A possible practical legal avenue to get Briatore out?

[bobbins]

Dear Rangers fans,

I was wondering if one avenue to pursue (alongside the protests, petititions, etc) would be the legal route.
I am wondering whether we as QPR fans might have the grounds to bring some legal action against Briatore/the FA. I am thinking about the joke that is the FA's 'Fit and Proper Persons Regulations'.

Every applicant for a Club dictatorship, erm sorry, directorship (!) has to sign 'The Declaration' which, inter alia, states that 'I have not been convicted of any of the following offences, or where I have, this conviction is now considered spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974'. The 'following offences' includes 'an offence involving a Dishonest Act, corruption,...conspiracy to commit any of the offences set out in [The Declaration]..., any conviction for a like offence to any of the above offences by a competent court having jurisdiction outside England and Wales...'

Now, there are two matters here. First, Briatore's conviction for fraud by an Italian court, second, his role in 'Crashgate'.
Do you think it is possible for a group of us to get together with some QPR-supporting lawyers to work out whether we have any chance of going down this route?

We could attract some important publicity. I can see it now: 'QPR fans sue FA over Briatore'. We might also be able to kick the corrupt FA up the backside too.

Any thoughts? Any interest?

[IsleworthRanger]

But I thought that was the reason that his shares have been passed temporaily to Bernie so as to avoid this?

[rkingy78]

I thought he passed the fit and proper persons test after the Renault F1 scandal?

[Ric-Roc]

But I thought that was the reason that his shares have been passed temporaily to Bernie so as to avoid this?

That was my understanding also.

[bobbins]

Yes, but my point is...

1) He may have passed it but that doesn't mean he should have passed it. We can bring some kind of action, whether directly to the FA or through the courts, to say that the FA is in dereliction of duty; that it is not upholding its own regulations properly.

2) He is still a shareholder and a director isn't he?

[bobbins]

The other avenue to pursue is the F1 avenue.
As far as I remember, the F1 arbitration panel found him guilty. But then he won his appeal against them NOT on the grounds that the verdict was flawed, but that the TRIAL PROCESS itself was unfair.
I don't know what happened subsequent to that.

What I do know is that there's a real case there. I read the whole dossier of evidence compiled in the case. I got it from my friend who works for another F1 team.

We could explore whether he could/should stand trial again for this, perhaps even in a criminal court.

[californiahoop]

The other avenue to pursue is the F1 avenue.
As far as I remember, the F1 arbitration panel found him guilty. But then he won his appeal against them NOT on the grounds that the verdict was flawed, but that the TRIAL PROCESS itself was unfair.
I don't know what happened subsequent to that.

What I do know is that there's a real case there. I read the whole dossier of evidence compiled in the case. I got it from my friend who works for another F1 team.

We could explore whether he could/should stand trial again for this, perhaps even in a criminal court.

Be very careful here kind sir, you may have a valid point here. Bernie clearly stated that FB has first option in the shares if sold, my understanding is, this should not be the case as he was found guilty?

[Ric-Roc]

Who's going to pay for this very complex lengthy legal battle?

[bobbins]

Fair point again, Ric-Roc. We do unfortunately live more and more in a capitalist society where recourse to legal protection and justice is a luxury most cannot afford, especially now the Tories have slashed the legal aid budget.
However, I would suggest that the first step would have little or no cost, i.e. to establish whether or not we would have any legal case. I'm sure there are some top Qpr-supporting lawyers out there. I know one for starters...

I wonder even if there might be a legal question as to whether owners of football clubs have any legal duties to their fans, for example. I mean, say they decided to basically price out local fans and sell tickets to tourists, would this contravene any laws at all or would int simply be entirely within their rights as the owners of the company? Probably the latter, but maybe there might still be some law somewhere that links football clubs to the society...
Look, I'm not a lawyer but I feel compelled morally to save our club for future generations. I won't let it be sacrificed on the altar of short-term profit.

[Bluehoop]

That was my understanding also.

