|
|
Post by happydays on Mar 11, 2011 9:56:07 GMT
Hi
Just thought I'd point out a few things, Tevez was always eligible to play for West Ham, this was confirmed by both the Premier League and an independent tribunal (Which Sheffield United insisted on)
The only thing West Ham did wrong is not disclose that he was third party owned, when the new owners bought the club and realised this it was West Ham as a club that brought it to the Premier leagues attention, as nothing like this had come about before and no precedent had been set, they decided on a huge (unheard of fine) of 5 million pounds, they also asked that the third party agreement be removed for the remainder of the season, this was drawn up and approved and Tevez was STILL eligible to play for West Ham in the remaining games.
After Sheffield were relegated, they then decided that West Ham should have been deducted points (obviously it is easy after the event) even though they had no problem with him playing when they beat West Ham 3-0 and were 10 points clear of the relegation zone and were chanting "going down going down" they asked for the Premier league to investigate, the Premier league found nothing wrong and so Sheffield Utd then asked for an independent arbitration, they ALSO found West Ham not guilty of playing an ineligible player, Sheffield United still not happy with this took further still and to the courts (Which West Ham agreed to as one last hope of Sheffield accepting there fate knowing that they could not appeal), they decided that although he WAS eligible to play, that as they had not declared Tevez as third party owned they should compensate Sheffield, this was decided by a sports writer who had never played football stating that Tevez as a player was the reason West Ham stayed up, even though West Ham averaged more points through the season without Tevez in the team than with him in it.
As you can see Sheffield just kept going until they found someone (a journalist and Judge) who would agree with them, when every one else had clearly stated West Ham had done nothing wrong.
Still if it keeps the Sheff United fans happy that they have been robbed and not having a clue about the real facts, all the better, and enjoy division 1 next year.
Good luck with your case QPR, be a shame if it went tits up over something so trivial, at the end of the day, he's your player and plays for you, what do you think is worse being relegated or promoted because you weren't good enough, or being relegated or promoted because of missing something off of a form?
Third party ownership isn't illegal, hence why Mascherano and Tevez were ok to play for Mancs and Liverpool that same year.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 11, 2011 10:06:22 GMT
Third party ownership IS now illegal. Tightened up post WHU Tevez. This is why Manchester United didn't sign Tevez permanently at the expiry of his "loan". They couldn't afford him having already committed the staged payments to Spurs for Berbatov.
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 11, 2011 10:12:59 GMT
Third party ownership IS now illegal. Tightened up post WHU Tevez. This is why Manchester United didn't sign Tevez permanently at the expiry of his "loan". They couldn't afford him having already committed the staged payments to Spurs for Berbatov. The question, from whom was tevez on "loan", never did get an answer did it? |
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 11, 2011 10:17:18 GMT
Third party ownership IS now illegal. Tightened up post WHU Tevez. This is why Manchester United didn't sign Tevez permanently at the expiry of his "loan". They couldn't afford him having already committed the staged payments to Spurs for Berbatov. The question, from whom was tevez on "loan", never did get an answer did it? Not really - widely assumed to have been Corinthians for paperwork purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by happydays on Mar 11, 2011 10:21:15 GMT
Third party ownership IS now illegal. Tightened up post WHU Tevez. This is why Manchester United didn't sign Tevez permanently at the expiry of his "loan". They couldn't afford him having already committed the staged payments to Spurs for Berbatov. It isn't, you just have to make sure the contract states they cannot be sold at anytime during a season. Tevez and Berbatov played together for a season at Mancs 2008-2009. |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 11, 2011 10:22:18 GMT
The question, from whom was tevez on "loan", never did get an answer did it? Not really - widely assumed to have been Corinthians for paperwork purposes. Or more correctly, widely assumed to be ignored because it was Manchester United. When they could buy him, although they didn't, from what club was he being bought? Who did Man Citeh pay for his services? |
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 11, 2011 10:24:14 GMT
Again - Corinthians for paperwork but widely assumed to be Joorabchian
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 11, 2011 10:29:31 GMT
So the loan to United and the sale to Citeh were from a third party agent. Not that everyone didn't know that obviously!  |
|
|
|
Post by happydays on Mar 11, 2011 10:35:10 GMT
The law states that it couldn't outlaw anything retrospectively, so what Mancs and City did was legal.
