Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The FA Issues Its Report on QPR, Gianni Paladini and the Faurlin Deal
-
- The FA issued its report on the FA Hearing re QPR, Gianni Paladini and The Faurlin Transfer. The full 86-page report can be read here. Excerpts below/
QPR Official Site - CLUB STATEMENT - FA INQUIRYPosted on: Wed 25 May 2011
QPR statement concerning the decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission in relation to the FA charges concerning Alejandro Faurlin.
Having considered the written reasons of the Independent Regulatory Commission regarding the charges against Queens Park Rangers Football Club and Mr Paladini, the Club would like to thank the Commission for accepting the evidence provided by the Club and Mr Paladini. The Commission have made it clear that all of the Club's witnesses gave truthful evidence.
In particular, the Club is delighted that the Commission rejected the case put forward by the FA about the nature of the agreement involving Alejandro Faurlin. In doing so, the Commission found that there was never any third party influence involved in relation to the Player and therefore the charges relating to third party ownership and influence were dismissed in their entirety.
In relation to all of the other charges, the Club is again pleased that there has been no finding of bad faith, dishonesty or deliberate misconduct by or on behalf of the Club.
The Club shall be considering its position in relation to the judgement as a whole given the legal advice it has received.
The Club shall not be making any further statement about the judgement at this stage. QPR
The FA - QPR written reasonsBy - Wednesday, 25 May, 2011
"The FA has released the written reasons in the QPR case."
EXCERPTS FROM THE FA REPORT
"...4.1.19 In or around 9
th
August 2010, Mr. Paladini requested the sum of US
$1,000,000 (£615,000) from the Club’s Finance Director, Rebecca
Caplehorn, having agreed a fee with TYP in order to buy out its interest in
the economic rights of the Player.
5.5.1 In closing submissions, Mr. Mill was driven to conceding that Mr. Paladini was
very unclear in his oral evidence and was confused on a number of occasions.
No such concession was necessary for the Commission to form that conclusion.
Mr. Paladini repeatedly answered questions by making the points that he wanted
to get across, and at some length, rather than answer the question that had been
asked of him. The contradictory nature of his evidence was not limited to
matters that were central to the Oral Agreement. At the same time, though, we
did not form the impression at any time that Mr. Paladini was being deliberately
evasive or untruthful. He prevaricated, unnecessarily we felt, over whether he
14
was the source of the Club’s web-site report regarding the value of the deal to
bring the Player to the Club, but otherwise we accept that he was doing his best,
albeit imperfectly, to assist us when giving his evidence
5.5.2 As far as the Club’s web-page is concerned, the report of a £3.5 million deal was
clearly false. Mr. Paladini appeared to accept in interview that he was the source
of the report. It was characterised by Mr. Mill as a ‘puff’; something that was
done in order to show the Club’s supporters, and others, that the Club was going
places and willing to invest heavily in order to do so. That was essentially the
motivation according to Mr. Paladini in interview. Whether one regards the
report as mere ‘puff’, or a ‘lie’, depends on one’s moral compass, with some
necessary re-calibration to take into account “the ways of football”, a phrase
that was used more than once during the hearing. That Mr. Paladini was at least
involved in some way in the report finding its way onto the Club’s web-site, we
have little doubt, but while the value of the deal was significantly exaggerated,
and objectively untrue, the motivation for it colours how it should reflect upon
Mr. Paladini as a witness.
5.5.3 For economies of scale, a detailed analysis will not be undertaken here of the
five other aspects of Mr. Paladini’s evidence, which were cited by Mr. Lewis in
his closing submission to show just how unreliable Mr. Paladini’s evidence was.
Suffice to say that we did not conclude that either individually, or cumulatively,
they altered our impression of him as an essentially truthful person.
5.5.4 When he gave evidence to the Commission, over the course of an entire
afternoon and a significant proportion of the following morning, Mr. Paladini
was self-evidently under enormous pressure. He had struggled for some ten
years to get the Club to a position of success, only to be confronted with the
prospect of it all unravelling because of something that he may have done. The
burden of responsibility for this was his, and his alone. His deep distress at the
conclusion of his evidence demonstrated the pressure and responsibility that he
clearly felt. Nevertheless, the task of the Commission was to judge the accuracy
and reliability of his evidence dispassionately. Although we found that Mr.
Paladini always intended to tell us the truth, the inconsistencies and confusion in
his evidence meant that on matters that were material to our findings we should
look for corroboration of what he told us before we were able to accept it as
evidence that we could safely rely upon.
