pasty
A different kind of pasty
Just briefly heard on SSN, QPR have been charged with 7 breaches of FA regulations relating to a transfer. Didn't catch full details
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
QPR in the shit?
- Thread starter pasty
- Start date
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
They lost £13m last season and the current owners are rumoured to want to sell. Can't find anything yet online other than a tweet from someone saying 'look at all those fines'.
qpr - Google Search
TheFA.com - QPR and Paladini charged
qpr - Google Search
TheFA.com - QPR and Paladini charged
Last edited:
pasty
A different kind of pasty
- Thread starter
- #3
On the FA website now. What sort of punishment could this carry if found guilty?
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/QPR-Paladini-charged
The FA has charged Queens Park Rangers FC with seven breaches of FA regulations.
The Club charges relate to the player Alejandro Faurlin and concern the alleged existence of an agreement between the Club and a third party in respect of the player’s economic rights, and 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.
These charges are brought under FA Rules C1(b)(iii) and E3, and the Third Party Investment in Players Regulations, A1 and A2.
The Club is also charged with allegedly using or seeking to pay an Unauthorised Agent in relation to the player’s registration in July 2009. This charge is brought under the Players Agents Regulations, A1.
The Club and Club Official Gianni Paladini are also charged in respect of allegedly false information contained in documents submitted to The FA in relation to the same player signing an extension to his playing contract with the Club in October 2010. These charges are brought under the Players Agents Regulations, C2, and FA Rule E3.
The FA will make no further comment at this time.
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/QPR-Paladini-charged
The FA has charged Queens Park Rangers FC with seven breaches of FA regulations.
The Club charges relate to the player Alejandro Faurlin and concern the alleged existence of an agreement between the Club and a third party in respect of the player’s economic rights, and 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.
These charges are brought under FA Rules C1(b)(iii) and E3, and the Third Party Investment in Players Regulations, A1 and A2.
The Club is also charged with allegedly using or seeking to pay an Unauthorised Agent in relation to the player’s registration in July 2009. This charge is brought under the Players Agents Regulations, A1.
The Club and Club Official Gianni Paladini are also charged in respect of allegedly false information contained in documents submitted to The FA in relation to the same player signing an extension to his playing contract with the Club in October 2010. These charges are brought under the Players Agents Regulations, C2, and FA Rule E3.
The FA will make no further comment at this time.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,975
Just saw this. I don't understand what the FA can do about the third-party thing as it wasn't against any Football League rules and they don't control the league
From the Guardian
The course of this season's Championship title race could be dramatically altered if the runaway leaders Queens Park Rangers are docked points after being charged with seven serious breaches of Football Association rules.
The FA has alleged that QPR fielded a player, the Argentinian midfielder Alejandro Faurlin, for a full season in 2009-10 while his registration was not owned by the club but by a third party. That, the FA alleges, breached the rule introduced in July 2009 following the Carlos Tevez affair, which prohibited English clubs from fielding players owned wholly or in part by third‑party interests.
West Ham United were fined £5.5m by an independent Premier League commission in 2007 for breaching regulations when signing Tevez, a decision widely criticised as not severe enough because West Ham were not docked points. By a twist of fate the manager of Sheffield United, who went down in 2006-07 and then sued West Ham because the latter had stayed up with Tevez's help, was Neil Warnock, now manager of QPR. At the time Warnock argued publicly that West Ham should have been docked points.
West Ham were not charged then with breaching the prohibition on third‑party ownership because that rule was not yet in place. Their disciplinary case was brought by the Premier League for their failure to supply all relevant documentation in a transfer and acting in bad faith, two charges applied to QPR on Wednesday.
QPR, seven points clear of Swansea City at the top of the Championship, are charged with breaching four rules for fielding Faurlin while he was owned by a third party. The FA is understood to allege Faurlin's owner was a company, but the governing body did not disclose the company's identitywhen announcing the charges.
QPR were also charged with "using or seeking to pay an unauthorised agent" when the player was signed in July 2009. The FA did not say who the unauthorised agent was but the governing body considers it a serious offence for a club to deal with anybody in a transfer who is not licensed as an agent under Fifa regulations.
The club and its chairman, Gianni Paladini, were also charged with submitting false information in documents lodged with the FA when Faurlin signed an extension to his playing contract in October 2010. All players' contracts with clubs have to be sent to the FA and it is understood that this seventh charge also relates to dealing with an unauthorised agent.
