I asked this last week and no answer

[Jeffro]

So I'm going to put it very plainly.

Please tell me if I am wrong.

The reason allegedly we are in his situation is squarely on he shoulders of paladini.
He has buggered up the paperwork, he has provided the alleged "false info" and he has been pulled into the dock himself personally?

These are questions by the way not my opinion as I don't know.

If all correct, why are people saying " whoever is responsible" should go immediately. A fee people have said this like there are more than one person who "could" be to blame.
Both Pete and Isleworth ( who I recall today) said that. So who else is there that could possibly be to blame??

Is it our admin? Is it our HR dept, who is it??

[qblockpete]

Jeffo,

The way I undestand it, is this.

We signed Faurlin, gave the football league the necessary paperwork in 2009. They never asked a ******iebird. The only problem was International Cleareance, which he got.

It then transpires September 2010, Faurlin was definitely wanted by Warnock and proved an great aqcuistion the year before, but we had to improve his contract or he would have gone. We told the football league we wanted to improve his contract (or buy rights to the player?) not 100% sure on that one and thats where the problem lays.

The FA had new rules in place (either 2 days before or after orginal signing of Faurlin 2009) that forbids this, so football League went to the FA at the time we went to improve Faurlins contract in September 2010. . The problem could have been sorted in 2009 and passed onto the FA then. I'm guessing we shot ourselves in the foot by saying the deal for Faurlin was worth 3.5 million, though the wording of that is very much open to interpretation


The player has always been eligible. The original person who would negitiotated his contract would have been Gianni with this FIFA agent. Though the manager at the time, would have given his approval for the player after seeing him.

Fact it was only two days either way of the new regulation back in 2009, I would imagine thats where the "we did not do things deliberately" comes into play, as it was pre-season and not all clubs had been given full details on how it worked ? (latter wording is guesswork)

The above is the way I understand things

[Hoopaman]

My thoughts are here Jeffro

http://www.wearetherangersboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98982

No one else to blame but the man that rubber stamps all transfers and has been personally charged by the fa.

His incompetence could cost us promotion and HAS tarnished the promotion party for everyone connected to the club. Unforgivable.

I hope the FA see sense and don't punish the club too heavily but punish the man for trying to falsify paperwork.

[vanhoop]

Jeffo,

The way I undestand it, is this.

We signed Faurlin, gave the football league the necessary paperwork in 2009. They never asked a ******iebird. The only problem was International Cleareance, which he got.

It then transpires September 2010, Faurlin was definitely wanted by Warnock and proved an great aqcuistion the year before, but we had to improve his contract or he would have gone. We told the football league we wanted to improve his contract (or buy rights to the player?) not 100% sure on that one and thats where the problem lays.

The FA had new rules in place (either 2 days before or after orginal signing of Faurlin 2009) that forbids this, so football League went to the FA at the time we went to improve Faurlins contract in September 2010. . The problem could have been sorted in 2009 and passed onto the FA then. I'm guessing we shot ourselves in the foot by saying the deal for Faurlin was worth 3.5 million, though the wording of that is very much open to interpretation


The player has always been eligible. The original person who would negitiotated his contract would have been Gianni with this FIFA agent. Though the manager at the time, would have given his approval for the player after seeing him.

Fact it was only two days either way of the new regulation back in 2009, I would imagine thats where the "we did not do things deliberately" comes into play, as it was pre-season and not all clubs had been given full details on how it worked ? (latter wording is guesswork)

The above is the way I understand things

so basically a lack of communication between the football league and the fa.

[Scarlet pimple]

We really dont know who is responsable for inflating fourlin's fee.

Paladini, flavio, the scotch sweaty, but whoever did needs to pay ie removed, for lying to the fanbase and contriving to get st money's under false pretencies even without the fa thing.

[Spencer]

Pete i think we are all aware of that.

I think the question that Jeffro is asking, is that two of the charges, are directed at GP.For falsifying documents.We have heard this mentioned by many people...in fgact on on M/board the other week, GP said something to that affect in public.So....did he do it on porpose? If so - if found guilty should be be sacked...or was it a genuine mistake ?In which case....promote him?

[qblockpete]

Not so much that.

Guessing football league saw us in the league, struggling bringing in loan players, probably did not forsee any problems. After all, like many clubs in the championship, loans are part and parcel of championship football.

Its only when we went to improve his contract the problem arises ( I would assume the club believed Football league knew the deal from 2009), it must be noted football league only bring it to light with the FA in September 2010, after QPR brought the situation to the football leagues attention.


It could be argued why did the Football League never asked questions in the first place, as they had plenty of time to do it? We would argue thats why we had not undertook any deliberate wrongdoing as we were never questioned by the football league in 2009, when Faurlin signed.

[qblockpete]

Spencer

Its not for falsfying documents...

False documents is the charge


Big difference

[Spencer]

Not so much that.

Guessing football league saw us in the league, struggling bringing in loan players, probably did not forsee any problems. After all, like many clubs in the championship, loans are part and parcel of championship football.

Its only when we went to improve his contract the problem arises ( I would assume the club believed Football league knew the deal from 2009), it must be noted football league only bring it to light with the FA in September 2010, after QPR brought the situation to the football leagues attention.


It could be argued why did the Football League never asked questions in the first place, as they had plenty of time to do it? We would argue thats why had not undertook any deliberate wrongdoing as we were never questioned by the football league in 2009, when Faurlin signed.

Yeah ok....but, what about the two charges directed at GP ? If he is found guilty , do you think he should be withdrawn fron the club ?

[Spencer]

Spencer

Its not for falsfying documents...

False documents is the charge


Big difference

Ok thanks sorry - my mistake.but im not really sure what you mean

[qblockpete]

Couldn't agree more and said so more than once, with above posters

If found guilty the person responsible should go that would be Gianni because he is the one being questioned.

To balance it out a little, we do have a series of events which make it quite feasible the club have done no wrongdoing.

We will just have to wait and see

[qblockpete]

Falsyfying documents would mean tampering with the original contract.

[Jeffro]

Thanks for your honest answer pete

[RussRanger]

Personally think this is a discussion for after the hearing for reasons that should be obvious.