FA Hearing Thread..MERGED THREADS

[West Acton]

West Acton



Written in black and white

And your point is??????

[ProtestR]

Right let's make this really simple.

Fact 1 - The whole FA hearing was brought about by GP's incompetence
Fact 2 - It cost us £875000 in fines PLUS a share of the FA's costs and our own hefty legal bill
Fact 3 - We need to sell around 2000 season tickets to pay for a single person's mistake excluding his saalry and annual interest free loans.

and you still try spinning it round and defending him?

[haqpr1963]

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

You are highlighting subsmissions.

Who did the FA find responsible?

15. SANCTIONS

15.2 The Commission finds that such an advantage did arise in the present case. The evidence that we heard from The FA (per Mr. Newton and Mr. Noakes) was that if the presence of the Oral Agreement had been brought to its attention before the registration of the First Playing Contract, it would have required the Club to remove the TPI issue. At that point in time, Mr. Paladini’s evidence was clear; he was not prepared to pay a significant amount of money for a young player who was untried and untested. Instead, his search for a midfield player would have continued with a view to acquiring one who was sufficiently established to justify a transfer fee, or a loan player. Whether an equivalent player could have been found, how long it would have taken to find him, and how much it would have cost are all matters of pure conjecture.

15.3 The failure to notify The FA meant that the Club was able to acquire the Player, for no immediate financial outlay, in circumstances where another team, in an identical position to the Club would not have been able to do so if they had notified The FA of the TPI issue. There was no evidence before us that any other team was, in fact, disadvantaged in that way, but the Commission finds that a sporting advantage did accrue to Club in being able to sign and field a Player whose initial registration is likely to have been refused, or at least delayed, until such times as the FL and/or The FA (and particularly the latter) either satisfied themselves that the arrangement
between the Club and TYP did not contravene any TPI, or other, Rules and
Regulations, or until the TPI issue was removed by a buy-out.

15.4 The Commission further found that the ongoing failure to notify meant that the Sporting Advantage continued throughout the 2009/10 FL Championship season when the Club finished in 13th position.

15.5 Acting on behalf of the Club, Mr. Farnell first notified the FL of the TPI issue on 13th August 2010. The FA first became aware on or around 16th September 2010. By then, Mr. Farnell had prepared a draft buy-out agreement. The Commission finds that it ought reasonably to have taken approximately 7/8 weeks to resolve the TPI issue, one way or the other, either by acceptance of the Club’s case, or, we find more likely, by
ordering a buy-out of the TPI (as per Mr. Newton and Mr. Noakes). In other words, by approximately mid-November 2010, counting from the date when the TPI issue was first brought to the attention of The FA. The delay until 27th January 2011, when The FA approved the buy-out was, in our view, unreasonably long and unnecessary. Having brought the matter to the attention of the Authorities by August/September 2010, the matter ought reasonably to have been resolved within the above timeframe. The Commission therefore considers that the sporting advantage should be deemed to have continued until approximately mid-November 2010, a period of some 15 months.

15.6 In the light of those preliminary findings, the Commission then went on to determine whether a points’ deduction was one of the range of sanctions that we may consider in the present case. The Commission was unanimous in its decision that a points’ deduction would not be an appropriate sanction having regard to all of the circumstances of this case. Our reasons for arriving at that decision are as follows:

(i) The stated policy of The FA, following consultation with the FL and Premier
League, is that although a points’ deduction may be a relevant consideration
where a sporting advantage can reasonably be considered to have occurred, it remains preferable for sporting outcomes to be decided on the field of play
wherever possible.

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

(iii) 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 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.

(iv) The FA’s investigation that led to the Charges being brought was instigated by the Club’s voluntary disclosure of the TPI and its wish to regularise matters. It is speculative whether the matter would otherwise have come to light.

(v) The Club and its officials co-operated fully throughout the FA investigation. This was arguably no more and no less than what was required of them anyway, but it is noteworthy that third parties, most notably Mr. Tasco and Mr. Tirri, freely made themselves available for interview, and were clearly prepared to cooperate further if required.

(vi) The Commission has found the Club guilty of a general misconduct charge
relating to third party investment. We have dismissed the three Charges that
relate to specific provisions of the TPIPR, including, as charged, Charge 1
which directly alleges a breach of Rule C1(b)(iii).