Fair point again, Ric-Roc. We do unfortunately live more and more in a capitalist society where recourse to legal protection and justice is a luxury most cannot afford, especially now the Tories have slashed the legal aid budget.
However, I would suggest that the first step would have little or no cost, i.e. to establish whether or not we would have any legal case. I'm sure there are some top Qpr-supporting lawyers out there. I know one for starters...

I wonder even if there might be a legal question as to whether owners of football clubs have any legal duties to their fans, for example. I mean, say they decided to basically price out local fans and sell tickets to tourists, would this contravene any laws at all or would int simply be entirely within their rights as the owners of the company? Probably the latter, but maybe there might still be some law somewhere that links football clubs to the society...
Look, I'm not a lawyer but I feel compelled morally to save our club for future generations. I won't let it be sacrificed on the altar of short-term profit.

The pre-litigation investigative process is just as expensive and time consuming as any other. To get answers you have to ask questions and obtain disclosure, without it you cannot build a case. No one is going to do that for free. Any class action (as that appears to be what you are suggesting) would need financial backing and I don't see there being a suitable market for it if I'm honest. However, paying for it is something that would not be a massive issue if you had a cast iron case - on the standard principle that the loser pays.

Finally, if you believe it was the Tories that dispensed with the legal aid regime I'm afraid that you are both politically and legally mis-informed.

[californiahoop]

Who's going to pay for this very complex lengthy legal battle?

Let the Mittals pay for it, I am no legal eagle but if the shares where sold with the proviso that FB has first refusal does that make the sale illegal, and if that's the case does that bring the shares back on the open market?

[bobbins]

California Hoop,

Some very valid points there. This is not my field of expertise. I will consult with some lawyer friends and come back.

I don't want to go into politics directly on this board, but I didn't say the Tories disbanded legal aid. I said they slashed the budget...by 25%, I was lead to believe.

Thank you all for your constructive criticism. I'm not naive about this. Of course, this is a long shot. But I would suggest that we need to consider all options and systematically rule them in or out.
Let us not forget that we're generally on the same side here. We have to work together

Cheers

[bobbins]

Sorry, meant Blue Hoop

[Bigears]

The other avenue to pursue is the F1 avenue.
As far as I remember, the F1 arbitration panel found him guilty. But then he won his appeal against them NOT on the grounds that the verdict was flawed, but that the TRIAL PROCESS itself was unfair.
I don't know what happened subsequent to that.

What I do know is that there's a real case there. I read the whole dossier of evidence compiled in the case. I got it from my friend who works for another F1 team.

We could explore whether he could/should stand trial again for this, perhaps even in a criminal court.

If this is what your case is bulit on and the trial base was deemed unfair, i feel your petition will get thrown out pretty quick, as he would argue quite rightly that this verdict could not be used against him. Go back to our case with Faurlin, when the sun reporter put his article out saying we were going to get 15 points deduction. I am pretty sure, if our legal team were not 100% convinced this was wrong, i am sure we would have lodged a simlar appeal to quash any hearing.

Also why would the Mittals pay for it, it would mean mud slinging in public and I think Fav will throw and sink lower and therefore all this would do is publicly harm there reputation.

If they dont sell thier there shares, they will wait and a) do other moves to put pressure on Bernie / Fav to seel or B) see how we perform next year both on and off the pitch and wait for the price of the club to come down to a value they want to pay.

You have to take into consideration that Bernie is 80, he cant keep going on running F1 and QPR. Fav dosnt have the money on his own to run the club so why rush

Also from my point of veiw, i dont think neither of them will spend millions on the transfers, so having 1 owner worth 1 billion or another worth 17 billion is not the point. The point to me is either can run the club and we are ok as they have the money to sustain it.

[Bluehoop]

Sorry, meant Blue Hoop

My own view is that you will have a tough job finding positive responses to this one fella - but I wish you luck

As for the legal aid thingy - you are right to say that any discussion has no place here and what you hear/understand is just as vallid as the other side of the coin in a debate.

Speaking as someone right at the coal face back in the late 90's when the whole Legal Aid commission was the subject of a root and branch review I obviously have my own views on who was/is to blame and the merits or otherwise of such far reaching changes.

Anyway, back to football