Drama Queens face points deduction????............
- Thread starter 7797100
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I don't think the Football League can give a points deduction in the Premier League, I think they'll get a let off.
The Football League won't be giving them anything anyway, it's the FA's rules they've broken.
The points penalty, if any, will be minimal.
The FA will not penalise QPR to the extent of bringing forward the 7th placed team into the play offs.
They will not want to take a chance of promoting either Millwall (with their thugs), or TWS (with their financial skulduggery that went on when they went under).
It will be QPR (as champions), Norwich and one other (personally think Reading)
The FA will not penalise QPR to the extent of bringing forward the 7th placed team into the play offs.
They will not want to take a chance of promoting either Millwall (with their thugs), or TWS (with their financial skulduggery that went on when they went under).
It will be QPR (as champions), Norwich and one other (personally think Reading)
I havent read the whole thread so this might have already been said but I heard a rumour that its a lot more serious and possibly includes the falsifying of documents
I must point out that this is only a rumour I have no proof and the person that told me had no proof and was just repeating what they were told
I must point out that this is only a rumour I have no proof and the person that told me had no proof and was just repeating what they were told
This is a no brainer.
The FA are waiting to see how many points DQPR are going to finish the season with, they will then deduct them enough points to allow them to go up as champions and a very hefty fine so they can say they have done their job. They will never publish the full findings due to further legal issues with other clubs like Luton. Basically, they will cop out as they often do when a club has money.
It is all a major cock up, they should have dealt with this last year when it all first came to light.
UTT
The FA are waiting to see how many points DQPR are going to finish the season with, they will then deduct them enough points to allow them to go up as champions and a very hefty fine so they can say they have done their job. They will never publish the full findings due to further legal issues with other clubs like Luton. Basically, they will cop out as they often do when a club has money.
It is all a major cock up, they should have dealt with this last year when it all first came to light.
UTT
To be honest thats my thoughts exactly despite the rumour I heard
Except the FA may just give big enough point deduction to put them second but I still believe they will go up automatically
I've read that they actually face six charges so you could well be proved right although I've not heard what those charges might be. Certainly seems more serious then some might think??
It's 7 charges, but the evidence is laughable in some of them.
The 3rd party matter they contacted the authorities before the rule came in and asked what they needed to do. The FA said they were fine to play him while they thought about it. The rule kicked in in August, the FA told them in October they needed to change some things so they did it straight away. In March the FA decided it wasn't good enough.
They've also been charged with using an unlicenced agent. For that offence before Bristol City were fined ã30k. In this case the agent is licenced by FIFA but wasn't registered with the FA so it's a lesser offence than Bristol committed. There's also the issue that the rules for that kicked in on 4th July and the deal was confirmed on 6th July. QPR claim that as the rule says that from that date clubs can't use unregistered agents in deals rather than deals involving unregistered agents can't be completed that they haven't broken that rule because he'd finished his work on the deal in advance.
The falsifying documents has apparently (I haven't seen hard evidence of this but it's comical if it's true) been caused by the paperwork saying Faurlin was signed for a fee of around ã600k whilst the club publically claimed he was signed in a ã3.5M deal. There's no denying the club claimed it was a ã3.5M deal, but the first thing I and several QPR fans on the forum I used noticed at the time of the transfer was that it said deal and not fee. At the time of the transfer we were already saying it meant the fee was far smaller and that they'd included clauses and even the player's wages for the length of his contract (like us claiming Bullard was signed in a ã15M+ deal) and they were using the higher figure as spin to make them look like they were splashing the cash in a bid to boost season ticket sales.
The 3rd party matter they contacted the authorities before the rule came in and asked what they needed to do. The FA said they were fine to play him while they thought about it. The rule kicked in in August, the FA told them in October they needed to change some things so they did it straight away. In March the FA decided it wasn't good enough.
They've also been charged with using an unlicenced agent. For that offence before Bristol City were fined ã30k. In this case the agent is licenced by FIFA but wasn't registered with the FA so it's a lesser offence than Bristol committed. There's also the issue that the rules for that kicked in on 4th July and the deal was confirmed on 6th July. QPR claim that as the rule says that from that date clubs can't use unregistered agents in deals rather than deals involving unregistered agents can't be completed that they haven't broken that rule because he'd finished his work on the deal in advance.
The falsifying documents has apparently (I haven't seen hard evidence of this but it's comical if it's true) been caused by the paperwork saying Faurlin was signed for a fee of around ã600k whilst the club publically claimed he was signed in a ã3.5M deal. There's no denying the club claimed it was a ã3.5M deal, but the first thing I and several QPR fans on the forum I used noticed at the time of the transfer was that it said deal and not fee. At the time of the transfer we were already saying it meant the fee was far smaller and that they'd included clauses and even the player's wages for the length of his contract (like us claiming Bullard was signed in a ã15M+ deal) and they were using the higher figure as spin to make them look like they were splashing the cash in a bid to boost season ticket sales.
The league were saying that the trophy might not be given to QPR on Saturday, but they've just released this statement - "The Football League can confirm that it intends to present the npower Championship trophy to Queens Park Rangers at the conclusion of tomorrow's fixture with Leeds United, in line with custom and practice".
From what I've read, I don't think there's much of a case to answer on the third party ownership charges, it's just the falsifying of documents that they seem to be in trouble for. I still think they'll get away with a fine, or a nominal points deduction that won't affect anything.
From what I've read, I don't think there's much of a case to answer on the third party ownership charges, it's just the falsifying of documents that they seem to be in trouble for. I still think they'll get away with a fine, or a nominal points deduction that won't affect anything.
not what Palios said though is it? he reckoned minumum 10pts and as a former FA chief you'd expect him to have an inkling..
From a dqpr point of view also some good comments after the article.http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/footba...r_final_day_celebrations_–_full_match_preview
But that cock thought they were using an ineligible player when the FA had said it was fine to use him, and said it should be a points deduction for the agents because Luton were deducted points. Luton were deducted points for irregular payments to agents which was a completely different offence, and as I said, Bristol City were given a trivial fine when they were found guilty of the offence QPR have been charged with.
No. Rules now exist that prohibit it. When QPR signed Faurlin they didn't. Ahead of them being introduced they contacted the FA and asked what they needed to do about Faurlin. It was entirely the FAs fault for not telling them until 2 months after the rule kicked in. Would hardly be fair to deduct points on that one.
They've been found guilty of 2 of the 7 charges, until we see which there's no reason to think there should have been a penalty.