QPR to get a slap on the wrist and a fine

according to the former Crystal palace owner, Simon Jordan. He suggests that the third party law wasn't in place when he was signed, and seems confident tgat all the othetr charges are irrelevant, he could know something we all don't or be talking complete bollocks! One thing that was interesting, is that he said this all came to light because QPR were playing the big un by claiming they paid £3.5 Million for Faulin, to show the fans that they were spending money, yet paid a fraction of that, which was highlighted when the transfer was shown to the FA, which apparently then raised suspicians on where all parts of the money involved had gone. All sounds a bit murky to me!

Jordan's a wanker though. Wouldn't listen to anything that nomark has to say.

Mark Palios says something different (wasnt he the ex chief of the FA?) - said they woudl get a points deduction of min 10 points he also stated all the other precident examples. IF they found guilty and enforce the letter of the law - then - there is going to a big fine plus points.
Thats IF they get found guilty

Mark Palios says something different (wasnt he the ex chief of the FA?) - said they woudl get a points deduction of min 10 points he also stated all the other precident examples. IF they found guilty and enforce the letter of the law - then - there is going to a big fine plus points.
Thats IF they get found guilty

Palios was the CEO of the FA until Faria Alam told the world she had given one just after she had given Sven a blowjob.

He should know what he is talking about though.

Jordan's a wanker though. Wouldn't listen to anything that nomark has to say.

probably on the fuckin take.

according to the former Crystal palace owner, Simon Jordan. He suggests that the third party law wasn't in place when he was signed, and seems confident tgat all the othetr charges are irrelevant, he could know something we all don't or be talking complete bollocks! One thing that was interesting, is that he said this all came to light because QPR were playing the big un by claiming they paid £3.5 Million for Faulin, to show the fans that they were spending money, yet paid a fraction of that, which was highlighted when the transfer was shown to the FA, which apparently then raised suspicians on where all parts of the money involved had gone. All sounds a bit murky to me!

15 deduction.

according to the former Crystal palace owner, Simon Jordan. He suggests that the third party law wasn't in place when he was signed, and seems confident tgat all the othetr charges are irrelevant, he could know something we all don't or be talking complete bollocks! One thing that was interesting, is that he said this all came to light because QPR were playing the big un by claiming they paid £3.5 Million for Faulin, to show the fans that they were spending money, yet paid a fraction of that, which was highlighted when the transfer was shown to the FA, which apparently then raised suspicians on where all parts of the money involved had gone. All sounds a bit murky to me!

The version I read was that Faurlin's value was £3.5m but QPR made an initial payment of £600,000 2009 and tried to decieve the FA that this was his full value to avoid third party rules.

according to the former Crystal palace owner, Simon Jordan. He suggests that the third party law wasn't in place when he was signed, and seems confident tgat all the othetr charges are irrelevant, he could know something we all don't or be talking complete bollocks! One thing that was interesting, is that he said this all came to light because QPR were playing the big un by claiming they paid £3.5 Million for Faulin, to show the fans that they were spending money, yet paid a fraction of that, which was highlighted when the transfer was shown to the FA, which apparently then raised suspicians on where all parts of the money involved had gone. All sounds a bit murky to me!

The version I read was that Faurlin's value was £3.5m but QPR made an initial payment of £600,000 2009 and tried to decieve the FA that this was his full value to avoid third party rules.

Hmm, that makes sense, and kind of ties in with what jordan was saying. Although I suspect, that Jordan is playing the defence for QPR and his great mate Neil Warnock.

More to the point QPR 'bigged' up the value of the transfer at the time to appease the fans. When the signing was announced the offish website announced that it was a deal 'worth up to £3.5million'. At the time we all collective thought that it was utter bullshit and no doubt this also included, wages, signing on fees etc. £600,000 it has been quoted is nearer the mark of the fee paid for the services of Faurlin. At the time the owners of the club, in particular Briatore and also Paladini were being openly slated by the supporters for the way that they were handling the managerial situation, Sousa had been sacked in the previous April and Jim Magilton had been appointed. It was also claimed at the time that Magilton and Gorman had spotted Faurlin on a scouting trip to Argentina in the previous January at the time that they signed Canouga for Ipswich. They were to line up a purchase for Ipswich that same summer, but he then got the sack. Hence he then recommended Faurlin to the QPR board. Since Magilton's departure, Paladini has since claimed that he was the one that recommended Faurlin, but to be honest, something that it seems Paladini has trouble with himself, I doubt this story.

