|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 10, 2011 12:03:04 GMT
We won't get a points deduction. This is not comparable to Tevez, West Ham were in breach of PL rules when he played for them, Faurlin was not in breach of FL rules when playing for us.Sheffield United should have beaten Wigan but failed to do so and I believe have been more than adequately compensated by a club that was going skint at the time. As far as I can ascertain, he was for 6 games this season. |
|
|
|
Post by rich2644 on Mar 10, 2011 12:13:27 GMT
We won't get a points deduction. This is not comparable to Tevez, West Ham were in breach of PL rules when he played for them, Faurlin was not in breach of FL rules when playing for us. Sheffield United should have beaten Wigan but failed to do so and I believe have been more than adequately compensated by a club that was going skint at the time. A team isn't relegated on 1 result it is relegated on results over a full season. No offence mate but that is nonsence. Also you have absolutely no idea about the Tevez case. The problem with it was that West ham were fined 5 million. West Ham then lied AGAIN after being fined saying that the thrid party agreement had been cancelled and the Premier League allowed him to play in the remaining games that season. This was however proved to be complete crap in a court of law. Obviously it is not West Hams decision to just abandon a third party clause when he is not even West Hams player. West Ham still have not to this day received ANY punishment WHATSOEVER for playing Tevez in the last remaining fixtures of the season illegally. In the last game of the season against Manchester United he scored the winning goal and sent us down. He played in that game illegaly and they still have had no punishment/fine or points deduction for that. How would you feel if that happened to you? If a player that was playing illegaly sent you down? A player that shouldn't even be playing? So yes, take a cheat out of the system and we was good enough to stay up. Not just stay up but stay up comfortably. |
|
|
|
Post by rich2644 on Mar 10, 2011 12:15:58 GMT
We won't get a points deduction. This is not comparable to Tevez, West Ham were in breach of PL rules when he played for them, Faurlin was not in breach of FL rules when playing for us. Sheffield United should have beaten Wigan but failed to do so and I believe have been more than adequately compensated by a club that was going skint at the time. adequately compensated. Hmmmm, i didn't see any of that money. I've been watching crap all season and we lost a great manager because of it. We're now going down to league 1. Wow that's adequate isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by spencer on Mar 10, 2011 12:17:57 GMT
Found this snippet on Clives site...
It looks like the club have tried to take preventative measures, because if the rule was introduced around September time, it coincides with when Alejandro Faurlin was injured at Ipswich away.
Faurlin didn't return to action for around a month and was an unused substitute against Norwich City at home, before finally returning to the pitch away at Swansea on 19th October, around the time he signed a new deal.
Perhaps he wasn't injured during this period and they decided not to take any risks by fielding him and prior to that, perhaps they have a case in the sense that The Football League did not have a rule in place, even if the FA did.
