QPR - Points Deduction

[gjh1971]

The Tevez/Mascharano affair was concluded in the summer of 2008, a whole year before QPR signed Faurlin. Any club signing a player via a third party must have known it was not the correct procedure, despite the new rules taking a year to formulate

 

[SussexHoop]

The FL didn't just bring these rules in on a whim, I am positive QPR would have been fully aware of the fact these rules would shortly be coming into effect, you broke the rules you should be punished, your A27 comparison is laughable at best.

Go on then - in what way is it laughable? The principle is the same - you do something that at the time is legal and a month later the rules are changed retrospectively to make it illegal. You have evidence to support your view we were told the rules were changing retrospectively?

 

[Husty]

Go on then - in what way is it laughable? The principle is the same - you do something that at the time is legal and a month later the rules are changed retrospectively to make it illegal. You have evidence to support your view we were told the rules were changing retrospectively?

Because if we are going to turn this into a proper analogy, we need to have big clearly lit signs along the road clearly stating that the speed limit will be changing in 2 months and will be applied retroactively, surely you cannot suggest that the club was not aware the rules would be coming in? DO I have evidence, no, but you don't really have any hard facts either so I don't see your point, and do you honestly think they werent?

 

[BensGrandad]

My argument and I am sure it will be the argument of QPR legal team is that the points deduction of 15 points is an arbitary amount that offers no reflection on the severity or otherwise of the offense and is just a number to ensure that they dont get promoted. It would appear on the face of it that the FA have said 'they must not get promotion lets dock them sufficient points to stop that' how can that be justice.

 

[Gwylan]

At the time of the West Ham/Sheff Utd row, wasn't Warnock quoted as saying that West Ham should have had points deducted for fielding a player of dubious ownership. I think Warnock could find those words are going to haunt him. The FL will bear in mind the words of QPR's own manager when deciding that a points deduction is a condign punishment.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My argument and I am sure it will be the argument of QPR legal team is that the points deduction of 15 points is an arbitary amount that offers no reflection on the severity or otherwise of the offense and is just a number to ensure that they dont get promoted. It would appear on the face of it that the FA have said 'they must not get promotion lets dock them sufficient points to stop that' how can that be justice.

Which is a fairly weak and spurious arguement.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Tevez/Mascharano affair was concluded in the summer of 2008, a whole year before QPR signed Faurlin. Any club signing a player via a third party must have known it was not the correct procedure, despite the new rules taking a year to formulate

Very good point.

 

[Husty]

At the time of the West Ham/Sheff Utd row, wasn't Warnock quoted as saying that West Ham should have had points deducted for fielding a player of dubious ownership. I think Warnock could find those words are going to haunt him. The FL will bear in mind the words of QPR's own manager when deciding that a points deduction is a condign punishment.

If true...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

At the time of the West Ham/Sheff Utd row, wasn't Warnock quoted as saying that West Ham should have had points deducted for fielding a player of dubious ownership. I think Warnock could find those words are going to haunt him. The FL will bear in mind the words of QPR's own manager when deciding that a points deduction is a condign punishment.

Warnock blathers on so much you can probably quote him as saying anything. He's the embodiment of a monkey, a typewriter and infinite time.

 

[Gwylan]

I was right

May 2009: "Warnock also had some scathing words for Premier League chief Richard Scudamore claiming he favoured West Ham in the casefor "bending head over heels" to defend West Ham even after their plea of guilty at the original hearing where they were handed a record fine but crucially not a points deduction. Warnock said about Scudamore. "If it had been a bigger club it would have been dealt with at the time and it wouldn't have been brushed under the carpet. I am very bitter about Richard Scudamore and the Premier League because it was my dream job as well."

 

[Samej]

If true...

The FA are a bunch of wankers why has this taken 2 years to sort out, they couldn`t run a pub

 

[clapham_gull]

I understand the new rules came into force on 4 August 2009 effective from 4 July 2009. We announced the signing of Faurlin on 6th/7th July 2009 so I think that's saying we weren't doing anthing wrong when we signed him but a few weeks later, it was deemed to be a breach of the rules.

But the third party ownership only accounts for about a third of the charge doesn't it ?

Irrespective of whether the rules were known or not, one of the charges relates to documents being changed more recently. There is also the alleged use of unlicensed agents.

 

[Husty]

I was right

May 2009: "Warnock also had some scathing words for Premier League chief Richard Scudamore claiming he favoured West Ham in the casefor "bending head over heels" to defend West Ham even after their plea of guilty at the original hearing where they were handed a record fine but crucially not a points deduction. Warnock said about Scudamore. "If it had been a bigger club it would have been dealt with at the time and it wouldn't have been brushed under the carpet. I am very bitter about Richard Scudamore and the Premier League because it was my dream job as well."

You've made my day, thank you.

 

[clapham_gull]

The FA are a bunch of wankers why has this taken 2 years to sort out, they couldn`t run a pub

Trying to get more detail, but I read that the problems were discovered by the Football League in September 2010. They were then passed onto the FA to deal with.

Not sure where you get the two years from.

 

[severnside gull]

Seems QPR might be 1-0 up already

BBC Sport - QPR ask FA to investigate newspaper claims

It is somewhat beholden on the authorities to prove that they are acting impartially and could well impact on the severity of any penalty they (dare to) now impose IF they find Rangers guilty

 

[Nottseagull]

QPR set to loose 15 points according to the Sun

The FA are set to strip QPR of promotion to the Premier League | The Sun |Sport|Football

What a crap article; it doesn't even say what 3rd party ownership is! Of a player? I have no idea what that means or what offence has been committed.

 

[Acker79]

What a crap article; it doesn't even say what 3rd party ownership is! Of a player? I have no idea what means is or what offence has been committed.

As I understand it, 3rd Party ownership is basically where an agent or company "owns" a player even when that player is registered with a club, i.e. they get the money from transfer fees instead of the club.

Third-party ownership in association football - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Brighton Buzz]

I'm a bit bias here as my dad is a QPR supporter, I hope QPR go up, but I think they'll be finned.

Slap round the head with a wet kipper should surfice then

 

[The Brighton Buzz]

I'm a bit bias here as my dad is a QPR supporter, I hope QPR go up, but I think they'll be finned. It would be a disgrace to allow all this time to take away points. I think the FA would of made this decision earlier, plus it seems harsh to do this after their season finishes. from the comment above, they've had the offending player for a few years now, so it was just for this year, plus I don't think they knew about it?

Slap round the face with a wet kipper should surfice then

 

[klaaturberada]

It's "lose" not "loose".

Carry on.....