13 Mr. Paladini’s subsequent failure to notice the error was put down to a manifestation
of what we find to be Mr. Farnell’s apposite observation of him in interview, namely
that Mr. Paladini “…tends not to be a finer-detail person.” The impression that we
formed was that Mr. Paladini wanted the Comfort Letter before he was prepared to
commit the Club to the First Playing Contract. He was alive to, and did not wish the
Club to fall foul of, any TPI difficulties. He was therefore concerned to order things in
a particular way. However, once he had received the Comfort Letter, he appears to
have simply filed it, without reading the document carefully, and then turned his
attention to concluding matters with the Player and his Agent. Although highly
unsatisfactory in terms of the care - or, rather, the lack of it - taken by him to check to
see that the terms of the Letter coincided with what had been agreed or understood by
him following his discussions with Mr. Tasco, our assessment of what is likely to
have happened is broadly consistent with the explanation given for this aspect of the
mistakes that were made.
4 Mr. Paladini admits that he did not, either at the time when he received the Comfort
Letter from TYP, or at any time subsequently until August 2010, refer the matter to
his Secretary, Terry Springett, or to the Club’s Solicitor, Chris Farnell, let alone The
FA. After hearing evidence from her, the Commission finds that if he had informed
Ms. Springett of the arrangement at the outset (i.e. prior to the First Playing Contract),
or at any time thereafter, it is highly likely that she would have referred the matter to
39
the Club’s Solicitors and/or The FA. By whatever route, both the FL and The FA
would have been alerted to the presence of a TPI issue. The Commission also finds it
highly likely, if not certain, that the only document that would have been disclosed
initially was the Comfort Letter, for the simple reason that that it was the only
document, initially, that was disclosed. The evidence correcting and qualifying it only
came much later.
9.5 In dealing with the matter himself, Mr. Paladini seems to have proceeded on the
assumption that the arrangement that he had entered into with TYP did not infringe
Rule C1(b)(iii). He did not give any thought to the possibility that the Rule “might
be” infringed. The reality of the situation seems to have been that once he got the
Comfort Letter he simply filed it, without considering whether it accurately reflected
what had been agreed, or at least, discussed, and turned his attention to concluding the
First Playing Contract. Mr. Paladini’s evidence as to the depth of his understanding of
relevant FA Rules and Regulations was inconsistent. We find that he gave no
consideration to the detailed requirements of Rule C1(b)(iii) at all, save for his very
general concern that he did not want to expose the Club to a Tevez-type situation.
4 Mr. Paladini admits that he did not, either at the time when he received the Comfort
Letter from TYP, or at any time subsequently until August 2010, refer the matter to
his Secretary, Terry Springett, or to the Club’s Solicitor, Chris Farnell, let alone The
FA. After hearing evidence from her, the Commission finds that if he had informed
Ms. Springett of the arrangement at the outset (i.e. prior to the First Playing Contract),
or at any time thereafter, it is highly likely that she would have referred the matter to
39
the Club’s Solicitors and/or The FA. By whatever route, both the FL and The FA
would have been alerted to the presence of a TPI issue. The Commission also finds it
highly likely, if not certain, that the only document that would have been disclosed
initially was the Comfort Letter, for the simple reason that that it was the only
document, initially, that was disclosed. The evidence correcting and qualifying it only
came much later.
9.5 In dealing with the matter himself, Mr. Paladini seems to have proceeded on the
assumption that the arrangement that he had entered into with TYP did not infringe
Rule C1(b)(iii). He did not give any thought to the possibility that the Rule “might
be” infringed. The reality of the situation seems to have been that once he got the
Comfort Letter he simply filed it, without considering whether it accurately reflected
what had been agreed, or at least, discussed, and turned his attention to concluding the
First Playing Contract. Mr. Paladini’s evidence as to the depth of his understanding of
relevant FA Rules and Regulations was inconsistent. We find that he gave no
consideration to the detailed requirements of Rule C1(b)(iii) at all, save for his very
general concern that he did not want to expose the Club to a Tevez-type situation.
"....12.18 If proof of dishonesty is what Charge 6 requires, then, having regard to our primary
factual finding, the Commission has no hesitation in finding that that neither the Club,
nor Mr. Paladini, intentionally concealed or misrepresented the true substance of Mr.
Tirri’s role in the Second Playing Contract. Indeed, a conclusion to the contrary
would be perverse following the findings made by us.
"....
14. THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. PALADINI
14.1 The single Charge against Mr. Paladini is brought pursuant to FA Rule E3. It is
couched in very similar terms to Charge 6 against the Club, except for one highly
material difference, namely an allegation that the four documents submitted to The
FA in connection with the Second Playing Contract contained statements that he knew
to be untrue. No issue of construction or interpretation of the relevant Regulation
arises here. The FA accepted that it had to prove dishonesty on the part of Mr.
Paladini for the Charge against him to succeed.