Just one of these charges on its own could produce heavy penalties, including swingeing fines and points deduction. In June 2008 Luton Town were docked 10 points by an FA disciplinary commission for breaches of rules which included dealing with unlicensed agents in four transfers, none as substantial or high profile as that of Faurlin. No club has yet been charged for breaching the prohibition on third‑party ownership introduced in 2009, so the FA commission hearing the QPR case will be under pressure to set a convincing precedent if it upholds the charges. The FA will be keen to have the case decided soon, so that any penalty will come into effect this season.
Faurlin has made a major impact at Loftus Road, having been the QPR players' and supporters' player of the year in his first season last year, and is a regular in Warnock's side this season.
The alleged ownership of his registration by an outside company is understood to have come to light last summer after the Football League introduced its own rules barring third‑party ownership. QPR approached the league, saying they wanted to buy out Faurlin's registration, and the league is understood to have then referred the club to the FA.
QPR issued a statement on Wednesday saying the club and Paladini will be "denying all of the charges and requesting a formal FA hearing to determine them. QPR and Mr Paladini are confident that there has been no deliberate wrongdoing involved".
Paladini said he could not elaborate and the club has appointed lawyers to defend the charges. "I am happy with the way we acted," he said. "I do not think we have anything to worry about."
From the Guardian
The course of this season's Championship title race could be dramatically altered if the runaway leaders Queens Park Rangers are docked points after being charged with seven serious breaches of Football Association rules.
The FA has alleged that QPR fielded a player, the Argentinian midfielder Alejandro Faurlin, for a full season in 2009-10 while his registration was not owned by the club but by a third party. That, the FA alleges, breached the rule introduced in July 2009 following the Carlos Tevez affair, which prohibited English clubs from fielding players owned wholly or in part by third‑party interests.
West Ham United were fined £5.5m by an independent Premier League commission in 2007 for breaching regulations when signing Tevez, a decision widely criticised as not severe enough because West Ham were not docked points. By a twist of fate the manager of Sheffield United, who went down in 2006-07 and then sued West Ham because the latter had stayed up with Tevez's help, was Neil Warnock, now manager of QPR. At the time Warnock argued publicly that West Ham should have been docked points.
West Ham were not charged then with breaching the prohibition on third‑party ownership because that rule was not yet in place. Their disciplinary case was brought by the Premier League for their failure to supply all relevant documentation in a transfer and acting in bad faith, two charges applied to QPR on Wednesday.
QPR, seven points clear of Swansea City at the top of the Championship, are charged with breaching four rules for fielding Faurlin while he was owned by a third party. The FA is understood to allege Faurlin's owner was a company, but the governing body did not disclose the company's identitywhen announcing the charges.
QPR were also charged with "using or seeking to pay an unauthorised agent" when the player was signed in July 2009. The FA did not say who the unauthorised agent was but the governing body considers it a serious offence for a club to deal with anybody in a transfer who is not licensed as an agent under Fifa regulations.
The club and its chairman, Gianni Paladini, were also charged with submitting false information in documents lodged with the FA when Faurlin signed an extension to his playing contract in October 2010. All players' contracts with clubs have to be sent to the FA and it is understood that this seventh charge also relates to dealing with an unauthorised agent.
Just one of these charges on its own could produce heavy penalties, including swingeing fines and points deduction. In June 2008 Luton Town were docked 10 points by an FA disciplinary commission for breaches of rules which included dealing with unlicensed agents in four transfers, none as substantial or high profile as that of Faurlin. No club has yet been charged for breaching the prohibition on third‑party ownership introduced in 2009, so the FA commission hearing the QPR case will be under pressure to set a convincing precedent if it upholds the charges. The FA will be keen to have the case decided soon, so that any penalty will come into effect this season.
Faurlin has made a major impact at Loftus Road, having been the QPR players' and supporters' player of the year in his first season last year, and is a regular in Warnock's side this season.
The alleged ownership of his registration by an outside company is understood to have come to light last summer after the Football League introduced its own rules barring third‑party ownership. QPR approached the league, saying they wanted to buy out Faurlin's registration, and the league is understood to have then referred the club to the FA.
QPR issued a statement on Wednesday saying the club and Paladini will be "denying all of the charges and requesting a formal FA hearing to determine them. QPR and Mr Paladini are confident that there has been no deliberate wrongdoing involved".
Paladini said he could not elaborate and the club has appointed lawyers to defend the charges. "I am happy with the way we acted," he said. "I do not think we have anything to worry about."
