an independant body on the understanding that both parties would be bound by the outcome?

Yopu are clearly a savvy bloke and I think the best thing you can do to answer you Q's is take a peek at the "FA Handbook". It is on their site. Otherwise you will get muy gloss on it.

But if that helps, the Commission was set up due to previous criticisms of the FA (inc but after a Parliamentary Slect Ctte) and the Commissioners are appointed as independent people and the panels are drawn from that pool.

The appeal process, as I was hinting at, could really only bite on process otherwise you would simply be asking them for a second bit at the merits (silly)

I would imagine there could be claims in civil law if there is a legitmate expectation of some other process or conclusion so that could be an avenue but if they take the points that is pretty much the end of the points on my reading of the rules. The law couldn't get those back - only at best the financial consequences reimbursed

I am sad enough to have govene thru the hand book (it isn't long or that tricky) and my reading is points is unlikely. But then we do now know the case of benefit so impossible to say. Hence I am staying relaxed!

[Bluehoop]

Yopu are clearly a savvy bloke and I think the best thing you can do to answer you Q's is take a peek at the "FA Handbook". It is on their site. Otherwise you will get muy gloss on it.

But if that helps, the Commission was set up due to previous criticisms of the FA (inc but after a Parliamentary Slect Ctte) and the Commissioners are appointed as independent people and the panels are drawn from that pool.

The appeal process, as I was hinting at, could really only bite on process otherwise you would simply be asking them for a second bit at the merits (silly)

I would imagine there could be claims in civil law if there is a legitmate expectation of some other process or conclusion so that could be an avenue but if they take the points that is pretty much the end of the points on my reading of the rules. The law couldn't get those back - only at best the financial consequences reimbursed

I am sad enough to have govene thru the hand book (it isn't long or that tricky) and my reading is points is unlikely. But then we do now know the case of benefit so impossible to say. Hence I am staying relaxed!

Thanks Stanley - I'm happy to take your gloss on the subject as I too am quite relaxed about this. Not sure why to be honest given that I should know better after 40 + years following Rangers.
Of everything you say, the most logical bit concerns the reasons for the FA appointing commissions to deal with their affairs as, let's face it, they hardly have a glowing reputation to uphold!

[The White City General]

Informative posts on this thread, a good read.

[Sprocket]

Since we have some sort of logical thinking going on in this thread can someone explain why 3 days have been given for this process and should the length of time be of any concern?

[stanley75]

I didn't know that they had scheduled so long tbh and afraid I can't help with a "why". But I reckon (a guess) the time allocated shouldn't be too much of a general concern. As I understand it is Rangers that asked for the oral submissions [they could have declined] so the length is largely of our own making. And they have probably (another guess but this is the way it works in a court) indicated they will need X amount of time for their submissions and it has been scheduled accordingly. It will in any case only be a guesstimate. The only thing I have seen that seems fixed is the date the hearing starts and the day it will declare its conclusions. I agree 3 days seems grinding slow but it might as simple as some members can only do part-days. Who knows. Look at it this way, we may have an excuse to start drinking to celebrate the announcement of our reprieve on the Friday and not stop till sometime on Sunday, with Leeds inbetween

[Quaz]

my take is the timing of the hearing could possible mean they want to deduct points as a token gesture, but waiting to see how far in front we are before taking them, so they don't damage any chance of promotion this late on in the season.

i still think 1-3 points and a fine.