The independant FA panel for our hearing

[davman]

I get confused though, bless me...

If we are in contravention of Football Association rules and not Football League regulations, surely we can only be punished in FA competitions. So, kick us out of this seasons FA Cup then...

..or even next season's, I mean that would be a crushing blow - us not winning a FA Cup game for the TWELTH season in a row...

[Nodge70]

[QUOTE=swanleyhoop;571913]Read the last couple of posts on this thread here, too:

http://qprdot.org/viewtopic.php?p=518464#518464

Bristol City used an unlicensed agent and were only fined 30k -- no points deduction.
The issue is the false info one -- nothing else.[/QUOTE]

The other six charges are.......???

[Jeffro]

[QUOTE=Nodge70;572051]

Read the last couple of posts on this thread here, too:

http://qprdot.org/viewtopic.php?p=518464#518464

Bristol City used an unlicensed agent and were only fined 30k -- no points deduction.
The issue is the false info one -- nothing else.[/QUOTE]

The other six charges are.......???

Getting dropped, Pete said so

[swanleyhoop]

[QUOTE=Nodge70;572051]

Read the last couple of posts on this thread here, too:

http://qprdot.org/viewtopic.php?p=518464#518464

Bristol City used an unlicensed agent and were only fined 30k -- no points deduction.
The issue is the false info one -- nothing else.[/QUOTE]

The other six charges are.......???

Just to clarify, especially to show that none of the charges relate to player eligibility, which I know is worrying people:
"The Club charges relate to the player Alejandro Faurlin and concern the alleged existence of an agreement between the Club and a third party in respect of the player’s economic rights, and the alleged failure by the Club to notify The FA of that agreement before the player was registered to play in England in July 2009.

These charges are brought under FA Rules C1(b)(iii) and E3, and the Third Party Investment in Players Regulations, A1 and A2.

The Club is also charged with allegedly using or seeking to pay an Unauthorised Agent in relation to the player’s registration in July 2009. This charge is brought under the Players Agents Regulations, A1.

The Club and Club Official Gianni Paladini are also charged in respect of allegedly false information contained in documents submitted to The FA in relation to the same player signing an extension to his playing contract with the Club in October 2010. These charges are brought under the Players Agents Regulations, C2, and FA Rule E3."

I'm not ignoring the other 6 (although the club don't seem to be as worried about them) -- just saying that this is the one which seems hardest to explain away or defend.
The unlicensed agents charges have a precedent with the Bristol City case, and the club was transparent about the third party issue as soon as they realised it had become an issue -- all the charges will stand, but look much easier to defend or less serious.
But the submitting false info one is the hardest one, because that comes down to whether or know we knew it was false -- hardest to prove, but hardest to defend, because it will almost come down to one side's word against the other, unless the FA have concrete evidence that we have knowingly lied.

[baz]

There is a precedent for this, Boston Utd in 2002 were fined 100K and four point deduction in the following season for 6 counts of providing false information in relation to players wages on their FA registration forms

[swanleyhoop]

4 points, if we can maintain our lead, would not make any difference to promotion or being champions -- so that IS a legal precedent and one our lawyers may well use in our defence.
So, it's up to the team not to let slip, now!
Come on Watford, do us a favour on Tuesday (yes, I know it's unlikely!!)

But a good piece of info there.

[baz]

Also IMHO given the rules were only agreed at the begining of july and therefore the procedures and guidelines would not have been available until after the transfer had been completed on the 7th July I can't see how we can be punished for the intial 3rd party breach even if proven.

[swanleyhoop]

Which is probably going to be part of our defence, I would think.

[Nodge70]

[QUOTE=swanleyhoop;572077]

Just to clarify, especially to show that none of the charges relate to player eligibility, which I know is worrying people:
"The Club charges relate to the player Alejandro Faurlin and concern the alleged existence of an agreement between the Club and a third party in respect of the player’s economic rights, and the alleged failure by the Club to notify The FA of that agreement before the player was registered to play in England in July 2009. These charges are brought under FA Rules C1(b)(iii) and E3, and the Third Party Investment in Players Regulations, A1 and A2.

The Club is also charged with allegedly using or seeking to pay an Unauthorised Agent in relation to the player’s registration in July 2009. This charge is brought under the Players Agents Regulations, A1.

The Club and Club Official Gianni Paladini are also charged in respect of allegedly false information contained in documents submitted to The FA in relation to the same player signing an extension to his playing contract with the Club in October 2010. These charges are brought under the Players Agents Regulations, C2, and FA Rule E3."

