FA Hearing Thread..MERGED THREADS

[haqpr1963]

HAqpr1963

You also make the point that faurlins value is not relevant, but the result of the FA findings make this the pivotal reason why they gave the fine

Wrong again.....

http://www.wearetherangersboys.com/f...7&postcount=60

Keep trying.......

[qblockpete]

sorry mate

I'm only using direct quotes from the FA at moment

- so much so,
that he was named the Club’s player of the year - and adjusted to life in England, the
Commission considered that his likely market value would have increased to
approximately £1,000,000. On that basis, the added value in the Player, or accrued
benefit, was £800,000.

[haqpr1963]

The exact reason why QPR were charged £875,000 was because the FA valued the player at that price after being Player Of The Season 09/10 and being with us for 2 seasons.

This "comfort letter" addressing the Farulin situation after a year seems a matter of neglect on Gianni's part, but it was not a legal document.

I do not see a charge being passed onto him by the FA in regards this matter?

Yes but who was responsible for the mistakes that lead to the fines?

Was it Amit? Was it Bernie? Was it Flavio? Was it me?

Who didn't show the letter to the secretary and legal reps? I think you will find that was the reason that they gave for the fine.....

Come on you can do it?????

[Stanley]

Pete, come back on here when you've actually finished reading the report. That will save everyone a lot of time.

[qblockpete]

After days hearing with the FA who did they find responsible?

Is the more important question

[vblockranger]

"As far as the Club’s web-page is concerned, the report of a £3.5 million deal was clearly false. Mr. Paladini appeared to accept in interview that he was the source of the report"

"It was characterised by Mr. Mill as a ‘puff’; something that was
done in order to show the Club’s supporters, and others, that the Club was going
places and willing to invest heavily in order to do so. That was essentially the
motivation according to Mr. Paladini in interview. Whether one regards the
report as mere ‘puff’, or a ‘lie’, depends on one’s moral compass, with some
necessary re-calibration to take into account “the ways of football”, a phrase
that was used more than once during the hearing. That Mr. Paladini was at least
involved in some way in the report finding its way onto the Club’s web-site, we
have little doubt, but while the value of the deal was significantly exaggerated,
and objectively untrue, the motivation for it colours how it should reflect upon
Mr. Paladini as a witness.
5.5.3 For economies of scale, a detailed analysis will not be undertaken here of the
five other aspects of Mr. Paladini’s evidence, which were cited by Mr. Lewis in
his closing submission to show just how unreliable Mr. Paladini’s evidence was.
Suffice to say that we did not conclude that either individually, or cumulatively,
they altered our impression of him as an essentially truthful person."

We have found there to be no evidence of bad faith, or dishonesty, on the part of the Club or any of its officials, in particular Mr. Paladini, in any of its dealings in relation to TPI. We find, instead, that he (Paladini) was negligent (in contrast to the findings that were made in this regard in FAPL -v- West Ham United FC, unreported 27th April 2007). Further, during his evidence, Mr. Paladini repeatedly apologised for any mistake that he may have made.

[qblockpete]

Stanley 76

Read it, need to digest it.

I totally agree we should not have given Ally Faurlin a verbal agreement that would we keep him on if he done well.

Gianni neglected telling the FA about this so called "comfort letter" (whatever that means)

The FA have fined us on the valuation of what they believed the player to be actually worth and not due to any lies or underhand tactics.

if I am wrong please correct me or contact the FA who have spent days writing this assessment

[qblockpete]

vblockranger

That is an interpretation used by an individual on another individual.

Its not factual

[jonno]

nope, cannot find anywhere in the FA report Gormans name

Why would Gorman's name be in the report? He recommended the player, he didn't deal with the transfer FFS. Paladini did that, and messed it up.

[qblockpete]

THE FA state

The agent (trilli?) provided first sighting of the player to Gianni Paladini via DVD.

jonno you need to read the report, its very good

[haqpr1963]

I think this is what you are looking for :

Charge 4 that we got the £800,000 fine for....

9.1 Insofar as it relates to Charge 4, FA Rule E3(1), “General Behaviour”, provides as follows:

9. CHARGE 4

“A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute …”

9.2 The FA alleges that by failing to disclose its Oral Agreement with TYP to the FA, both initially and at any time thereafter until September 2010, the Club failed to act in the best interests of the game, in breach of Rule E3. Charge 4 is noteworthy for the fact that it is not brought pursuant to any of the specific TPIPR provisions, although the Charge alleges that the failure to notify was in respect of an agreement which “was or might be” contrary to FA Rule C1(b)(iii). Rule E3 is not therefore limited in its wording or scope, and is capable of covering the myriad factual circumstances that are said to constitute misconduct in any given case. It is a “catch all” Charge.

9.3 The Club submits that the reason why the letter of 4th July 2009 and/or the fact of the Oral Agreement was not disclosed to The FA until the Club had decided to enter into a new playing contract was that the Oral Agreement did not allow for any third party involvement unless and until such a new playing contract was made. There was therefore no duty to disclose it prior to that potential event occurring, according to the Club.

