FA Hearing Thread..MERGED THREADS

[indianalondon]

The clubs defence at the FA hearing was basically that Gianni was incompetent and a liar.

Brilliant.

Do we really want this man involved in any transfer negotiations again?

I'd have him out of the club by now, he's an embarrassment.

Er, I dont think there's one factual thing in that post!

[BennyBoyRs]

What's this thread all about?

[DeepcutHoop]

Be careful, the FA never said he lied.

Opinions are okay, but lets stick to the facts.

Last time I will post on this thread, because I've had enough of the subject

They said they didn't believe he was deliberately unclear and evasive over his testimony, but as you say they didn't say he was a liar.

It was very clear, however, that it was his incompetence that led to this situation.

He is now listed as chairman of QPR. Do you want someone like that running the club? You may have had enough of the subject, but while he is in charge, and making our club a laughing stock (at best), the rest of us will keep mentioning it.

[qprted]

benny

gianni.........YYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Binlid]

Um...

He lied about the transfer fee to the fans.

It's a fact he lied. Is it not also a fact he lied about 70 times under oath in the previous case. It's fair to say he has a habit of misinformation.

It's my opinion he's an incompetent clown. I'll give you that.

[W12_Ranger]

Um...

He lied about the transfer fee to the fans.

It's a fact he lied. Is it not also a fact he lied about 70 times under oath in the previous case. It's fair to say he has a habit of misinformation.

It's my opinion he's an incompetent clown. I'll give you that.

Sadly a point Pete seems to be convieniently overlooking

[JonDoeman]

Um...

He lied about the transfer fee to the fans.

It's a fact he lied. Is it not also a fact he lied about 70 times under oath in the previous case. It's fair to say he has a habit of misinformation.

It's my opinion he's an incompetent clown. I'll give you that.

Binlid!
Is that you Finney?

[Binlid]

No. Pete will know I am not Finney. I simply want the club we all love run professionally. Sadly, whatever he may have done in the past, or however charming he can be, or whatever favours he may do for certain people. He is not the best choice to run our club IMHO and I think it's would be hard for anyone to argue against that.

I have no agenda. I love the club like you all do.

[Olly]

So why aren't we having a 'flavio out' campaign as well, he's done more damage.

[Binlid]

If you are asking me that, I don't know the answer. I've no love for Flavio either. I'd have liked the Mitalls to buy the club. But as Mick Jagger sang, "you can't always get what you wanna"

[qprted]

yeah

GGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAANNNNNNNN..NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
WE LOVE HIM SO MUCH


GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNIIII II
WE LOVE HIM SO MUCH

HE SAVED US
AND THEY WOULDNT EVEN GIVE HIM AN OPEN TOPPED BUS
HE PUT HIS OWN MONEY IN TO SAVE THE CLUB
BUT THE FANS HATE HIM THEY WANT TO SEND IN TO SEA IN A BATH TUB
AND AS GIANNI SLOWLY LOSES HIS BREATH AND FINALLY HE WILL DIE
ONLY THEN WILL THE RANGERS FANS START TO BREAK DOWN AND CRY
and i hope one day in the future that people will wonder why
the little diminitive italian wasnt more appreciated
untill he had finnally departed
outside the south africa stand was a bronze statue
but its not much good,but better than a tattoo

[gravesendhoop]

quality. Gianni is a legend think we should name a stand in our new stadium after him.....

[qprted]

yeah

yeah i am going to get a troop of volunteers to clean his rolls royce are you up for it gravesend

[gravesendhoop]

well he did save our club Ted its the least we could do

[haqpr1963]

Gianni and the FA Fine (£800,000)

Well, this is my last post on the matter as it seems that some can't seem to see the facts even when they are staring them in the face.

I will only look at charge 4 as that was the one we got the £800,000 fine for (I am sure some will point out that Gianni was found not guilty on his charge, but that has nothing to do with this.)

The Evidence :

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.

9.12 The Commission therefore finds that this Charge has been proved.

Mitigation:

16. MITIGATION GENERALLY

16.2 Mr. Paladini, who was clearly mindful of the issue of third party investment by the very existence of the subject-matter of the Oral Agreement and insistence upon the ‘Comfort Letter’, did not consider it necessary to consult with The FA and seek its approval for the course he was taking. He did not consult with the Club’s Solicitors. He did not refer the matter to Ms. Springett. Instead, he took it upon himself to undertake what was a lawyer’s task of negotiating a suspension of a third party’s interest in the economic rights over a Player he was proposing to sign on behalf of the Club. Having taken the initial step of insisting upon the protection which he thought the Comfort Letter would provide, he then failed to take the essential further precautionary step of having the arrangement considered and approved by the Club’s lawyers and the FA. In the light of the Tevez saga, the course that he took was inadvisable and fraught with risks. With hindsight, Mr. Paladini clearly appreciated that that was the case.

17.1 The Commission considered that a significant financial penalty should be imposed, in principle, for this offence. On the facts, we considered that a proper basis for assessing the level of the fine would be the likely increase in the market value of the Player over the course of approximately 15 months, the period for which we have found that a sporting advantage was obtained by the failure of the Club to notify The FA of the presence of the TPI. We undertook this assessment summarily, drawing on our collective experience and, in particular, that of the Specialist Panel Member. Having regard to the history of the matter, and the media attention that it has attracted, finality to the proceedings was highly desirable. If the Commission had adjourned the question of sanctions for consideration of comparables it would only have served to increase costs.

17.2 Ultimately, the Commission concluded that if the Club had had to go into the open transfer market in or around July 2009, in order to acquire a midfield player with similar playing credentials to the Player, but who was similarly untried and untested in the Championship, a fee in the region of £200,000 would have been required. After just over a season, and having proved himself at Championship level - 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.

17.3 There is a respectable argument for saying that the actual benefit to the Club was simply £1,000,000, on our analysis, for the reason that the Club paid nothing for the Player when they acquired him. However, in making the calculation, we cannot ignore the fact that the Club did eventually pay the equivalent of £615,000 in order to buy-out the third party interest. Further, since we have undertaken a summary assessment, we have endeavoured to err on the side of caution. These are not matters of precise arithmetical science, but a way of arriving at an appropriate, proportionate, and fair penalty.

17.4 Player values are something upon which opinions can reasonably differ. The parameters that we have adopted for the purpose of assessing the accrued benefit may therefore be debated. Ultimately, though, we judge that the net increase in the market value of the Player over the 15-month period in question that we have arrived at is likely to be within the range of reasonable opinion. The task that the Commission set itself was to arrive at a reasoned basis for assessing the appropriate level of financial penalty, albeit on a summary assessment. That course is clearly preferable than simply plucking a figure out of the air. At the same time, to have imposed a fine of, say, £3.5 million for no other reason than that was the figure placed on the value of the “deal” which brought the Player to the Club, and which was false, would be arbitrary, capricious and grossly punitive.

17.5 Accordingly, for this offence, the Commission imposes a fine of £800,000.
I know it is a lot to read, but please do and then make your own conclusions...

H