You can buy from a third party so long as you buy outright, you cannot loan from a third party (just looked it up)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 11, 2011 10:54:23 GMT
Third party ownership IS now illegal. Tightened up post WHU Tevez. This is why Manchester United didn't sign Tevez permanently at the expiry of his "loan". They couldn't afford him having already committed the staged payments to Spurs for Berbatov. It isn't, you just have to make sure the contract states they cannot be sold at anytime during a season. Tevez and Berbatov played together for a season at Mancs 2008-2009. Loans definitely now banned. I referred to the staggered payments to Spurs. Man Utd had no intention of turning Tevez's loan permanent from the moment they committed to Berbatov. |
|
|
|
Post by rich2644 on Mar 11, 2011 16:52:43 GMT
Hi Just thought I'd point out a few things, Tevez was always eligible to play for West Ham, this was confirmed by both the Premier League and an independent tribunal (Which Sheffield United insisted on) The only thing West Ham did wrong is not disclose that he was third party owned, when the new owners bought the club and realised this it was West Ham as a club that brought it to the Premier leagues attention, as nothing like this had come about before and no precedent had been set, they decided on a huge (unheard of fine) of 5 million pounds, they also asked that the third party agreement be removed for the remainder of the season, this was drawn up and approved and Tevez was STILL eligible to play for West Ham in the remaining games. After Sheffield were relegated, they then decided that West Ham should have been deducted points (obviously it is easy after the event) even though they had no problem with him playing when they beat West Ham 3-0 and were 10 points clear of the relegation zone and were chanting "going down going down" they asked for the Premier league to investigate, the Premier league found nothing wrong and so Sheffield Utd then asked for an independent arbitration, they ALSO found West Ham not guilty of playing an ineligible player, Sheffield United still not happy with this took further still and to the courts (Which West Ham agreed to as one last hope of Sheffield accepting there fate knowing that they could not appeal), they decided that although he WAS eligible to play, that as they had not declared Tevez as third party owned they should compensate Sheffield, this was decided by a sports writer who had never played football stating that Tevez as a player was the reason West Ham stayed up, even though West Ham averaged more points through the season without Tevez in the team than with him in it. As you can see Sheffield just kept going until they found someone (a journalist and Judge) who would agree with them, when every one else had clearly stated West Ham had done nothing wrong. Still if it keeps the Sheff United fans happy that they have been robbed and not having a clue about the real facts, all the better, and enjoy division 1 next year. Good luck with your case QPR, be a shame if it went tits up over something so trivial, at the end of the day, he's your player and plays for you, what do you think is worse being relegated or promoted because you weren't good enough, or being relegated or promoted because of missing something off of a form? Third party ownership isn't illegal, hence why Mascherano and Tevez were ok to play for Mancs and Liverpool that same year. You should actually get your facts right. The reason Sheffield United won their court case was due to new evidence stating that after the fine, West Ham told the PL that the 3rd party agreement had been quashed (everyone in football knew that was b0ollox, how can they quash an agreement when Tevez wasn't even their player). It wasn't a case of just keeping trying until someone agreed with us. A lawyer dealing with West Ham and kia joorabchian actually came foward stating that the scrapping of the 3rd party agreement was a load of crap as he was actually the lawyer dealing with it at the meeting with West Ham and kia joorabchian. He stated that they agreed to lie to the PL saying that the agreement had been scrapped and that they would sort it out at the end of the season. Quite how the PL fell for this nobody knows because nobody else did. So Sheffield Uniteds case was nothing to do with the original case which West Ham got a fine for. It was actually for their second lie which to this day they have still not been punished for by the PL. The last 3 games in which he played. The last of which he scored the winning goal at Old Trafford to keep West Ham up. So get you facts right Mr before spurting your mouth off. The last appeal was a case of did Tevez play illegally in the last 3 games. YES. Did he affect the results of the last 3 games. YES because he scored the winning goal at Old Trafford on the last day of the season. You tell us to get your facts right. I suggest you get YOUR facts right! |
|
eskey8
Dave Sexton
www.cycle2austria.com
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by eskey8 on Mar 11, 2011 17:17:10 GMT
Were you one of these Rich?;
They beat West Ham 3-0 and were 10 points clear of the relegation zone and were chanting "going down going down"
|
|
|
|
Post by rich2644 on Mar 11, 2011 17:31:51 GMT
Were you one of these Rich?; They beat West Ham 3-0 and were 10 points clear of the relegation zone and were chanting "going down going down" I wasn't one that was singing it no. To be honest I'm not much of a singer. To be honest I can't remember it actually been sang. I'm not saying it wasn't, it's just not something that has stuck in my mind. It wouldn't though would it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 11, 2011 18:11:17 GMT
West Ham fans and Sheff Utd fans going tete a tete on a QPR message board.