9.4 Mr. Paladini admits that he did not, either at the time when he received the Comfort Letter from TYP, or at any time subsequently until August 2010, refer the matter to his Secretary, Terry Springett, or to the Club’s Solicitor, Chris Farnell, let alone The FA. After hearing evidence from her, the Commission finds that if he had informed Ms. Springett of the arrangement at the outset (i.e. prior to the First Playing Contract), or at any time thereafter, it is highly likely that she would have referred the matter to the Club’s Solicitors and/or The FA. By whatever route, both the FL and The FA
would have been alerted to the presence of a TPI issue. The Commission also finds it highly likely, if not certain, that the only document that would have been disclosed initially was the Comfort Letter, for the simple reason that that it was the only document, initially, that was disclosed. The evidence correcting and qualifying it only came much later.

9.5 In dealing with the matter himself, Mr. Paladini seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the arrangement that he had entered into with TYP did not infringe Rule C1(b)(iii). He did not give any thought to the possibility that the Rule “might be” infringed. The reality of the situation seems to have been that once he got the Comfort Letter he simply filed it, without considering whether it accurately reflected what had been agreed, or at least, discussed, and turned his attention to concluding the First Playing Contract. Mr. Paladini’s evidence as to the depth of his understanding of
relevant FA Rules and Regulations was inconsistent. We find that he gave no
consideration to the detailed requirements of Rule C1(b)(iii) at all, save for his very general concern that he did not want to expose the Club to a Tevez-type situation.

9.6 On its face, though, the Comfort Letter was clearly capable of being interpreted in such a way as to give rise to at least the possibility of third party influence within the meaning of Rule C1(b)(iii). The drafting was, as Mr. Mill put it, “inept”. The very fact of these proceedings and, in particular, the way in which the first three Charges have been framed with specific reference to the date of 30th June 2010 in the Comfort Letter ought to have led a reasonable person to conclude that the agreement, on the face of the terms of the Letter, “might be” in breach of Regulation C1(b)(iii), even if it was subsequently shown not to be, at least, not as charged under Charge 1, by virtue of extensive witness evidence. In the position of responsibility that he was in, Mr. Paladini is deemed to have been sufficiently knowledgeable of the Rule to have known, as his work colleagues and his Solicitors clearly knew, that the TPI should be brought to the attention of the Regulatory Authorities for their consideration. It was self-evident from his repeated apologies during the hearing that Mr. Paladini regrets not having done so.

9.7 The absence of notification of the third party issue to The FA for approximately fifteen months meant that the Club self-policed the arrangement with TYP for that period and deprived The FA the opportunity to consider the arrangement, decide whether it did, or might, contravene Rule C1(b)(iii), and to take action, if necessary, to regularise matters.
9.8 In arriving at that decision, we did not find that there was any bad faith or dishonest intention on the part of the Club, acting through Mr. Paladini, in failing to notify the Regulatory Authorities of the existence of the agreement with TYP. We accept that Mr. Paladini held a genuine and honest belief that he had not committed the Club to entering into any contract which gave TYP any third party interest during the First Playing Contract. It would have been somewhat contradictory for him to go to the trouble of seeking such reassurance if he knew, or suspected, that it did not provide it. He was clearly mindful of the Tevez saga and wished to protect the Club’s interests.
He did not go far enough. At the time when he did so, as we so find, the TPIPR had not been introduced. But Rule C1(b)(iii) was in force, and had been so for some considerable time.

9.9 Unless bad faith or a dishonest intention is specifically pleaded in the context of a particular charge under Rule E3 - as with the Charge against Mr. Paladini - the Commission finds that there is no requirement for The FA to establish dishonesty, or bad faith, on the part of the Club for the purposes of Charge 4. The Commission has no hesitation in finding that the best interests of the game were not served by the Club’s failure to notify the Regulator of material information and/or documentation in connection with one of the key aspects of FA Rules and Regulations. Those interests are best served by clubs enabling the Regulator to regulate, and not to self-police themselves.

9.10 It is not therefore necessary for the Commission to decide whether “improper” conduct requires evidence of dishonesty or bad faith to be proved (as the Club submitted), or merely negligence (as The FA contended). Likewise, whether the alleged misconduct that is the subject-matter of this Charge could be said to have brought the game into disrepute. The use of the words “and/or” between each one, means that only one of the consequences of misconduct referred to in Rule E3 needs to be proved for the offence to be made out.

9.11 Whether the third party interests of TYP were suspended for three years or one year is immaterial for the purposes of this Charge. It is the failure to notify The FA of an agreement which “might be” contrary to Rule C1(b)(iii) which gives rise to liability, even on the Club’s own case as to the period for which TYP’s interest in the Player’s economic rights was suspended.

I think you will find a certain name crops up a fair bit.....

[West Acton]

[QUOTE=qblockpete;614491]Yes, we could have let him go after the first year and fogged him off, but we kept to verbal agreement to improve his contract after the first year.

QUOTE]

Does Paladini not have history of verbal agreements for contracts if my memory serves me right which cost the club money oh yes Gino Padula springs to mind.

The man is the human version of TNT he is dangerous and bloody expensive at that!!!!!!!

[haqpr1963]

If you are looking for help try:

Ian Taylor
Press and PR Manager
Queens Park Rangers FC

T: 020 8740 2541
M: 07825 541 028
F: 020 8740 2525

or e-mail : IanT@qpr.co.uk

[qblockpete]

Excuse my ignorance, but you have to find the results of the charges.

You are highlighting subsmissions.

Who did the FA find responsible?

[qblockpete]

West Acton

The hitherto unblemished disciplinary record of the Club in relation to
Regulatory matters.

Written in black and white