Could be that he didn't play any games whilst owned by third party
|
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Mar 10, 2011 12:20:10 GMT
We won't get a points deduction. This is not comparable to Tevez, West Ham were in breach of PL rules when he played for them, Faurlin was not in breach of FL rules when playing for us. Sheffield United should have beaten Wigan but failed to do so and I believe have been more than adequately compensated by a club that was going skint at the time. adequately compensated. Hmmmm, i didn't see any of that money. I've been watching crap all season and we lost a great manager because of it. We're now going down to league 1. Wow that's adequate isn't it? compensation money = go away money on paper you have been compensated, dont think you have been reimbursed for your tickets and travel and food for that season have you.  |
|
eskey8
Dave Sexton
www.cycle2austria.com
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by eskey8 on Mar 10, 2011 12:21:16 GMT
A team isn't relegated on 1 result it is relegated on results over a full season. No offence mate but that is nonsence. How would you feel if that happened to you? If a player that was playing illegaly sent you down? A player that shouldn't even be playing? What is it over a season or one game? Im confused |
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Mar 10, 2011 12:21:27 GMT
Found this snippet on Clives site... It looks like the club have tried to take preventative measures, because if the rule was introduced around September time, it coincides with when Alejandro Faurlin was injured at Ipswich away. Faurlin didn't return to action for around a month and was an unused substitute against Norwich City at home, before finally returning to the pitch away at Swansea on 19th October, around the time he signed a new deal. Perhaps he wasn't injured during this period and they decided not to take any risks by fielding him and prior to that, perhaps they have a case in the sense that The Football League did not have a rule in place, even if the FA did. Could be that he didn't play any games whilst owned by third party good find spencer, its a straw but I'm clinging to it all the same mate. |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 10, 2011 12:21:50 GMT
We won't get a points deduction. This is not comparable to Tevez, West Ham were in breach of PL rules when he played for them, Faurlin was not in breach of FL rules when playing for us. Sheffield United should have beaten Wigan but failed to do so and I believe have been more than adequately compensated by a club that was going skint at the time. adequately compensated. Hmmmm, i didn't see any of that money. I've been watching crap all season and we lost a great manager because of it. We're now going down to league 1. Wow that's adequate isn't it? I can appreciate and fully understand your strength of feeling. My point is that the two cases are not comparable. I would have no idea if the £20 mill was ever paid obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Mar 10, 2011 12:23:28 GMT
Somebody pinch me for pharks sake, this can't be happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 10, 2011 12:24:44 GMT
Found this snippet on Clives site... It looks like the club have tried to take preventative measures, because if the rule was introduced around September time, it coincides with when Alejandro Faurlin was injured at Ipswich away. Faurlin didn't return to action for around a month and was an unused substitute against Norwich City at home, before finally returning to the pitch away at Swansea on 19th October, around the time he signed a new deal. Perhaps he wasn't injured during this period and they decided not to take any risks by fielding him and prior to that, perhaps they have a case in the sense that The Football League did not have a rule in place, even if the FA did. Could be that he didn't play any games whilst owned by third party Nice one ;D Siege mentality tin hat firmly in place. WE ARE QPR  |
|
|
|
Post by spencer on Mar 10, 2011 12:31:28 GMT
;D Clutching at Straws and wearing tin hats is a speciality of mine,especially having had to have sat in the East stand at Millwall last Tuesday night...
Looking forward to getting behind the team this Saturday.F..k the board(not this one...but QPR ...)
|
|
|
|
Post by rich2644 on Mar 10, 2011 12:33:57 GMT
adequately compensated. Hmmmm, i didn't see any of that money. I've been watching crap all season and we lost a great manager because of it. We're now going down to league 1. Wow that's adequate isn't it? compensation money = go away money on paper you have been compensated, dont think you have been reimbursed for your tickets and travel and food for that season have you. when an illegal played sends you down you'll know how it feels mate. On top of that to be ridiculed at every oportunity by the media. Are you saying that Tevez scoring the winning goal in the last match of the season to send us down is fair? A match that he playing in illegally? Like I said, West Ham still have not been taken to task over this. Because the fact that he played illegally in that match didn't come out till the Sheffield United court case 2 years later it was brushed under the carpet after SUFC received the compo. Obviously there's not a lot you can do 2 years later apart from compensate finacially. So West Ham fielding a player illegally in the first 3 quarters of the season = £5 million fine. West ham lying and saying it was sorted then playing him again illegally again for the last few matches = no punishment whatsoever. They even admited they lied but still no punishment. Hey, if you think that is fair then more fool you mate. There is no ammount of money can compensate a club or it's fans for being sh*t from such a great hight. Perhaps you'd be better off not going up. It's overrated and as corrupt as corrupt can be. |
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Mar 10, 2011 12:36:04 GMT
no its not right,.
|
|
eskey8
Dave Sexton
www.cycle2austria.com
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by eskey8 on Mar 10, 2011 12:37:06 GMT
Rich, no offence but you said that teams get relegated over the course of a season, not just one game.