Who'd a thunk it?
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 11, 2011 19:04:31 GMT
Pretty good actually, neutral territory and all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 11, 2011 20:02:49 GMT
Pretty good actually, neutral territory and all that. That was my hope would be the case for QPR Fans from various "factions" when I first started this board!  |
|
|
|
Post by happydays on Mar 12, 2011 9:43:24 GMT
Hi Just thought I'd point out a few things, Tevez was always eligible to play for West Ham, this was confirmed by both the Premier League and an independent tribunal (Which Sheffield United insisted on) The only thing West Ham did wrong is not disclose that he was third party owned, when the new owners bought the club and realised this it was West Ham as a club that brought it to the Premier leagues attention, as nothing like this had come about before and no precedent had been set, they decided on a huge (unheard of fine) of 5 million pounds, they also asked that the third party agreement be removed for the remainder of the season, this was drawn up and approved and Tevez was STILL eligible to play for West Ham in the remaining games. After Sheffield were relegated, they then decided that West Ham should have been deducted points (obviously it is easy after the event) even though they had no problem with him playing when they beat West Ham 3-0 and were 10 points clear of the relegation zone and were chanting "going down going down" they asked for the Premier league to investigate, the Premier league found nothing wrong and so Sheffield Utd then asked for an independent arbitration, they ALSO found West Ham not guilty of playing an ineligible player, Sheffield United still not happy with this took further still and to the courts (Which West Ham agreed to as one last hope of Sheffield accepting there fate knowing that they could not appeal), they decided that although he WAS eligible to play, that as they had not declared Tevez as third party owned they should compensate Sheffield, this was decided by a sports writer who had never played football stating that Tevez as a player was the reason West Ham stayed up, even though West Ham averaged more points through the season without Tevez in the team than with him in it. As you can see Sheffield just kept going until they found someone (a journalist and Judge) who would agree with them, when every one else had clearly stated West Ham had done nothing wrong. Still if it keeps the Sheff United fans happy that they have been robbed and not having a clue about the real facts, all the better, and enjoy division 1 next year. Good luck with your case QPR, be a shame if it went tits up over something so trivial, at the end of the day, he's your player and plays for you, what do you think is worse being relegated or promoted because you weren't good enough, or being relegated or promoted because of missing something off of a form? Third party ownership isn't illegal, hence why Mascherano and Tevez were ok to play for Mancs and Liverpool that same year. You should actually get your facts right. The reason Sheffield United won their court case was due to new evidence stating that after the fine, West Ham told the PL that the 3rd party agreement had been quashed (everyone in football knew that was b0ollox, how can they quash an agreement when Tevez wasn't even their player). It wasn't a case of just keeping trying until someone agreed with us. A lawyer dealing with West Ham and kia joorabchian actually came foward stating that the scrapping of the 3rd party agreement was a load of crap as he was actually the lawyer dealing with it at the meeting with West Ham and kia joorabchian. He stated that they agreed to lie to the PL saying that the agreement had been scrapped and that they would sort it out at the end of the season. Quite how the PL fell for this nobody knows because nobody else did. So Sheffield Uniteds case was nothing to do with the original case which West Ham got a fine for. It was actually for their second lie which to this day they have still not been punished for by the PL. The last 3 games in which he played. The last of which he scored the winning goal at Old Trafford to keep West Ham up. So get you facts right Mr before spurting your mouth off. The last appeal was a case of did Tevez play illegally in the last 3 games. YES. Did he affect the results of the last 3 games. YES because he scored the winning goal at Old Trafford on the last day of the season. You tell us to get your facts