When did Faurlin sign?

[BeanZ]

Just read the newspaper article that "looks" like there's no case to answer.

BUT the 3rd Party Rules were introduced on July 4th 2009, while the Mirror claims he signed on July 7th 2009, subject to international clearance.

The Sunday Mirror says "Faurlin was also signed prior to the introduction of new regulations regarding third party ownership". Surely this is incorrect?

The FA charges relate to these new regulations of July 4th, 2009. So, these dates are ABSOLUTELY crucial. Why would the FA go to all this trouble if Faurlin was signed on or before 4th July 2009. If he wasn't, then are we Guilty?

[swanleyhoop]

The rules weren't published till later and came into force retrosepctively -- we are being charged with a rule which nobody knew about at the time.

[BeanZ]

The rules weren't published till later and came into force retrosepctively -- we are being charged with a rule which nobody knew about at the time.

So, 6 of the 7 charges (assuming also the incorrect documentation charges) relate to the interpretation of this retrospective rule? With the other charge relating to the use of an unauthorised agent (which would probably only warrant a fine given the circumstances, i.e. agent was FIFA registered and awaiting FA approval).

If the FA brought these rules in retrospectively, was the onus on us to retrospectively declare the 3rd party interests in Faurlin?

The whole case is dependent upon how this is interpreted. Quite frankly, I think this is beyond the scope of 4 of the 5 panellists. It will have to be referred to a higher authority for clarification/interpretation - or thrown out on Tuesday?.

[taarabt7]

Paul Smith from the Mirror..

tweeted me... ´´ I can assure you the deal was ratified before the new third party rules were introduced ´´

[LeeCookFan]

Just read the newspaper article that "looks" like there's no case to answer.

BUT the 3rd Party Rules were introduced on July 4th 2009, while the Mirror claims he signed on July 7th 2009, subject to international clearance.

The Sunday Mirror says "Faurlin was also signed prior to the introduction of new regulations regarding third party ownership". Surely this is incorrect?

The FA charges relate to these new regulations of July 4th, 2009. So, these dates are ABSOLUTELY crucial. Why would the FA go to all this trouble if Faurlin was signed on or before 4th July 2009. If he wasn't, then are we Guilty?

We blatantly breached the FA rule of third part ownership.

However, the Football League, only started to enforce the rules this season (one week prior to Faurlin signing his new contract). Hence, Faurlin was never ineligible to play and it will be unlikely for us to be docked points.

As for the agent thing, only the FA know what they will do.

[baz]

Faurlin was announced on the 7th July a Monday. The rules were brought in on the 4th August and are retrospective to the 4th July (a friday). I'm not sure of the exact date they were agreed, but the document outlining the rules and procedures on the FA site is dated the 10th July. If it is the case that the payments etc had to be run through the FA, it would suggest that the payments to 3rd party were made prior to the 4th July but the registration not completed until the 7th. According to the rules any player signed prior to the 4th July does not then have to comply with the regulations.

I'm just guessing but it looks like as per usual we did a structured deal with further payments to follow on appearances and perhaps a sell on fee and that is being argued as a continuation of economic rights

[Shania]

Faurlin was announced on the 7th July a Monday. The rules were brought in on the 4th August and are retrospective to the 4th July (a friday). I'm not sure of the exact date they were agreed, but the document outlining the rules and procedures on the FA site is dated the 10th July. If it is the case that the payments etc had to be run through the FA, it would suggest that the payments to 3rd party were made prior to the 4th July but the registration not completed until the 7th. According to the rules any player signed prior to the 4th July does not then have to comply with the regulations.

I'm just guessing but it looks like as per usual we did a structured deal with further payments to follow on appearances and perhaps a sell on fee and that is being argued as a continuation of economic rights

Which means?

Can you call a structured deal a "continuation of economic rights"?

I just wonder? Before I commit myself to watching the telly for the rest of this evening...

[The Leveller]

At some point in time the FA issued the new ruling, it does not mean where contracts were cleared before they are in the clear. Why because there is no derogation which exempts pre-existing contracts, if it did the rules would say so and they most certainly do not. The words are the words and that is what the lawer will work to.

So when did the club pick it up and how and perhaps why not before. Is this the real reason for AF's absence whilst it was sorted out.

What GP says on the website on AF's transfer does not matter two hoots, what does is what was in the documents sent to the FA. As long as that is what took place, GP can inflate and put as much spin as he likes and in fact has done. And on that note, what did the FA investigators/lawyers find that gives them the belief that there is a prima facia case to answer out of the Clubs office in January.

Either which way, we will find out soon, will it be a case who has lied or who has pursued a false case against the club and then the saga will continue.