QPR Punishment

Yeah while we're at it, why don't we retrospectively relegate West Ham? And, who gives afuck about Sheffield United's relegation this year? Let's put them in the prem right now.

QPR should be given the same punishment as West Ham. Hopefully common sense will prevail. I have no favourtism towards QPR, West Ham or Sheffield United but I think it would be a joke if QPR were deducted any points, given what has happened in the past.

 

What is he even on about?

You were talking about QPR right? Do you even know?

 

Hang them all for crimes against football ,warnock wearing shorts again!! the public should be protected!

 

This'll piss on Custis's chips.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...p-charge-hearing-EXCLUSIVE-article729871.html


The FA fear that QPR will exercise the right to either have their disciplinary hearing on Tuesday delayed or abandoned completely.

QPR would have to make an application to the independent Regulatory Commission in the next 24 hours, citing claims that the club have already been found guilty before any defence evidence has been submitted.

QPR have been charged with seven breaches of regulations relating to third-party ownership and agents concerning Argentinean midfielder Alejandro Faurlin.

Yet reports last week, quoting FA sources, claimed the evidence against QPR was damning and they could face a 15-point deduction and be forced to drop down from automatic promotion into the play-offs.


Although the FA have moved swiftly to distance themselves from these reports, Rangers are within their rights to claim there case has been tarnished and as a result they are unlikely to get a fair hearing.

Any significant delay in the hearing would effectively rule out QPR being docked points that would prevent them from securing automatic promotion.

The club claimed via their own website that they paid £3.5 million for Faurlin in 2009. The truth is they merely made a deferred payment to agents who owned the player’s economic rights of around £600,000.

Faurlin was also signed prior to the introduction of new regulations regarding third party ownership and QPR were transparent about the deal with both the Football League and the FA and provided documentation that there would be no third party influence.

And when they did buy out the rights to the player a year later they informed the Football League and paid the money through the FA.

The FA decided to investigate the deal when QPR boasted of paying £3.5 million and sent independent lawyers into the club in January of this year.

At worst it appears QPR used a licensed agent, but who wasn’t registered with the FA, and may be guilty of a clerical error.

And it seems unlikely that if the case is eventually heard they are more likely to receive a slap on the wrist and substantial fine.

 

Whatever fine is levied, Bernie will just get out his petty cash tin and pay it. I don't think there'll be a points deduction, the facts as stated don't deserve more. OK, I hate Warnock, and don't care for QPR, but if the above is correct, then there's no way the FA could morally deduct points.

Given precedence, it'll be a fine; but I love the irony about Warnock/Sheffield Utd/WestHam and now he's on the other side.

 

Mornin' Northolt!!

You are scrapping the bottom of the barrel if you are using that "Beacon Of Truth", The Mirror, to back up your argument????

As we both know this rag is in direct competition with the Scum, so will automatically take an opposing view on the story!!

As has been said by some of your fans, and others from different teams, instead of all this speculation we should wait for the legal side of things to run it's course, then there may be issues to discuss on the Boards!!!!

 

Sagegee, the point you are missing is that the Sun has prejudiced the case against QPR. That, my friend is a FACT. Therefore, QPR could sue the FA on the grounds that the case was null and void due to the Suns 'exclusive'. Ironically that piece of **** that claims to be a newspaper, could (if there is any wrong doing) be our saviour. ****ing hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Morning Sagegee, any port in a storm eh
I like this article, and considering this whole thread was started with one from the Sun, it's fair enough posting it!
Dontcha think?

 

Fair comment, Northolt!

As I posted earlier, I will wait to hear the outcome of the alleged transgression/s first, before I pick over it, if there is anything to pick over!!!
It is still possible that this is just a storm in a teacup, eh!!!

 

Shefford, I think you have missed the point, mate. It will have to be decided, legally, if the case, if any, against your team, has been prejudiced, and I don't think the duffers at the F.A. would admit to that!!!

 

The Mirror article contains a heck of a lot more fact than the Sun article, even though they are both rags.

"Faurlin was also signed prior to the introduction of new regulations regarding third party ownership and QPR were transparent about the deal with both the Football League and the FA and provided documentation that there would be no third party influence."

The Sun conveniently forgot to add in to their article that we signed Faurlin BEFORE any new regulations were introduced. There is some confusion as to whether those regulations were enforced retrospectively which would (potentially) then cover Faurlin's transfer, harsh as that may seem.

It is also a fact that newspapers have to be very careful in the way they report any ongoing legal wrangle, as this can give the defence a very good opportunity to argue that the press influenced the decision.

"At worst it appears QPR used a licensed agent, but who wasn’t registered with the FA, and may be guilty of a clerical error." Again, much less sensationalist and based upon fact, the agent WAS registered with Fifa, but not with the FA.

Sagegee Tiger is quite right, this paper is always likely to go against The Sun, but in this instance, they appear to have based their article more on fact than that of The Sun. Not hard I guess.

Does this mean we're innocent? I have no idea, I haven't read the rules relating to third party ownership, I'm not a sports lawyer, so I guess I'll sit on my hand and wait.

 

Sagegee. The case HAS been prejuged. The article in the Sun is the prejudgement. It is in print and cannot be recinded. I do wish people who comment on the law had some background in it, such as I.

 

You reckon we could get it thrown out/or adjourned then?

 

What's your background Shefford? No worries if that's too personal a question.

And your prediction on the likely outcome? (Not of course that I expect you to know, just your speculation!)

 

Studied law for 4 years and have a diploma. The way it COULD go is:

A) FA deduct enough points to put us in the Play Offs. We IMMEDIATELY appeal, thereby delaying the play offs. Subsequently we win the appeal and there are no worries.
B) We lose the appeal and sue the FA for siting the crap written in the Sun as evidence of prejudice. The point being that we have been found guilty before due trial. The Premiership KO for 2011/12 is delayed due to the above.
C) The FA find us not guilty (IMO the more likely outcome).

In terms of scenarios A&B, the FA and the FL would be in disarray, possibly for months.

The above is just my opinion and should not be taken as a statement of law. E&OE. The value of your club may go up as well as down, Terms and Conditions apply.

 

Fair enough Shefford, you have some kind of legal background. So if that is the case, can you explain to me where this judgement has been passed to decide that the case is now prejudiced, and where I can go to read this legal ruling??? Or is it supposition on your behalf, based on your legal knowledge?
As to the article in the Scum, I agree to the point it was written with malicious forethought, and may even have been driven by the F1 nonsense, and, as Northolt has stated the Mirror article is more informative to the facts.
It will be interesting to see if a case is there to answer to, and what that case may be!

 

In law, the case HAS not been prejudiced. What I am saying is that IF we are docked points we could claim prejudice siting the Sun as evidence.

 

The way I see it, if the FA/FL had a pair between them and set rules and stuck by them there wouldn't be this thread. But as we all know they haven't and deal in double standards. QPR (if found guilty of wrong doing) should be dealt the same punishment as West Ham were. Whether they have a multi-billionaire backer or a pauper in charge.
The FA/FL need to set a punishment for future infringements to apply to all clubs and stick by them.

 

Utter tosh, the FL will do you for making payments to unregistered agents, in exactly the same way they did with the Bedfordshire filth. They got 10 points for that and there is no argument against it, clubs are responsible for ensuring that they only make payments to registered agents - no knowing is not a valid defence. You will get at least a 10 point deduction...however you were still ther best team in the championship and deserve to be promoted, so no sour grapes from me.

 

Hmm! A reasoned arguement. I'm glad you're not our defence lawyer!