right. I suggest you get YOUR facts right! Erm, please feel free to quote the lawyer who said this, take your time, you'll not find him though. Once again both the Premier League and an INDEPENDENT arbitration found no wrong doing on the last 3 games, it was only once you took it to the FA (third time lucky it turned out) and to court that Lord Griffiths decided we should have been docked points if he had been chairing the initial hearing (he didn't say how many points and if had been 2 we'd still have stayed up) and because it was with the FA there was no right to appeal meaning we were stuffed. The rest you are spouting is just rumour and hearsay brought about by your club and chairman. By the way, that last game, even if Tevez hadn't scored and we had drawn, we'd still have stayed up with a point because you weren't good enough  Enjoy league one next year  |
|
|
|
Post by saphilip on Mar 12, 2011 10:17:30 GMT
Well I suppose what is happening in Japan & what happened in NZ puts things into perspective but here is my take on this story;
1. Timing is everything and I don't believe this is a coincidence. Who has got the most to gain with all the timing of this and why has this now come to everybody's attention now - a crucial period of the season? In short why was nothing done about this by the FA earlier - and which club brought this to the FA's attention now?
2. The FA have a habit of treating clubs differently depending on their ideas of who fits where on the food chain.
Case in points;
Pompey go into admin and get a 9 point deduction, Luton Town get a 10 point deduction in one season, a 30 point the following, while clubs in the N-L set-up have been dropped 2 or so divisions.
For sure these were all debt related but I have seen clubs being dropped points and being expelled from competitions, while other have poicked up mere fines, for the eligibility of players.
In short, do not lomk at other incidents to see how the FA will treat us.
3. I have little doubts that not many people like QPR - BBC & Sky are 2 examples - so I don't expect many allies for us on the FA/FL committe. On top of that very few people like Neil Warnock.
In short I expect the full wrath of the FA/FL to fall on us.
So what can we expect?
If we are lucky a hefty fine, if we are truly unlucky a straight demotion to League 1. In my view I think we will pick up a 10 to 20 points deduction - but don't be surprised if we pick up an extreme punishment.
If nothing else that Two Bit Former Agent should be sacked by QPR with immediate effect - with the club persuing possible criminal & civil action against him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 12, 2011 10:48:34 GMT
I agree with much of what you say and re the outcome. Although I'm not sure that the motivation is anything sinister. Although there is indeed a food chain with bigger punishments for smaller clubs. (The fact that we do have the billionaire ownership, I would think might weigh in our favour: We can bring in the big legal guns/fight longer and harder - and it might give the FA second thoughts about how hard to press things.)
I do think that there's no way we signed Faurlin without Briatore/Ecclestone knowing how we were signing him/what we were paying for him, etc. So it's not just Paladini acting as an independent operator.
And I don't put any faith in what our legal opininon are saying for the public record; or telling Warnock or what the club is leaking about there really being no case, etc. That's of course what they'd say whether we innocent as driven snow, or guilty as sin.
And the categorical belief or certainty that even if found "guilty" won't be points deduction. I mean none of us know - either way.
I just don't believe that if they go to the pressing these charges, that if we are found guilty, that there won't be a significant punishment - and that will be points deduction.
And I absolutely certainly don't believe club/fan spin
Now if I was Paladini: I'd be gratified by the "Stick with Paladini" sentiment. And he must be hoping that there is a club "We must hang together, or we'll hang seperately" mentality.
But if I was him, I'd be worried that the club would do a deal - that gets the club off the hook and leaves the responsibilty (and punishment) primarily on him personally. Oh well!
On the other hand: Given how much he LOVES QPR: Perhaps he'll just throw himself on the sword and truly "Save the CLub"
|
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Mar 12, 2011 11:11:48 GMT
 I was just cheering up then!
