|
Post by harlowranger on Mar 27, 2011 10:57:08 GMT
Can we reallistically expect to hear something this week before we play again.
Is the next stage just going to be a confirmation of the hearing date ?
Would it be better for us all round if stays quiet for another 2-3 weeks on a pure selfish note so we dont get any further distractions whilst we play Sheff U , Scunny,Barnsley and Derby and really go to keep racking up the points with this four. (the Derby game being 2 weeks late than Sheff , we play 4 games in that 14day spell)
Is this likely to drag on now into May ?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 27, 2011 10:59:40 GMT
For all we know, there could already be a date set and that they've notified the club.
The club don't always tell us everything.
And they usually only leak stuff that they want out
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 27, 2011 11:22:24 GMT
I guess would be interesting to try and find out the "normal" time gap between charges filed and hearing - especially for the complicated cases - not the Appealing red card type stuff.
Also would be interesting how QPR's record with the FA Compares to other clubs' encounter.
I can remember a number of times in recent years that the FA reportedly was involved re QPR. But have no idea how that compares to the norm for other clubs
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Mar 27, 2011 12:10:39 GMT
I guess would be interesting to try and find out the "normal" time gap between charges filed and hearing - especially for the complicated cases - not the Appealing red card type stuff. Also would be interesting how QPR's record with the FA Compares to other clubs' encounter. I can remember a number of times in recent years that the FA reportedly was involved re QPR. But have no idea how that compares to the norm for other clubs What would be the closest /similar case to QPRs in recent years ? or isnt there one ?
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 27, 2011 16:32:51 GMT
I will have nothing more to say on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 27, 2011 21:11:58 GMT
I'd say even if we're "only" fined and not deducted, that Mr. Paladini should leave.
Others feel that if we're "Only" fined, that Paladini should stay on.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 27, 2011 21:22:21 GMT
There are seven charges levelled against the club with at least one being specifically aimed, by name, at Sr Paladini. If the club and Paladini are cleared, found innocent, not guilty, whatever. Why should he go? However, if he is specifically found guilty of the charge/charges against him, then obviously, he goes. And London cannot comment! ;D
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Mar 27, 2011 21:26:37 GMT
If the charge against Mr Paladini is proved guilty , then does he get dealt with a seperate fine etc or could Paladinis charges still relate to QPR losing any points additional fines
|
|
bowles
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,939
|
Post by bowles on Mar 27, 2011 21:42:39 GMT
I reckon he should just go for all the trouble he brings to the club! he just aint very good is he??
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Mar 27, 2011 21:45:28 GMT
Just had a browse on another board and it suggests 100% no points , just fine ! We will just appeal to fine if to large. Dont need to ask any more questions for now . CPR you said at the start dont worry about it , think your right then .
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 27, 2011 21:54:36 GMT
As if a fine is a medal of honour!
But "that other board" don't actually know... At best they know what they've heard - or been told by the club. And it's in the club interested to keep us all on board.
And to state the obvious: The primary advocate of "no problem" and Paladini should stay if no points deduction" is not exactly a neutral observer
So yeah maybe. But unless the FA have actually informed the club, this is a no fine matter.
Well those who want to not worry, go right ahead.
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Mar 27, 2011 22:08:42 GMT
we are just hanging on to any little snippet of good news, no matter where it comes from or how reliable it is, thats just human nature. as for a fine being a medal of honour ,of coarse not, it will be a chain round our neck ,put there by the person who will walk away from this, and still have his supporters from whatever site his support comes from.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 27, 2011 22:16:52 GMT
Not exactly as if this one gentleman who LOVES this club is rushing to fall on his sword!
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 27, 2011 22:21:51 GMT
We will not lose points. We will get a substantial fine, which will be appealed. If it is a choice. The FA lists rule breaking that are and are not amenable to appeal. How do l know? I had a brainwave today about what its all about. I will have no more to say about this situation.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 27, 2011 22:24:37 GMT
OY!!! You can't comment!!!
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 27, 2011 22:41:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 27, 2011 22:51:00 GMT
I can find them here on this list www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeaturesAnd Then here www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/QPR-Paladini-chargedThe FA QPR and Paladini charged By - Wednesday, 09 March, 2011 Charges issued for breaches of Third Party and Agents Regulations. 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.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 27, 2011 22:57:37 GMT
I know where they were listed but my point is that they are not on their current disciplinary list.
I'm not saying they've vanished, it just seems strange to me that they are not listed.
Like I;ve said before, we have not seen the specific charges, only that one statement of relating to etc. We already know that half of those are irrelevant because we play in the football league who had no such rules and the fact that you cannot find retrospective srimes because you've changed the rules.
Still not saying we are innocent but I still say the charges will not incur a points deduction.
Unless some stupid deal is done once promotion is secured to save face all round.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 27, 2011 22:57:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 27, 2011 22:59:20 GMT
OY!!! You can't comment!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 27, 2011 23:07:04 GMT
Maybe I'm misreading. But I think maybe your list, is when there's been either a hearing with a decision; a hearing date set; or a response from the accused.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 27, 2011 23:25:12 GMT
The only rule I can find which is on the rules list I posted is the C1(b}111, The As, C agents an d E are not there. Must be more rules somewhere. Will look for 10 mins, unless someone else can find them who isnt sleeping.
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Mar 27, 2011 23:34:05 GMT
sorry london, but i am sleeping, so can't look, i am sleep writing,
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 27, 2011 23:44:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 27, 2011 23:52:25 GMT
Oh heres A! Agents.
A. GENERAL 1 A Player or Club must not at any time use the services of, or seek to use the services of, pay, or seek to pay, either directly or indirectly, an Unauthorised Agent in relation to any Agency Activity. 2 A Player or Club may retain only the services of an Authorised Agent or Exempt Solicitor in relation to any Agency Activity, or represent themselves. 3 A Player or Club must take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that any person carrying out or seeking to carry out any Agency Activity, whether directly or indirectly, is an Authorised Agent or Exempt Solicitor and is entitled to act under a valid Representation Contract or Exempt Solicitor Terms of Representation.
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Mar 27, 2011 23:58:34 GMT
funny to read on that application form that the FA still has to conform to fifa's regulations.
i thought i read that the 3rd party in our case was registered with fifa but the FA doe's not recognize that. so hence the charges.
that document says otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 28, 2011 0:04:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 28, 2011 0:07:02 GMT
Maud, have to log off. "Get off that f,ing machine dinners getting cold" (She who must be obeyed).
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 28, 2011 7:09:23 GMT
Hereford play unregistered player Admin Cock-up admits Pitman By Organic Bull bullsnews.blogspot.com/2011/03/admin-cock-up-admits-pitman.htmlDespite taking three welcome points from yesterday's game against Crewe, Hereford United still await the results of an inquiry into the use of a player who wasn't correctly registered in the game at Torquay last month.The disciplinary hearing is expected to take place on April 6th, the day after the home game against Wycombe. "It's no longer in our hands," said Pitman as reported by the Sun. "It was our admin cock-up. We were two hours late signing a player." Torquay also used a player who was registered in-correctly during the game.
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Mar 28, 2011 7:25:39 GMT
How come theres is being sorted in about 10 days and ours is nearly three weeks and no date set yet then?
|
|