Tweet
1. What are QPR charged with?
The west London club, five points clear at the top of the Championship and nine points clear of the play-off places with one game to play, face a total of seven charges arising from the transfer of the Argentinian midfielder Alejandro Faurlín to the club in July 2009. The club itself faces five charges, including entering into a third-party contract, providing the Football Association with allegedly false information and bringing the game into disrepute. The QPR chairman Gianni Paladini faces a further two charges: bringing the game into disrepute and concealing or misrepresenting the reality and/or substance of matters relating to a transaction or contract negotiation.
2. How are QPR alleged to have broken the FA's rules?
Faurlín was signed from the Second Division Argentinian side Instituto de Córdoba in July 2009 in a deal that was reported on the QPR website as being worth £3.5m. But the Argentinian club claim never to have received a penny of the fee, which is alleged instead to have been paid to a third party. Such arrangements are common in South American football but are strictly forbidden under FA rules introduced in the wake of the Carlos Tevez affair. The charge of using an unauthorised agent is believed to relate to the fact the deal was handled by Peppino Tirri, who has acted on behalf of several big-name European players and holds a Fifa licence but at the time was not registered by the FA so was not authorised to conduct business in England. QPR later gave Faurlín a new four-year contract, in October 2010, to which the allegations about false information relate.
3. Why is third-party ownership forbidden?
Because it is considered that a player could come under undue pressure from an outside influence that may upset the sporting integrity of the game. The belief is that every player's only loyalty should be to the club, which should be his sole employer. Most other countries do not have rules against third-party ownership, leading to a boom in the practice.
4. Was Faurlín owned by a third party?
There seems little doubt that the player's economic rights were held by a third party, because QPR were given permission to buy out Faurlín's registration in January to make him eligible to play under FA rules. The issue is whether the rules were broken in good faith. QPR claim they didn't know about the existence of the FA rule until the Football League introduced its own ban on third-party ownership, introduced as part of the move to harmonise its rulebook with the Premier League under a deal over parachute payments. One key factor that will be examined by the FA will be the transfer fee paid at the time, which would have been logged with it under its role as a clearing house for all transfers. It has been suggested that the transfer was logged as a free transfer at the time, perhaps with a promise of a fee further down the line, despite QPR saying publicly that it was worth £3.5m.
5. Is there any precedent?
The closest thing to a precedent is the convoluted and highly controversial Carlos Tevez affair that led to West Ham escaping a points penalty but being hit with a £5.5m fine and a later £26.5m compensation payment to Sheffield United, the club relegated in their place following the Argentinian's heroics in keeping the London club up. But it is not a direct comparison because at the time there were no explicit FA or Premier League rules dealing with third-party ownership.
6. Who will decide QPR's fate?
The four-person tribunal is comprised of a QC, two further legal counsels and a football representative (typically a former player or manager). The FA has said it will not reveal their identities.
7. Who is representing QPR?
QPR's case is being presented by Ian Mill QC of Blackstone Chambers, a hugely respected sports lawyer who has acted in a string of high-profile cases. He has acted for just about every sports governing body, Chelsea, Formula One teams McLaren and Williams, plus individuals such as David Beckham, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. It was he who won Sheffield United their £26.5m compensation payment and he has also served on FA disciplinary panels in the past.
8. What are the possible penalties?
QPR could be fined or suffer a points deduction that could deny them the Championship title or move them into the play-offs. It is understood that another option open to the independent tribunal would be to apply any points deduction from the start of next season – allowing QPR to be promoted but starting the Premier League season on a minus total.
Some FA sources are keen to see QPR heavily punished if they are found to have broken the rules, viewing the charge of providing misleading paperwork particularly seriously. QPR, on the other hand, remain confident about their case and believe a fine more likely.
9. What are the implications for promotion and the play-offs?
The Football League has indicated there could be some flexibility around the dates of the play-off semi-finals if required but is increasingly minded to plough on regardless. QPR would have 14 days from the date they receive the written judgment to appeal and have suggested they will take that entire period to consider their case. The Championship play-off final at Wembley on 30 May cannot be moved for logistical reasons. Either way, the Football League will wait for the verdict before taking a view.
10. What will happen next?
The verdict will almost certainly be delivered . If QPR are hit with a points penalty, they are almost certain to appeal. Legal action could also follow, either from QPR or their Championship rivals, and drag on through the summer.