14.2 For the reasons that have already been given in connection with Charges 6 and 7
against the Club, the Commission had no hesitation in dismissing the Charge against
Mr. Paladini.
"....(iii) We have found there to be no evidence of bad faith, or dishonesty, on the part of
the Club or any of its officials, in particular Mr. Paladini, in any of its dealings
in relation to TPI. We find, instead, that he was negligent (in contrast to the
findings that were made in this regard in FAPL -v- West Ham United FC,
unreported 27
th
April 2007). Further, during his evidence, Mr. Paladini
repeatedly apologised for any mistake that he may have made.
"....(viii) The sporting advantage that we have found to have been gained related
predominantly to the 2009/10 playing season, at the conclusion of which the
Club finished in mid-table obscurity, 11 points clear of the last-placed side to be
relegated to League 1. It seems highly unlikely, therefore, that the sporting
advantage materially affected the outcome of that season. Indeed, based on the
evidence of Mr. Pleat, such a conclusion is impossible to reach (as to which see
below).
(ix) To the extent that we have found that the sporting advantage continued into the
current playing season of 2010/11, its effect was limited by:
(a) The period of time for which we have found that it continued, or should be
deemed to have continued (some 3 months’ into the season); and
(b) The fact that the Player missed five league matches between 18
th
September and 16
th
October 2010 due to injury. In those five matches, the
Club won three and drew two, further limiting any contribution that he
may have made to the Club during this period and, hence, any impact on
its performance/results; and
(c) The fact that the Player’s registration was neither revoked, nor suspended,
by the FL, or The FA, at any time after the Club first notified the
Regulatory Authorities of the existence of the third party issue.
(x) The Commission received evidence from the respected former manager, David
Pleat, whose witness statement addressed the question whether, and if so, to
what extent, how the absence of the Player throughout the 2009/10 season might
have affected the Club’s position at the end of the season. Mr. Pleat was also
asked to perform a similar analysis for the first part of the 2010/11 season, up to
the point when disclosure of the TPI took place, and then up to the point when
the Club bought out the interest of the Third Party in the Player. In short, Mr.
Pleat’s conclusion is that the Player, as an individual, has not been able to
change the outcome of a game. Without him, the team would have been less
effective, but the same can be said of any player who makes a contribution.
According to Mr. Pleat, it is only in exceptional cases, and usually a goal-
scoring forward such as Lionel Messi, Christiano Ronaldo (two names he cites
from the modern game) that an individual player can be said to have had a major
effect on a team. It would be crude and inaccurate to look solely at the
contribution of one player (whether through assessing goals scored, assists or
otherwise) in the context of the Player because he cannot be likened to one of
the great players of world football. Mr. Pleat therefore concludes that it is not
possible to state how the absence of the Player would have affected the Club’s
final position at the end of the 2009/10 season, or to provide any such analysis
for all or part of the 2010/11 season.
(xi) The Commission accepts Mr. Pleat’s uncontradicted evidence. Where a direct
correlation between a player’s contribution and his team’s results is capable of
being identified, it may be possible to conclude that he has made a difference in
terms of the number of points attained. But even then, how can such a link be
64
firmly established when, in any particular match in which the player in question
scored an apparently decisive goal, his team’s goalkeeper made one, or more,
vital saves, or a defender made a last-ditch tackle to save an almost certain goal?
(xii) On Mr. Pleat’s analysis, a direct correlation between a particular player’s
contribution to a team and the points attained by it is restricted to those cases
involving exceptional, world-class strikers. The contribution of a midfield
player, still less a defender, could never be translated into league points, or cup
wins, that would not otherwise have been secured. As Mr. Pleat says, and we
accept, such an analysis is not possible. It follows that if that was the only test, a
sporting advantage could never be reflected in a points’ deduction when one is
dealing with a midfield player of defender, even one of world-class ability.
(xiii) In our judgment, the answer, in any case other than the exceptional one
contemplated by Mr. Pleat, is for a disciplinary tribunal to step back and to ask
itself the question: having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, was the
offence that has been found to have been committed so serious that it can only
properly be reflected by a points’ deduction? Such a test is consistent with a
points’ deduction being the sanction of last resort. For all of the reasons set out
above, the Commission had no hesitation in answering ‘no’ to that question on
the facts of the present case. Instead, we conclude that the offence could and
should properly be reflected by a substantial financial penalty.
(xiv) Even if we had concluded that a points deduction should be considered, in
principle, it would have been unfair and disproportionate to have imposed a
- The full 86-page report can be read here.www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FA-v-QPR-and-Paladini-Full-Written-Reasons-for-Distribution.ashxqprreport.blogspot.com/2011/05/fa-issues-its-report-on-qpr-gianni.html