With reference to Simon Jordan's interview on Talksport, yes to many, myself included, he can be an absolutely loathsome individual, but one thing is for certain, he knows his eggs, in particular FA disciplinary hearings, after all he has appeared in front of enough of them. He certainly is no fool, despite his ownership of Crystal Palace. But he has confirmed one thing that I think everybody is certain about, the FA has created for itself a f**king big hole that they will do well to get out of. It also looks like that QPR has issued a huge writ against the Sun, and I would not be surprised in the least if they issue a similar writ against the FA, in terms of what Jordan said about who the source for the Sun's article was, especially that it was an FA Councillor! I would also put my mortgage on the fact that QPR has all this information to hand. If a points deduction was to occur then I reckon things will get extremely messy. If it doesn't then I suggest that the Sun will be providing us with the first down payment for our first signing in the PL!

The point here is was there a 3rd party agreement in place this is the fundemental point that QPR have to defend, is the monetary value of any importance well only if there is an agreement in the first place.

Then the value be it £1, £600,000 or £3.5m will become relevent because under FA Regulations ALL payments must be made via FA controlled accounts.

From the clubs perspective have the 3rd party agreement allegation charge deemed NOT PROVEN will pretty much see the other charges fail as well.

With the exception of course of submitting false documentation to the FA Investigation Department and the charge of bringing the game into disrepute.

But IMO that would leave Mr Paladini very very exposed and lets face it if they get only him it will be a result.

More to the point QPR 'bigged' up the value of the transfer at the time to appease the fans. When the signing was announced the offish website announced that it was a deal 'worth up to £3.5million'. At the time we all collective thought that it was utter bullshit and no doubt this also included, wages, signing on fees etc. £600,000 it has been quoted is nearer the mark of the fee paid for the services of Faurlin. At the time the owners of the club, in particular Briatore and also Paladini were being openly slated by the supporters for the way that they were handling the managerial situation, Sousa had been sacked in the previous April and Jim Magilton had been appointed. It was also claimed at the time that Magilton and Gorman had spotted Faurlin on a scouting trip to Argentina in the previous January at the time that they signed Canouga for Ipswich. They were to line up a purchase for Ipswich that same summer, but he then got the sack. Hence he then recommended Faurlin to the QPR board. Since Magilton's departure, Paladini has since claimed that he was the one that recommended Faurlin, but to be honest, something that it seems Paladini has trouble with himself, I doubt this story.

With reference to Simon Jordan's interview on Talksport, yes to many, myself included, he can be an absolutely loathsome individual, but one thing is for certain, he knows his eggs, in particular FA disciplinary hearings, after all he has appeared in front of enough of them. He certainly is no fool, despite his ownership of Crystal Palace. But he has confirmed one thing that I think everybody is certain about, the FA has created for itself a f**king big hole that they will do well to get out of. It also looks like that QPR has issued a huge writ against the Sun, and I would not be surprised in the least if they issue a similar writ against the FA, in terms of what Jordan said about who the source for the Sun's article was, especially that it was an FA Councillor! I would also put my mortgage on the fact that QPR has all this information to hand. If a points deduction was to occur then I reckon things will get extremely messy. If it doesn't then I suggest that the Sun will be providing us with the first down payment for our first signing in the PL!

The FA didn't create the hole, QPR did when they broke the rules mate. It seems that the oh so confident QPR fans that we have been seeing on here have all of a sudden been trying to shift the focus. Plus Warnock went on the offensive against the Sun. If there was nothing in it, why did he do that?