(vii) The absence of any influence, actual or attempted, over the Player by
TYP/Tasco at any time before the TPI was bought out. The Club’s policies and
performances were unaffected by the presence of the third party in the
background, we find.

(viii) The sporting advantage that we have found to have been gained related
predominantly to the 2009/10 playing season, at the conclusion of which the
Club finished in mid-table obscurity, 11 points clear of the last-placed side to be relegated to League 1. It seems highly unlikely, therefore, that the sporting advantage materially affected the outcome of that season. Indeed, based on the evidence of Mr. Pleat, such a conclusion is impossible to reach (as to which see below).

(ix) To the extent that we have found that the sporting advantage continued into the current playing season of 2010/11, its effect was limited by:

(a) The period of time for which we have found that it continued, or should be
deemed to have continued (some 3 months’ into the season); and

(b) The fact that the Player missed five league matches between 18th
September and 16th October 2010 due to injury. In those five matches, the
Club won three and drew two, further limiting any contribution that he
may have made to the Club during this period and, hence, any impact on
its performance/results; and

(c) The fact that the Player’s registration was neither revoked, nor suspended, by the FL, or The FA, at any time after the Club first notified the
Regulatory Authorities of the existence of the third party issue.

(x) The Commission received evidence from the respected former manager, David Pleat, whose witness statement addressed the question whether, and if so, to what extent, how the absence of the Player throughout the 2009/10 season might have affected the Club’s position at the end of the season. Mr. Pleat was also asked to perform a similar analysis for the first part of the 2010/11 season, up to the point when disclosure of the TPI took place, and then up to the point when the Club bought out the interest of the Third Party in the Player. In short, Mr. Pleat’s conclusion is that the Player, as an individual, has not been able to change the outcome of a game. Without him, the team would have been less effective, but the same can be said of any player who makes a contribution. According to Mr. Pleat, it is only in exceptional cases, and usually a goalscoring forward such as Lionel Messi, Christiano Ronaldo (two names he cites from the modern game) that an individual player can be said to have had a major effect on a team. It would be crude and inaccurate to look solely at the contribution of one player (whether through assessing goals scored, assists or otherwise) in the context of the Player because he cannot be likened to one of the great players of world football. Mr. Pleat therefore concludes that it is not
possible to state how the absence of the Player would have affected the Club’s final position at the end of the 2009/10 season, or to provide any such analysis for all or part of the 2010/11 season.

(xi) The Commission accepts Mr. Pleat’s uncontradicted evidence. Where a direct correlation between a player’s contribution and his team’s results is capable of being identified, it may be possible to conclude that he has made a difference in terms of the number of points attained. But even then, how can such a link be firmly established when, in any particular match in which the player in question scored an apparently decisive goal, his team’s goalkeeper made one, or more, vital saves, or a defender made a last-ditch tackle to save an almost certain goal?

(xii) On Mr. Pleat’s analysis, a direct correlation between a particular player’s
contribution to a team and the points attained by it is restricted to those cases involving exceptional, world-class strikers. The contribution of a midfield
player, still less a defender, could never be translated into league points, or cup wins, that would not otherwise have been secured. As Mr. Pleat says, and we accept, such an analysis is not possible. It follows that if that was the only test, a sporting advantage could never be reflected in a points’ deduction when one is dealing with a midfield player of defender, even one of world-class ability.

(xiii) In our judgment, the answer, in any case other than the exceptional one
contemplated by Mr. Pleat, is for a disciplinary tribunal to step back and to ask itself the question: having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, was the offence that has been found to have been committed so serious that it can only properly be reflected by a points’ deduction? Such a test is consistent with a points’ deduction being the sanction of last resort. For all of the reasons set out above, the Commission had no hesitation in answering ‘no’ to that question on the facts of the present case. Instead, we conclude that the offence could and should properly be reflected by a substantial financial penalty.

(xiv) Even if we had concluded that a points deduction should be considered, in principle, it would have been unfair and disproportionate to have imposed a
points’ deduction in the current playing season, taking into account all of the
relevant facts.

I think you will find that the club were found guilty.

So who do we blame exactly??????

Perhaps the person who didn't check the paperwork with the secretary and legal bod?

You would think that a top, top former agent would know a bit about the paperwork involved in a transfer, especially as we have been told by you that that is what he is especially good at......