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
I wouldn't put much past Paladini, they certainly need some good lawyers.
Prepare for the mother of all explosions from Warnock, though, he risks being shafted twice on this rule, once at the Blades and now all his good work at QPR could get undone by something not on his watch.
Don't honestly see how they can be docked points, West Ham's case was as clear a rules breach as you will ever see, with lying and a cover-up thrown in. Ducking the decision to dock them points must have set a precedent. Big fine the outcome.
Prepare for the mother of all explosions from Warnock, though, he risks being shafted twice on this rule, once at the Blades and now all his good work at QPR could get undone by something not on his watch.
Don't honestly see how they can be docked points, West Ham's case was as clear a rules breach as you will ever see, with lying and a cover-up thrown in. Ducking the decision to dock them points must have set a precedent. Big fine the outcome.
BensGrandad
New member
The FA control every league and every team taking part in those leagues from the youngest to the Premiership and England in ternational teams. It is possible for a few teams to form their own league and not seek sanction from the FA via their county association but to do so forbids them from using players or officials who are quaiified and registered under the FA. This problem often arises when a club decides to set up a charity pre season tournament or game and forgets to notify their local association to obtain sanction to play the games.
But as the Guardian piece says, West Ham weren't charged with several of the alleged offences as they weren't against the rules at the time. Using Luton as a precedent, QPR could be hit by a big points deduction.
I suspect they won't be as QPR will be soon as too big a club - but if, say, Brentford or Barnet had committed the same offence, they'd have had the rule-book thrown at them, as Luton did.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,975
I understand that but if it wasn't against the Football League rules how can they take away FL points?
BensGrandad
New member
I believe that it is against FA rules so they being the major body can give any punishment that they deem fit. It could be argued that as they have broken FA rules they have unfairly benefitted in their league and the FA can order the league to impose a points deduction.
Not likley to happen but the FA could say to the FL you deduct 10 points or we will not sanction your league for next season, which would be the end of the FL as they would have no players or officials to participate. I have known Surrey FA do that to local leagues.
Last edited:
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 9,136
Exactly! Third party ownership of players was not against the rules at the time, and is currently a common practice in football worldwide. It's either allowed or it isn't and FIFA is happy to allow this practice to continue. It must also be noted that the FA allows far more third party influence with the loan system when the loaning team is actually to dictate which team their opponents can pick.
Jimbo.GRFC
Banned
- Apr 2, 2010
- 1,378
Interesting article covered by most papers regarding Neil Warnock's stance on this.
When West Ham had the exactly the same issue with Tevez and Mascherano, Sheffield United were screaming blue murder, rightly so as they were relegated, West Ham admitted their guilt and copped a £5.5m fine. Warnock was still up in arms even after that.
Now the boot is on the other foot he feels hard done by as he wasn't in charge at the time (2009), your money men were with their playtoy. You are the manager of THEIR club. Mittal, Briatore, Paladini, Ecclestone, the list could go on for other unknown investment corporations
By denying the offence which I'm sure must have been properly looked into by the authorities before this stage, his club are now contesting the charge
Now although Faurlin was signed before he took over as manager the same or at best fine of, say half the above amount should take place. Absolute peanut's to a board of wealth of at least £25 billion pounds.
Take it on the chin, even £5.5 million wouldn't ripple your pockets !!
I sense a dark side of QPR.......Premier Land investment portfolio perhaps as with Chelsea
smudge
Up the Albion!
I wouldn't laugh MUCH if the wheels come off there.
- Jul 8, 2003
- 1,586
QPR players' and supporters' player of the year in his first season last year, and is a regular in Warnock's side this season.
Why are these breaches never for a bloke who couldn't hit barn door and sat on the bench all season. Like Tevez seems he sems to have made quite an impact.
Why are these breaches never for a bloke who couldn't hit barn door and sat on the bench all season. Like Tevez seems he sems to have made quite an impact.
beardy gull
Well-known member
"I think it's for the directors and the board, this, but I was disappointed with the timing of it. When you read the 36-page [Premier League inquiry] dossier, it's only human to look and not understand why they haven't had any points deducted. That is why you do get disappointed." - Neil Warnock May 2007
Jimbo.GRFC
Banned
- Apr 2, 2010
- 1,378
The thing about Warnock is he does wear his heart on his sleeve but does himself no favours with his rants. As my mum always told me you can't have it both ways son.....Invaluable lesson in life !!