Whilst it must have been horrid having the player in question do that to you, I am not sure you can totally blame it on tevez.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 10, 2011 12:39:12 GMT
Found this snippet on Clives site... It looks like the club have tried to take preventative measures, because if the rule was introduced around September time, it coincides with when Alejandro Faurlin was injured at Ipswich away. Faurlin didn't return to action for around a month and was an unused substitute against Norwich City at home, before finally returning to the pitch away at Swansea on 19th October, around the time he signed a new deal. Perhaps he wasn't injured during this period and they decided not to take any risks by fielding him and prior to that, perhaps they have a case in the sense that The Football League did not have a rule in place, even if the FA did. Could be that he didn't play any games whilst owned by third party Irrelevant I'm afraid. He was registered. |
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Mar 10, 2011 12:40:30 GMT
Found this snippet on Clives site... It looks like the club have tried to take preventative measures, because if the rule was introduced around September time, it coincides with when Alejandro Faurlin was injured at Ipswich away. Faurlin didn't return to action for around a month and was an unused substitute against Norwich City at home, before finally returning to the pitch away at Swansea on 19th October, around the time he signed a new deal. Perhaps he wasn't injured during this period and they decided not to take any risks by fielding him and prior to that, perhaps they have a case in the sense that The Football League did not have a rule in place, even if the FA did. Could be that he didn't play any games whilst owned by third party Irrelevant I'm afraid. He was registered. any one want my straw, only slight clutch marks on it.  |
|
|
|
Post by rich2644 on Mar 10, 2011 12:42:21 GMT
Rich, no offence but you said that teams get relegated over the course of a season, not just one game. Whilst it must have been horrid having the player in question do that to you, I am not sure you can totally blame it on tevez. That is a quote I am absolutely sick to death of mate. This is a fact. We was good enough to stop up that season had all the teams in the division played fairly and not cheated. If all teams had played fairly and not cheated we would have finished 4th bottom comfortably. So yes, over a full season or 1 game or however you want to look at it we was good enough to stop up. Unfortunately a team fielded a world class player illegally and we got relegated on goals scored. Yes we got relegated cos West Ham scored 1 more goal over us over the whole season. You still saying we weren't good enough? That's our legacy. Relegation and ridicule from other fans either saying "you weren't good enough or "you should have beaten Wigan" Both utter utter nonsence |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 10, 2011 12:43:31 GMT
Found this snippet on Clives site... It looks like the club have tried to take preventative measures, because if the rule was introduced around September time, it coincides with when Alejandro Faurlin was injured at Ipswich away. Faurlin didn't return to action for around a month and was an unused substitute against Norwich City at home, before finally returning to the pitch away at Swansea on 19th October, around the time he signed a new deal. Perhaps he wasn't injured during this period and they decided not to take any risks by fielding him and prior to that, perhaps they have a case in the sense that The Football League did not have a rule in place, even if the FA did. Could be that he didn't play any games whilst owned by third party Irrelevant I'm afraid. He was registered. Why irrelevant? You cannot play a pleyer illegally if he did not play!  |
|
|
|
Post by spencer on Mar 10, 2011 12:46:21 GMT
Irrelevant I'm afraid. He was registered. any one want my straw, only slight clutch marks on it. ;D Mine lasted for 5 minutes...Thanks Nodge... |
|
|
|
Post by klr on Mar 10, 2011 12:51:59 GMT
Looking like bad news IMO.
This really is the final Coup De Grace, I'm just glad I'm not into football like I used to be, how do you explain a ten year old kid that has been following us all season & dreaming of Old Trafford & Anfield etc ?