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 12, 2011 12:50:15 GMT
And first step for the club: Put on a confident face...Boost the leaks...Make sure there's no fan panic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Mar 12, 2011 13:23:30 GMT
I was calm, now you're making me worried! Anyway off to the game now, all this is a crying shame.  |
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 12, 2011 17:25:37 GMT
Telegraph today Saturday 12 mar.
The Championship leaders could face a points deduction after the club and their chairman, Gianni Paladini, were charged with seven breaches of FA regulations in relation to the transfer of Argentine midfielder Alejandro Faurlin.
The charges relate to breaches of third-party ownership rules, use of an unlicensed agent and Paladini is alleged to have provided false information to the FA.
Faurlin was transferred from FC Instituto de Cordoba in July 2009 but his economic rights were owned by a third-party, believed to be a South American business, rather than QPR.
Faurlin’s transfer fee is listed as £3.4 million, making him the club’s record signing, but there were claims last night from Cordoba that the fee was paid to the un-named third-party rather than FC Instituto.
Inter Milan are reported to have received £500,000 from the deal as they had first option.
RELATED ARTICLES
QPR could lose points over Faurlin ownership 09 Mar 2011
Millwall 2 Queens Park Rangers 0 08 Mar 2011
Eriksson stung by one that got away 06 Mar 2011
QPR 1 Leicester City 0 05 Mar 2011
QPR 2 Ipswich Town 0 22 Feb 2011
QPR 1 Nottingham Forest 1 14 Feb 2011
Telegraph Sport understands the agent involved in the deal was Peppino Tirri, a London-based Italian who at the time of the deal was not licensed by Fifa to operate in the UK.
Tirri, who has claimed to work for a number of high-profile players including Luis Figo and Wesley Sneijder, was unobtainable on Thursday on the telephone numbers listed on the Fifa website.
The FA will pursue the charges despite QPR’s claim of innocence because they only revealed the third-party involvement after Faurlin had been at the club for more than a year.
QPR only acted in the summer of 2010 when the Football League adopted rules banning third-party ownership of players. The club asked the league if they could buy out the third-party to conform with the new rules, and were referred to the Fa, which controls player registrations.
The FA were approached in August and began investigating the rule breach. In October 2010 QPR renegotiated Faurlin’s contract, at which stage the FA allege Paladini provided false information.
The FA will await a response from QPR’s lawyers before setting a date for any disciplinary hearing, but the club can expect a severe penalty if found guilty.
The FA does not publish its potential sanctions, but they range from a fine to the loss of points, potentially imperilling the club’s promotion chances.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 12, 2011 17:37:24 GMT
5 15 pm gmt mar 12 sat.
table version
QPR face points deduction by FA before end of season
By Matt Slater
BBC sports news reporter
Faurlin was owned by three Argentine agents when he joined QPR in 2009
Queens Park Rangers could be docked points before the end of the season as the Football Association wants to avoid any doubt over who is promoted.
QPR lead the Championship by seven points but are in trouble over the signing of Alejandro Faurlin in 2009.
On Wednesday the FA hit QPR with seven charges relating to the initial deal arising from the Argentine's ownership.
The FA is now waiting for the club to respond to the charges but will push for the earliest possible hearing.
In a statement QPR denied any wrongdoing.
"Having co-operated fully with the FA's investigation, QPR and [chairman] Gianni Paladini shall be denying all of the charges and requesting a formal hearing to determine them. We are confident there has been no deliberate wrongdoing," the club said.
It has emerged the FA has been investigating the case since September when QPR asked for permission to buy out a third party that owned Faurlin's economic rights.
The club was prompted to do this by the Football League's introduction of rules prohibiting the third-party ownership of players.
The league told QPR they would have to notify the FA of their plans and it then became apparent the club may have been in breach of FA regulations for over a year.
Those rules were brought in following the Carlos Tevez saga. That case dragged on for two years after Tevez helped West Ham beat relegation from the Premier League in 2007 despite being owned by a third party.
Sheffield United went down instead and lodged a legal challenge that ended with the Hammers owing the Premier League £5.5m for breaking the rules and the Blades £20m in compensation.