[qblockpete]

The FA came to a conclusion. The FA have dealt the charges, not me or you

Everyone else seems to acknowledge the findings.

We are going around in circles.

I have admitted Gp's neglected areas, but the FA clearly felt he did not lie or deceive them.

The question you pose is very misleading and biased.

[haqpr1963]

The FA came to a conclusion. The FA have dealt the charges, not me or you

Everyone else seems to acknowledge the findings.

We are going around in circles.

I have admitted Gp's neglected areas, but the FA clearly felt he did not lie or deceive them.

The question you pose is very misleading and biased.

Really, we received a record fine from the FA surely someone must have been responsible?

It doesn't matter if anyone lied or deceived the FA (well it does as that would have cost us points). Are you happy for the club to have to pay out £850,000 plus costs because of something that one individual did?????

[qblockpete]

The fine given was for this reason.. The costing is rather irrevelant because the FA are highlighting the value of the player (ie Faurlin)

If this was say Pellicori we would have paid out £25 to the FA. If it had been Taarabt probably 2 million...

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.

[Rangersw12]

The FA came to a conclusion. The FA have dealt the charges, not me or you

Everyone else seems to acknowledge the findings.

We are going around in circles.

I have admitted Gp's neglected areas, but the FA clearly felt he did not lie or deceive them.

The question you pose is very misleading and biased.

So has you have admitted GP neglected areas do you think he should be sacked ?
A simple yes or no will do

[michael67]

The FA came to a conclusion. The FA have dealt the charges, not me or you

Everyone else seems to acknowledge the findings.

We are going around in circles.

I have admitted Gp's neglected areas, but the FA clearly felt he did not lie or deceive them.

The question you pose is very misleading and biased.

Hooray, we are getting somewhere.

[haqpr1963]

The fine given was for this reason.. The costing is rather irrevelant because the FA are highlighting the value of the player (ie Faurlin)

If this was say Pellicori we would have paid out £25 to the FA. If it had been Taarabt probably 2 million...

Oh dear you really are a bit confused aren't you. That is the reason for the size of the fine. (Hey keep saying he is worth £2.5 million if we appeal they might up it....)

What we are on about is the reason that we actually got the fine. Is that simple enough for you?

The reason is that GP failed to show the letter to the secretary and the legal rep. Please Pete take your rose tinted glasses off and read the thing like a real fan......

[qblockpete]

The FA say something to do with a "comfort letter" in which he should have informed the FA.

Thats where he showed neglect. Understandable because its not a legal document. The FA admit so in their findings.

I entirely agree in hindsight after faurlin was player of the Year 2009-10, we should have let him go for free.

Its called a no win situation as its pretty obvious, he would have been blamed for letting him go.


The FA should have addressed this issue well in advance to the Friday before the last game of the season, but some seem to find that okay.

I personally think after taking so long, that this is a punitive fine. The FA are ultimately responsible for putting fans through the agony, when it could have been finalised 2-3 months earlier

[haqpr1963]

So it is all the FA's fault.

Well done mate........

[qblockpete]

haqpr1963

Don't bring the old chestnut out of being a real fan to win an argument

We should be respectful of all views and I don't think I have questioned your support for the club

Haqpr1963, thats not what I wrote. The lenght of time to deal with it was there fault

[ProtestR]

How can the fact that almost 2000 people have to part with hard earned money to fund the amount one mans incompetence has cost the club? The costing is extremely relevant. It wasn't Pellicori it wasn't Taarabt it was Faurlin and the amount we have to pay is set in stone.

[qblockpete]

Set in stone, because of the FA's valuation of the player.

Do read the report

[ProtestR]

The FA say something to do with a "comfort letter" in which he should have informed the FA.

Thats where he showed neglect. Understandable because its not a legal document. The FA admit so in their findings.

I entirely agree in hindsight after faurlin was player of the Year 2009-10, we should have let him go for free.

Its called a no win situation as its pretty obvious, he would have been blamed for letting him go.


The FA should have addressed this issue well in advance to the Friday before the last game of the season, but some seem to find that okay.

I personally think after taking so long, that this is a punitive fine. The FA are ultimately responsible for putting fans through the agony, when it could have been finalised 2-3 months earlier

No had GP shown the letter to the club secretary and the club lawyer there would never have been a need for a hearing - it is one man's fault and the buck stops there - GP is ultimately responsible for the fans agony - noone else