Not even going to bother with the Paladini thing, have no words left to describe my hatred for that individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 10, 2011 12:56:54 GMT
Irrelevant I'm afraid. He was registered. Why irrelevant? You cannot play a pleyer illegally if he did not play! Because he's registered as an eligible player to play when ineligible. I think the fact he was injured was neither here nor there. Plus he as named as a sub. |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 10, 2011 13:16:34 GMT
Why irrelevant? You cannot play a pleyer illegally if he did not play! Because he's registered as an eligible player to play when ineligible. I think the fact he was injured was neither here nor there. Plus he as named as a sub. Was he really ineligible? What are the dates in question anyway? Do you, or anyone else have the details of the seven charges? I cannot see any mention of when he played on the FA website. If he did not play during the dates in question then we did not field an ineligible player. Nor do we have any knowledge of what, if any, discussions took place with the Football League during this period. By your logic, if West Ham did not play Tevez for the last third of the season they would still have been guilty, fined and forced to pay compensation, I think not. I'm keeping my glass half full chaps, keep the faith! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 10, 2011 13:20:01 GMT
Interestingly, I have heard that the club are confident that these charges will be dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Mar 10, 2011 13:23:47 GMT
Interestingly, I have heard that the club are confident that these charges will be dismissed. They would say that , wouldn't they! |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 10, 2011 13:27:23 GMT
Interestingly, I have heard that the club are confident that these charges will be dismissed. So am I.  After all, we wouldn't want to be responsible for bankrupting the FA now would we?  |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 10, 2011 13:32:32 GMT
What's the percentage of FA cases that are brought against clubs won and lost?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Mar 10, 2011 13:33:43 GMT
Interestingly, I have heard that the club are confident that these charges will be dismissed. They would say that , wouldn't they! 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." |
|
|
|
Post by rich2644 on Mar 10, 2011 13:41:11 GMT
Another problem that you might have is that the FA actually supported us in our court action and actually stated that points should have been deducted by the Premier League but wasn't.
The FA and the Premier league didn't and don't get on so that might have been the reason why but the FA publicly stating that there should have been a points deduction doesn't bode well for your situation unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 10, 2011 13:48:07 GMT
HOMENEWS & ANALYSISTHE CAPITALISTLIFESTYLECITY FOCUSWEALTH MANAGEMENTLIVINGTHE PUNTERSPORTSUPPLEMENTS
Archive
Where Am I? Home » Sport » QPR Face Points Penalty Threat Over FA Charges
QPR face points penalty threat over FA charges
Thursday, 10th March 2011
FOOTBALL
JAMES GOLDMAN
QUEENS PARK RANGERS top-flight promotion bid was thrown into turmoil last night after they were charged by the Football Association with seven breaches of rules banning third-party ownership in relation to their midfielder Alejandro Faurlin.
If found guilty by a three-man independent panel, the runaway Championship leaders would be open to a number of punishments including a points deduction, a transfer embargo or a heavy fine.
Sources close to the FA told City A.M. that a points deduction would be the least likely outcome. However the governing body is understood to be seeking a quick conclusion to the matter to prevent promotion and relegation issues from dragging on beyond the season’s end in case of a deduction.
The Argentinian joined QPR from Institute FC in July 2009 for £3.5m, but it is alleged that when he did so an unnamed third-party retained a stake in his economic rights.
The FA stress that this case is without precedent, having only brought in laws to deal with third-party ownership in 2009 following the controversy caused by Carlos Tevez’s move to West Ham and the role he played in keeping them in the Premier League at Sheffield United’s expense in 2007.
West Ham were hit with a £5.5m fine rather than a points deduction and Tevez was permitted to continue playing. The Hammers later settled out of court with United for around £18m after the Yorkshire side sued them, claiming £45m.
Next article:
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 10, 2011 13:49:18 GMT
The "We have to stick with Gianni...Nothing has been proven" school or argument, for one ignores various other things over the past five years.
And ignores how various other QPR employees have been treated.
So if that treatment was good enough for them. Why should Gianni be treated any differently?
Ian Holloway was put on Gardening Leave for talking with Leicester City after he'd been given permission, and even supposedly encouragemen to talk to Leicester City.
Throw in Breaker and Penrice who were likewise put on Gardening Leave.
Sheila Marson
Graham Mackrell
Tony Roberts
Jackie Bass
Marc Devlin
Bill Power
Various QPR staffers
Numerous managers
|
|