West Ham, however, avoided any points deduction that would have taken them down in Sheffield United's place.
With QPR seemingly on course for a return to the top flight after a 15-year absence, the FA is desperate to avoid any repeat of the Tevez affair.
QPR are expected to ask for more time to respond to the charges - they range from a failure to notify the FA of Faurlin's ownership to the use of an unauthorised agent in the transfer from Argentine club Instituto de Cordoba - and a brief extension is likely to be granted.
But the FA is acutely aware of the need for clarity as the Championship season comes to a boil and its financial regulation unit and legal team will seek a rapid resolution to the case.
It is expected the case will eventually be heard by a three-man panel, chaired by a QC with financial expertise.
The panel will have wide-ranging powers at its disposal, including the deduction of points and the imposition of heavy fines. Luton Town, for example, were deducted 10 points in 2008 for using unlicensed agents.
Third-party ownership of players is illegal in English football but is common in South America and it is believed Faurlin was effectively owned by three Argentine agents.
A talented midfielder, the 24-year-old has made 80 league appearances for QPR since former manager Jim Magilton made him the club's record signing in 2009, although there is some confusion over how much he actually cost and who received the reported £3.5m fee.
QPR have been in superb form this season, losing just four times in 36 games, and have a seven-point lead over their closest pursuers Swansea City and Norwich City.
Any points deduction would be hard on current manager Neil Warnock, although he will be well versed in the rules concerning third-party ownership as he was Sheffield United's manager when a Tevez-inspired West Ham beat the drop at his club's expense.
|
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Mar 12, 2011 17:38:22 GMT
nothing new a rehash, any new news no!-
I wish when I looked at this months payslip it would automatically pay another load of dosh into my bank account.
I am beginning to get a bit peeved at the negativity here,
when Briatore was in the shit, we all thought he would go- he did not.
when we are two away from relegation, the mittals were bailing out- they did not.
taraabt was having medicals at st james park four months ago, guess what- he was not.
Press men are attention seekers who get piad by seeking attention, now when we have new copy thats fine, but until then I will ignore the shit they publish, and remind all of you that we are 10 clear but I could die tomorrow.
now copy and paste me some money.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 12, 2011 17:41:22 GMT
Hear the case eventually. Before end of league, before playoffs, after playoffs. If it effects playoffs with deduction if there is, confusing. Better get cracking FA.
|
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Mar 12, 2011 17:50:08 GMT
Hear the case eventually. Before end of league, before playoffs, after playoffs. If it effects playoffs with deduction if there is, confusing. Better get cracking FA. the more I think abut it the more I think that this is a fine. fulin played in the league or fa cup? may have to replay the cups as we 'cheated' what about palace, okay for them to drop 6 points againts us, but not okay for them to stay up? where would you begin to give points back to sides who lost or drew against us? and the ones we lost to, I think watfords and leeds and norwich would want to keep them. as I have said I am sick of this, not the points but this. we won ffs. |
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 12, 2011 18:18:13 GMT
Block. it wont effect other teams. The points are subtracted from our total.
Would expect they would meet during International Break. If there is a point finding it would be applied
and then playoffs, if affected could be organised. If just a fine, well much nisht. Now if it is later and there is a finding would have to be for next year, so start out with deducted points. IF. Read about more draconic stuff too. Our defence will have to be watertight and the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and our lawyers must be those that have already argued in front of this
consortium before and know Football League Law.. This will be a place where you cant do any dealing.
|
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Mar 12, 2011 18:58:27 GMT
The Teflon Don turned up as usual today...how that man hasn't been taken at gunpoint and .....oh wait a minute |
|
|
|
Post by 0hwestlondon on Mar 12, 2011 19:14:30 GMT
the two papers i bought today didn't have a dicky bird about the paladini story, the sun and the mail if you must know(dont hold it against me though!) now they normally love a bit of sensationalism maybe they have there sources who are telling them it really aint much of story after all, where as others maybe have another agenda, so for me there is far to much of a conflict in reporting this, so i will listen to no storys from now, and just carry on as normal until the fa make there decision, no point in worrying and trying to second guess the fa. U RRSS
|
|
I was just cheering up then!