I'm not ignoring the other 6 (although the club don't seem to be as worried about them) -- just saying that this is the one which seems hardest to explain away or defend.
The unlicensed agents charges have a precedent with the Bristol City case, and the club was transparent about the third party issue as soon as they realised it had become an issue -- all the charges will stand, but look much easier to defend or less serious.
But the submitting false info one is the hardest one, because that comes down to whether or know we knew it was false -- hardest to prove, but hardest to defend, because it will almost come down to one side's word against the other, unless the FA have concrete evidence that we have knowingly lied.

If proved - the bit highlighted means he would have been ineligible to play as his registration was not in order.

[swanleyhoop]

From the Telegraph of 9th March, and widely reported elsewhere:
The FA consider that Faurlin, who is a QPR regular and signed a four-year contract extension in October 2010, has been eligible to play because his registration was lodged with the FA.

The club will be charged with concealing the true nature of his contract from the FA when making that registration.

The Football League discovered the alleged breach of rules in September last year but as it did not have rules banning third –party ownership at the time he signed the case was passed to the FA.

The FA allowed QPR to buy out the third-party rights in October 2010 so that the player could continue to play without breaching any rules.

At the time QPR announced he had signed a four-year contract extension but did not mention the change in his contractual arrangements.

Google the first sentence "The FA consider that Faurlin, who is a QPR regular and signed a four-year contract extension in October 2010, has been eligible to play because his registration was lodged with the FA." and you will get numerous returns saying exactly this -- they must have got it from somewhere.
I don't think eligibility of the player is a problem -- or they would have barred him from playing there and then, as they can do.

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...ownership.html

[Nodge70]

That was the statement from the club that the press simply repeated. It was just supposition.

If a players registration documents are not in order, he is not registered and therefore ineligible to play in the competitions under the umbrella of the FA.

[swanleyhoop]

Surely the club wouldn't have said that, if the FA hadn't already said it to them?
All it would do is land them in deeper water for misrepresenting the FA?
Surely they are not THAT stupid?
And where does it say that the original registration document were not in order?

Unless they gave false info at that stage too -- but false info at that stage isn't mentioned in the charges.

[qblockpete]

The Football League discovered the alleged breach of rules in September last year but as it did not have rules banning third –party ownership at the time he signed the case was passed to the FA.

The FA allowed QPR to buy out the third-party rights in January 2011 so that the player could continue to play without breaching any rules.

I think the grey area will be that we will appeal on the basis we did not deliberately do any wrong doing.

Interestingly in this case, the agent is not being sued which the FA could have done too.

The fact this is being left 1 day before the end of the season and is nothing like the Tevez case, I stand by the fact it will be a fine. What that fine is, thats anyone's guess. West Ham's fine was high because Tevez scored the goals to keep them up and In Faurlins case the FA will find it mightily difficult to prove he gained us additional points that took us up, bearing in mind he was our Player Of The Year previous season when we finished in the bottom half.

You just have to think of the legalities of it, time structures of appeals etc to realise that points will not be deducted to prevent us from being promoted

[swanleyhoop]

The Football League discovered the alleged breach of rules in September last year but as it did not have rules banning third –party ownership at the time he signed the case was passed to the FA.

The FA allowed QPR to buy out the third-party rights in January 2011 so that the player could continue to play without breaching any rules.

I think the grey area will be that we will appeal on the basis we did not deliberately do any wrong doing.

Interestingly in this case, the agent is not being sued which the FA could have done too.

The fact this is being left 1 day before the end of the season and is nothing like the Tevez case, I stand by the fact it will be a fine. What that fine is, thats anyone's guess. West Ham's fine was high because Tevez scored the goals to keep them up and In Faurlins case the FA will find it mightily difficult to prove he gained us additional points that took us up, bearing in mind he was our Player Of The Year previous season when we finished in the bottom half.

You just have to think of the legalities of it, time structures of appeals etc to realise that points will not be deducted to prevent us from being promoted

That's exactly how I see it -- it will be up to the FA to prove we knew the information was false -- which would mean producing hard evidence to that effect. With no evidence, it would have to be assumed as a genuine mistake/oversight, which reduces the whole thing to an admin error.
The QC/FA, cannot, as much as they would like to, brand the club or Paladini as liars without any hard evidence to back it up -- they'd be risking a defamation lawsuit if they did.