What the Sun said has no bearing on the hearing at all. In fact the story was printed before the hearing began so unless QPR are going to argue that the 4 man panel are going to ignore the evidence and look for their findings in the Sun, then I'd suggest a writ would be futile!

The major issue will be the dates of the Faurlin contract and the dates of the third party rules being brought into force. It is true that once the third party rules were brought into being on 1st September 2010 QPR did notify the FL regarding the Faurlin contract and the FL suggested that they ought to renegotiate his contract to buy out the third party ownership, which was done. At that time it seems that the FA were notified by the FA of the situation, whereby the FA began to investigate and it seems that it does centre on the discrepencies relating to the actual fee and the declared fee on the website. What Jordan was saying is that the Faurlin deal was done before the rules were brought in and therefore the FA hasn't got a leg to stand on. I may be wrong, but the more I read the more I think that it will be a slap on the wrists and a fine and also a fine for Paladini. It would be interesting to find out what the supposed 'false documentation charge relates to.

It appears a little know fact that all players who play in the PL & FL in England have their contracts registered with the FA and those registration documents must comply fully with all FA regulations.

It is absolutely true that the FL did introduce a rule prohibiting 3rd party agreements in players contracts from the beginning of the 2010-2011 season. QPR problem here is that the FL rules were brought in to mirror a new FA regulation which was empowered from the beginning of July 2009, before Faurlin signed for QPR.

Those rules form the basis of the charges QPR face because from July 2009 the FA banned all 3rd party agreements in the contracts of players in England. The fact it is accepted that such an agreement was in place during the 2009 - 2010 season is the fundamental problem QPR have because if FL cannot accept a registration of a player whose contract is in breach of FA regulations. If it is later discovered that the contract does in fact breach regulations it brings into question the eligibility of the player to appear in FL matches.

This is why I think QPR really have get this allegation of 3rd party ownership deemed NOT PROVEN because the consequences of having that allegation proven will be far reaching in my opinion.

My understanding is that QPR are saying the documents were signed prior to the FA empowering these new regulations however the FA will consider the active date of the registration the date on which they received the documents.

On such fine margins QPR fate will hang.

From my understanding the Faurlin signing was completed 2-3 days before the FA rules came into being. The legality is which rule book were QPR playing under, the FA or the FL. If the answer is the FA, then why would the FL have any such rule book and also introduce a similar rule on 1st September 2010? So my thought is that the rule book that QPR would have been playing under would have been the FL rule book. The FL rules on third party ownership were only brought into being to come into line with the FA. One thing is for certain, when it comes to football administration there is just no logic whatsoever.

I have a feeling that to save face the FA will fine QPR heavily and dock them points.

But the points will be off next season (not fair I know but it causes less fuss).

QPR will still appeal but this can be drawn out for months. And the play offs will go ahead as planned.

Unless of course if clubs like Cardiff & Swansea appeal.

From my understanding the Faurlin signing was completed 2-3 days before the FA rules came into being. The legality is which rule book were QPR playing under, the FA or the FL. If the answer is the FA, then why would the FL have any such rule book and also introduce a similar rule on 1st September 2010? So my thought is that the rule book that QPR would have been playing under would have been the FL rule book. The FL rules on third party ownership were only brought into being to come into line with the FA. One thing is for certain, when it comes to football administration there is just no logic whatsoever.

All Leagues, Clubs, Players and Officials first and foremost come under the governance of the National Association who Rules & Regulations will always come before an Affilated League of the FA, and thats what the FL is an Affliated League.

With reference to Simon Jordan's interview on Talksport, yes to many, myself included, he can be an absolutely loathsome individual, but one thing is for certain, he knows his eggs, in particular FA disciplinary hearings, after all he has appeared in front of enough of them. He certainly is no fool, despite his ownership of Crystal Palace. But he has confirmed one thing that I think everybody is certain about, the FA has created for itself a f**king big hole that they will do well to get out of. It also looks like that QPR has issued a huge writ against the Sun, and I would not be surprised in the least if they issue a similar writ against the FA, in terms of what Jordan said about who the source for the Sun's article was, especially that it was an FA Councillor! I would also put my mortgage on the fact that QPR has all this information to hand. If a points deduction was to occur then I reckon things will get extremely messy. If it doesn't then I suggest that the Sun will be providing us with the first down payment for our first signing in the PL!

