Official site - qpr lawyers write to fa

[Jamie]

I'm more concerned about what else has been dug up whilst investigating this, relatively minor, infringement inc the charges laid personally at Gianni Paladini. If we've ******ed up what should have been a relatively easy registration because we wanted to tell the world that the transfer fee was £3.5m, it will be one of the saddest chapters in UK football that the players, staff and supporters of a club such as Queens Park Rangers should be hung out to dry for the sake of one or two individuals egos.

I would imagine this formed at least part of the FA's initial enquiry.

It is a cold, hard, fact (confirmed by several sources) that we paid ZERO for Faurlin to Instituto whilst at the same time trumpeting a potential £3.5m deal. Now of course, if Faurlins registration, image rights etc. were all held by Instituto, then its not really a problem for the club to state this.

IF however, his image rights etc. are owned by 3rd Parties, then this is a whole new can of worms, with the FA wanting to know to whom this supposed £3.5m is payable.

If this theory does indeed form part of the lines of inquiry then its is terribly sad that the clubs desperate attempt to get the fans off Briatore's back by claiming a free transfer as a '£3.5m signing' has caused so much trouble, when the simple fact is that the quality of the player we got on a free could have got the fans off Briatore's case just fine.

[2touch]

I had started a thread on this possibility earlier today. I should have been a lawyer!

[Norths]

Somone wake me up the morning of the leeds game!

same

[The Leveller]

Not true. Implemented in the FL after the summer transfer window closed on August 31st 2010.

It is true, Nodge, we have been in agreement all day until now.I said when the rules came out.

To quote the FA "These Regulations come into effect on [4 July 2009]" and when I saw quote this is a cut and paste from their handbook on rules for the season in question.

[Jamie]

It is true, Nodge, we have been in agreement all day until now.I said when the rules came out.

To quote the FA "These Regulations come into effect on [4 July 2009]" and when I saw quote this is a cut and paste from their handbook on rules for the season in question.

Technicaly mate you are both right. The FA introduced the rules in August 2009, but backdated them to July 4th 2009. Faurlin was registered July 7th 2009, hence at the date of registration there were no rules in place, however they were retrospectively added in.

HUUUUGE grey area.

[Nodge70]

You cannot leak a result of decison prior to a hearing at which that decision is to be taken. it is prejudicai and liable to civil action.

But they haven't. Read the article again.

The FA source said something along the lines of "we know they're guilty" - which we have tacitally admitted to the "not knowingly" statement - and "the only question is determining the punishment".

Custis - being a red top journo with an eye for a sensationalist headline - has merely extrapolated that to worse case scenario where he (not the FA 'source') has pondered that we COULD be liable to a 15 point deduction.

The FA have said nothing. No leak, no prejudice, no liability. As far as I can see everything Custis has said is correct.

[Mellowhoop]

Love it how many on here seem to think their law specialists all of a sudden. Patients people next week we will know, were either up or we're not

[BuzsakyIsGod]

he journalist could have been outside the FA headquarters quoting himself for all we know.

[Nodge70]

It is true, Nodge, we have been in agreement all day until now.I said when the rules came out.

To quote the FA "These Regulations come into effect on [4 July 2009]" and when I saw quote this is a cut and paste from their handbook on rules for the season in question.

The FA and the FL work from differing guidance notes and regulatory booklets, which I think, is forming part of our defence. AFAIK the FL have stated they had no problem with the Faurlin transfer and contract extension.

[The Leveller]

Hits the nail on the head again. Afraid not many know the normal rules of engagement and if anybody thinks the FA is going to hand an own goal on this then dream on.

[bhujio]

If lawyers can get farking murderer's off, sure our's have some chance of getting us off, thats if were guilty,,,,,a plea of insanity, in that the club took advice from Ted.

Problem is we are in front of the FA while the murderers are in front of a Jury.

FA are a law on to themselves and deliver improbable justice.

I am enjoying our imminent promotion until I hear any Different.

[Jase]

one thing's for sure, it'll be pretty bloody hard now for the FA to deduct 15 points, if they were ever going to. it would make for the most obvious appeal in sporting history - it was leaked to the press before the hearing had even taken place that the punishment had already been decided, thus making it a kangaroo court of sorts. The FA would look worse than incompetent if that happened.

I still suspect (though nothing beyond ignorance tbf) that a fine and perhaps a suspended points docking will be the order of the day.

[bhujio]

But they haven't. Read the article again.

The FA source said something along the lines of "we know they're guilty" - which we have tacitally admitted to the "not knowingly" statement - and "the only question is determining the punishment".

Custis - being a red top journo with an eye for a sensationalist headline - has merely extrapolated that to worse case scenario where he (not the FA 'source') has pondered that we COULD be liable to a 15 point deduction.

The FA have said nothing. No leak, no prejudice, no liability. As far as I can see everything Custis has said is correct.

If they know we are guilty why the independent enquiry.
Independent Enquiry is not to dish the punishment but to determine the extent of guilt and let the FA dish the punishment.
If the FA source said we know they are guilty it will prejudice the enquiry.

[Morris]

Must admit this guessing game is getting very boring now.

No one knows F all. I just wish the FA would of sorted this out weeks ago.

[West Acton]

I think the FA find themselves between a rock and hard place simply because of how late in the season we are and the ramifications of a points deduction.

As everyone keeps saying there is no precedent so the FA are going to want to make one because if there is no points deduction then they cant award one to others in the future however if they deduct points and prevent us going up they are screwed as well because we will take litigation out against them.

I would therefore guess a points deduction of perhaps five or six points up front with a further six suspended allowing them to present that they have enforced a penalty without impacting on the final outcome of the league would be a win win situation for them although it could result in us not finishing top.