The west London club, five points clear at the top of the Championship and nine points clear of the play-off places with one game to play, face a total of seven charges arising from the transfer of the Argentinian midfielder Alejandro Faurlín to the club in July 2009. The club itself faces five charges, including entering into a third-party contract, providing the Football Association with allegedly false information and bringing the game into disrepute. The QPR chairman Gianni Paladini faces a further two charges: bringing the game into disrepute and concealing or misrepresenting the reality and/or substance of matters relating to a transaction or contract negotiation.
2. How are QPR alleged to have broken the FA's rules?
Faurlín was signed from the Second Division Argentinian side Instituto de Córdoba in July 2009 in a deal that was reported on the QPR website as being worth £3.5m. But the Argentinian club claim never to have received a penny of the fee, which is alleged instead to have been paid to a third party. Such arrangements are common in South American football but are strictly forbidden under FA rules introduced in the wake of the Carlos Tevez affair. The charge of using an unauthorised agent is believed to relate to the fact the deal was handled by Peppino Tirri, who has acted on behalf of several big-name European players and holds a Fifa licence but at the time was not registered by the FA so was not authorised to conduct business in England. QPR later gave Faurlín a new four-year contract, in October 2010, to which the allegations about false information relate.
3. Why is third-party ownership forbidden?
Because it is considered that a player could come under undue pressure from an outside influence that may upset the sporting integrity of the game. The belief is that every player's only loyalty should be to the club, which should be his sole employer. Most other countries do not have rules against third-party ownership, leading to a boom in the practice.
4. Was Faurlín owned by a third party?
There seems little doubt that the player's economic rights were held by a third party, because QPR were given permission to buy out Faurlín's registration in January to make him eligible to play under FA rules. The issue is whether the rules were broken in good faith. QPR claim they didn't know about the existence of the FA rule until the Football League introduced its own ban on third-party ownership, introduced as part of the move to harmonise its rulebook with the Premier League under a deal over parachute payments. One key factor that will be examined by the FA will be the transfer fee paid at the time, which would have been logged with it under its role as a clearing house for all transfers. It has been suggested that the transfer was logged as a free transfer at the time, perhaps with a promise of a fee further down the line, despite QPR saying publicly that it was worth £3.5m.
5. Is there any precedent?
The closest thing to a precedent is the convoluted and highly controversial Carlos Tevez affair that led to West Ham escaping a points penalty but being hit with a £5.5m fine and a later £26.5m compensation payment to Sheffield United, the club relegated in their place following the Argentinian's heroics in keeping the London club up. But it is not a direct comparison because at the time there were no explicit FA or Premier League rules dealing with third-party ownership.
6. Who will decide QPR's fate?
The four-person tribunal is comprised of a QC, two further legal counsels and a football representative (typically a former player or manager). The FA has said it will not reveal their identities.
7. Who is representing QPR?
QPR's case is being presented by Ian Mill QC of Blackstone Chambers, a hugely respected sports lawyer who has acted in a string of high-profile cases. He has acted for just about every sports governing body, Chelsea, Formula One teams McLaren and Williams, plus individuals such as David Beckham, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. It was he who won Sheffield United their £26.5m compensation payment and he has also served on FA disciplinary panels in the past.
8. What are the possible penalties?
QPR could be fined or suffer a points deduction that could deny them the Championship title or move them into the play-offs. It is understood that another option open to the independent tribunal would be to apply any points deduction from the start of next season – allowing QPR to be promoted but starting the Premier League season on a minus total.
Some FA sources are keen to see QPR heavily punished if they are found to have broken the rules, viewing the charge of providing misleading paperwork particularly seriously. QPR, on the other hand, remain confident about their case and believe a fine more likely.
9. What are the implications for promotion and the play-offs?
The Football League has indicated there could be some flexibility around the dates of the play-off semi-finals if required but is increasingly minded to plough on regardless. QPR would have 14 days from the date they receive the written judgment to appeal and have suggested they will take that entire period to consider their case. The Championship play-off final at Wembley on 30 May cannot be moved for logistical reasons. Either way, the Football League will wait for the verdict before taking a view.
10. What will happen next?
The verdict will almost certainly be delivered . If QPR are hit with a points penalty, they are almost certain to appeal. Legal action could also follow, either from QPR or their Championship rivals, and drag on through the summer.