Writ against the Sun? LMFAO. That'll be interesting. Assuming the source actually exists - which with the Tabloid media isn't a given thing - it would have been an individuals OPINION on the issue.

Given your staff have routinely been leaking to the media themselves - indeed a Mirror journo who plays the "only a fine" card revealed on twitter he'd been informed by ONE OF YOUR legal team, maybe the FA should start a writ against you.

Because you're the ones who have been spinning like crazy in this case, from the initally "we didn't deliberately cheat" statement.

If you've broken the rules, you should expect the punishment. Same for all teams.

Indeed, will QPR issue a writ against the Mirror for claiming only a fine would be given?

After all, clearly that means you'd not get a fair hearing, right?

Oh wait, it's a favourable outcome for the scum that is Paladini. Pet journalist, did his job well.

according to the former Crystal palace owner, Simon Jordan. He suggests that the third party law wasn't in place when he was signed, and seems confident tgat all the othetr charges are irrelevant, he could know something we all don't or be talking complete bollocks! One thing that was interesting, is that he said this all came to light because QPR were playing the big un by claiming they paid £3.5 Million for Faulin, to show the fans that they were spending money, yet paid a fraction of that, which was highlighted when the transfer was shown to the FA, which apparently then raised suspicians on where all parts of the money involved had gone. All sounds a bit murky to me!

15 deduction.

Out of 10 how sure are you they will get deducted ?

according to the former Crystal palace owner, Simon Jordan. He suggests that the third party law wasn't in place when he was signed, and seems confident tgat all the othetr charges are irrelevant, he could know something we all don't or be talking complete bollocks! One thing that was interesting, is that he said this all came to light because QPR were playing the big un by claiming they paid £3.5 Million for Faulin, to show the fans that they were spending money, yet paid a fraction of that, which was highlighted when the transfer was shown to the FA, which apparently then raised suspicians on where all parts of the money involved had gone. All sounds a bit murky to me!

15 deduction.

Out of 10 how sure are you they will get deducted ?

11

according to the former Crystal palace owner, Simon Jordan. He suggests that the third party law wasn't in place when he was signed, and seems confident tgat all the othetr charges are irrelevant, he could know something we all don't or be talking complete bollocks! One thing that was interesting, is that he said this all came to light because QPR were playing the big un by claiming they paid £3.5 Million for Faulin, to show the fans that they were spending money, yet paid a fraction of that, which was highlighted when the transfer was shown to the FA, which apparently then raised suspicians on where all parts of the money involved had gone. All sounds a bit murky to me!

15 deduction.

Out of 10 how sure are you they will get deducted ?

Oh come on! Daya's guess is as good as anyones! as Castle has explained above, It will all depend on the initial charge of an agreement with a 3rd party, and if indeed any documentation was falsified! and Daya has not got or seen any of that evidence!

By the way, I think it's fair to say we are all 0 out of 10 SURE of what or if points get deducted, but on opinions (which is NOT what you asked Daya) - we will all have our own personal judgements! eg. Im 7 out of 10 sure IMO.....

I can see this whole thing coming down to when were the registration documents received by the FA, not signed by the player and club, but when did they arrive at the FA.

The reality is that any player signed before I believe 4th July 2009 is not covered by these regulations and a club could then approach the FA and ask for support to buy out the 3rd party clause without any sanction against the club. If it turns out that someone at QPR failed to fax these documents on say a Friday but waited for a postal delivery on Monday it's frankly a criminal mistake by the club official. But if such time scales are involved they would be strong mitigating factors.

But my gut feeling is that the FA Compliance department would not make such a mistake and therefore QPR are in the smelly stuff.

Point deduction for me all the way.