Statement

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
its an Agent Reigstered with Fifa but not the Fa (untill recently) Looks after the like's of Figo, Bale, Crouch Based in central london....

How are things ur side of the midland do you work in Cannock?
 
Qpranger100 said:
its an Agent Reigstered with Fifa but not the Fa (untill recently) Looks after the like's of Figo, Bale, Crouch Based in central london....

How are things ur side of the midland do you work in Cannock?
Click to expand...

Oh ****e, I think the rules state they need to be registered with the FA if they are doing business in this country, having said that the rules came into effect on the 4th July 2009, so i guess its going to be the same argument here also, they probably passed this in August as well and back dated it again.

I work in Lichfield chap - and can say its a glorious sunny day!
 
in my opinion, the FA are unlikely to give as us any more than a fine as when we signed Faurlin we were not breaking any rules as they came into effect after he was signed. And if the FA did dock us points, which prevented us from getting promoted, we would be able to sue the FA for loss of incomes and revenue in excess of £80 million (roughly what you get for going up)
 
My concern is that the delay (since September and since initially announcing the charges last month) has given the FA plenty of time to consider whether they have a case to prosecute or not. Rs reps would have been trying to persuade the FA that there's no case to answer (except the one about failing to submit ALL material information re. the transfer).

Interesting that the point made above about the rule being passed in August and backdated to 4 July seems to have cut no ice... can only think that the FA's case is that the club should have come forward the minute the backdate was announced with a plea for leniency on the grounds of special circumstances.

However, the Inquiry date has now been set with none of the seven charges withdrawn. The FA have the power to do so and will have been mindful of the potential for egg on their faces if the Rangers people are able to refute the majority of the charges as we tend to anticipate. Either the FA (despite access to good quality advice) are determined to further damage their own reputation OR they are supremely confident that the charges will be proven. This is afterall a high profile case involving the runaway leaders of the Championship. The FA will be totally aware of the implications for us and a host of other clubs if they screw up in any way... especially with the appeal process to take into consideration.
 
I cant See the fa really wanting the drag this out any longer.

there are a few questions that need answering:
A) why did they wait so long to bring up the charges (when they knew from sept)
b) Was it there choice or have the club asked for as much time as possible
c) will A lengthy court case (if points deduction is there choice) be worth while
d)if the club has asked for this much time is it because they are clutching a straws trying to find out whats best to do.
E)what part (if any) did the agents play and can this be down to bad managment or indeed just a mistake.

For me it doesnt seem like either side are sure. Im hopeing for a large fine and no points to be deducted....
 
BrixtonR said:
Interesting that the point made above about the rule being passed in August and backdated to 4 July seems to have cut no ice... can only think that the FA's case is that the club should have come forward the minute the backdate was announced with a plea for leniency on the grounds of special circumstances.
Click to expand...

It may well be that the 'failure to notify' charge relates specifically to exactly this - that we had notice of the rule change, and didn't then tell the FA that we may have been in breach of the new rule. Certainly when the contract was renegotiated in September (when this all came to light) the FA were told everything about the deal, and that's where the possible breach of regulations was noticed.
 
West London Willy said:
It may well be that the 'failure to notify' charge relates specifically to exactly this - that we had notice of the rule change, and didn't then tell the FA that we may have been in breach of the new rule. Certainly when the contract was renegotiated in September (when this all came to light) the FA were told everything about the deal, and that's where the possible breach of regulations was noticed.
Click to expand...

Hi Willy, I see what your saying but the statement specifically says the charges relate to 'the alleged failure by the Club to notify The FA of that agreement before the player was registered to play in England in July 2009.' not after we became aware of the situation following a rule change.

Not sure if the wording of the statement is that crucial though and you could well be right.

It also raises the issue that if a club enters into a contract which is deemed OK at the time but then following an FA rule change is not deemed OK, where does that leave a club who have already entered into a legally binding contract.

I do think you raise an important point though, why did we only fess up in Sept last year? Why not before?
 
Because Sept last year is when we renigotiated his contract and got rid of the third party ownership i hope to god that this goes ok... Unfortunitely for me the last time we were in the prem was the first year i had a season ticket my earliest memory of football is that dredded man u game with 9 mins extra time...

one thing is certain its never easy being a qpr fan....
 
CannockQPR said:
Hi Willy, I see what your saying but the statement specifically says the charges relate to 'the alleged failure by the Club to notify The FA of that agreement before the player was registered to play in England in July 2009.' not after we became aware of the situation following a rule change.
Click to expand...

Which, if it were the case, would be dumb - how can we be charged for not telling them before July 7th that we might be in breach of a rule that at that point didn't exist? Note I said dumb - not impossible. We are talking about the FA, after all...

CannockQPR said:
Not sure if the wording of the statement is that crucial though and you could well be right.

It also raises the issue that if a club enters into a contract which is deemed OK at the time but then following an FA rule change is not deemed OK, where does that leave a club who have already entered into a legally binding contract.
Click to expand...

That question will almost certainly be the very first one that the QPR legal team ask.
 
Qpranger100 said:
Because Sept last year is when we renigotiated his contract and got rid of the third party ownership i hope to god that this goes ok... Unfortunitely for me the last time we were in the prem was the first year i had a season ticket my earliest memory of football is that dredded man u game with 9 mins extra time...

one thing is certain its never easy being a qpr fan....
Click to expand...

****e - I doubt this will deemed acceptable, I think the FA will take the view that once we became aware of the rule change we should have fessed up in August 2009, i think the rules would of then allowed us to buy out the 3rd party and all would have been good, not fessing up and leaving it a year until we re-negotiated his contract is i think contrary to the rules although in true FA style they are quite hard to follow with regards contracts that existed before the rule change. Also when we did buy out the 3rd party the money should of been paid through the FA - do we know if we did this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back