Faurline & FA charges, a question

[QPR1976]

I keep seeing comments like "Faurlin has NEVER been ineligable" or "We've not gained any advantage on the pitch". Apologies if I missed something before, BUT -

Have the FA officially stated this ? ie. That Faurlin has ALWAYS been eligible, whether it be this season, last season, or when ever.

Or are we just assuming that to be the case, based on the suggestion that FL didn't have any 3rd party ownership rules until Sept/Oct last year.
Or is it based on an unofficial comment from within the Club or via Local Press ?

I'm not knocking anyone here, I'm just hoping I missed an official comment or at least something more concrete.

[Shania]

I raise the same question here?

[swanleyhoop]

The FL rule came in mid September, at which point Faurlin went missing for a few games, supposedly injured, while Rangers sought advice from the FL then the FA and it was sorted that Faurlin was eligible to play -- he returned mid-October and the FL/FA by then had checked and everything seemed to be OK.
The main issue seems to be Rangers ignoring advice given by the FA over his contract renewal in October -- but,, if his eligibility was in doubt, the FL and FA were already aware of the whole case by then, and would have made the club aware of this. They never did, so he must have been eligible.

Also, the FL sanctioned his registration right from the start -- the club did all that above board, and it was all checked by the FL/FA -- the player has always been ours, that has never been in any doubt. The registration in doubt is that of the agent, not the player.

[paulmason]

The club has made big point of using the word "deliberate" and "deliberately" which means that some info was not provided.

[swanleyhoop]

Yes -- it's up to the FA to prove whether it was deliberate or not. But something which should have been done, hasn't been, that doesn't seem to be in any doubt.
But the player's registration seems to have been unaffected, or the FL would have banned him from playing as ineligible right from the time the issue became clear (they have the powers to do that).

People saying he was ineligible last season are wrong -- the rule in question didn't exist then for FL clubs.

[paulmason]

I can still see the yellow breaking news banner on sky sports news announcing that QPR had signed Faurlin for £3.5M, even the presenter giggled.

[swanleyhoop]

Hmmm, the fee issue is very strange too...looking back, did the club say that just to make fans think they were prepared to invest? Is is that no money will change hands until/unless we win something?

[QPR1976]

Thanks for that Swanley.

I'm still not crystal clear.

Just because the FL didn't have rules in place until Setp/Oct last year, it doesn't mean we're in the clear, as FA DID have rules against 3rd party ownership.
To play in FL, we still have to be FA affiliated (and abide by their rules)

Regards the fee, I always doubted the £3.5M touted, apart from being so much, virtually every other transfer we've done since the arrival of FB, BE, etc. has been undisclosed !
I'm sure GP also referred to Faurlin's transfer on a radio show, suggesting we've not paid anything like £3.5M, in fact we got him virtually for nothing !

Mind you, pinch of salt required there.

[swanleyhoop]

There may be a case for the FL themselves to have to answer some questions here -- they sanctioned/approved the transfer, which their own lawyers would have looked at, and never advised the club that there was a problem with the 3rd party issue -- I believe this was because that rule never applied to FL clubs until last September, which is when the club went to the FL, who didn't know what to do, as it hadn't been an issue before. Hence the FA involvement.

Still think the main issue of concern here is the false info submitted (re: the agent) when the club terminated the third party ownership and renewed AF's contract to become his sole owners, which was mid-October (after which AF returned from his month long 'injury') -- this info may have been submitted erroneously -- but if it proves to be deliberate deceit, heads should roll, whether or not we get a points deduction.

[Nodge70]

The club has made big point of using the word "deliberate" and "deliberately" which means that some info was not provided.

Very very pertinent.

NB - Faurlin WAS injured. I saw him get the injury at Portman Road. Very nasty one it was too.

[themodfather]

wasn't the spurs' deal for van der vaart late being faxed, then ok'd later??

faxes etc sometimes jam at one end or other, also can get "lines" or not clearly printed out ( ink runs out, whatever)
if any doubt of any paperwork, why wait 18 months to act?
if a doubt over agent, act on day 1 not day 567 (or whatever)!!
agent was fifa registered and not fa "then" but is now....maybe that paperwork is in doubt, so would that be qpr's fault?

what happened to arsenal re brazilians they had on portugeese passports, which were deemed dodgy??
what has happened to liverpool over their bit of mascherano? they have been under scrutiny for near 3 yrs....
what happened re rooney and "london gangsters" involved in the £27m deal?
what happened to chelsea's transfer embargo??

[Nodge70]

wasn't the spurs' deal for van der vaart late being faxed, then ok'd later??faxes etc sometimes jam at one end or other, also can get "lines" or not clearly printed out ( ink runs out, whatever)
if any doubt of any paperwork, why wait 18 months to act?
if a doubt over agent, act on day 1 not day 567 (or whatever)!!
agent was fifa registered and not fa "then" but is now....maybe that paperwork is in doubt, so would that be qpr's fault?

what happened to arsenal re brazilians they had on portugeese passports, which were deemed dodgy??
what has happened to liverpool over their bit of mascherano? they have been under scrutiny for near 3 yrs....
what happened re rooney and "london gangsters" involved in the £27m deal?
what happened to chelsea's transfer embargo??

No - Spurs had to prove the fax was sent before 6pm - which they did. The "funny" one during the summer window was Lars Jacobsen at West Ham. So late it should have had it's own platform at Liverpool Street.

Arsenal's Brazilian's (Edu and Sylvinho) - all ok'd - Edu's Portuguese passport was deemed not in order and he had to go back and play in Brazil and up his international appearance record before gaining a work permit on his Brazilian passport.

Rooney and "London gangsters" (the Adams? Dalglish is a friend) - nothing in it and not football related.

Chelsea/Kakuta transfer embargo? Lifted once Chelsea paid up.

Not sure of the relevance to Faurlin on any of these - all entirely different.

[qblockpete]

The Football league or FA said from the outset, its not a question of being ineligible. Cannot find it, but they did say that

[swanleyhoop]

What IS relevant though, is whether or not Spurs will be charged for using the SAME agent when they bought Gareth Bale.
He wasn't an FA agent then, either.
Don't see their name splashed over the tabloids?

[Nodge70]

What IS relevant though, is whether or not Spurs will be charged for using the SAME agent when they bought Gareth Bale.
He wasn't an FA agent then, either.
Don't see their name splashed over the tabloids?

How is it relevant to our situation with Faurlin even if it was the case......?

As far as I know, all the Southampton/Bale/Spurs agreement was done through, I think, Leon Angel on both occassions (original deal and when the sell on clause was bought out). All done and dusted with the FA and PL, no problems.

I wouldn't believe everything that is written on Goal.com. Peppino Tirri did have a tie up with Base but nothing in regard to specific players and I'm led to believe Tirri issued a clarifying statement to that effect re Bale some months back.