Post by Macmoish on May 28, 2011 11:03:50 GMT
"Ishan Saksena has parted company with QPR as a result of managerial changes that the Board felt were appropriate after the way in which the FA Hearing was handledThis was a decision made by the Board for the best interests of QPR. " - The Briatore/Ecclestone Statement 5/27
"Definitely good vibes so far though, with my agent talking to Gianni Paladini the other day and he expressed a desire to offer me a one-year contract too, so hopefully we can sit down and thrash something out in the next few weeks." Peter Ramage on Sky, 5/27
EXCERPTS FROM THE FA REPORT
"...4.1.19 In or around 9 August 2010, Mr. Paladini requested the sum of US $1,000,000 (ÂŁ615,000) from the Clubâs 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
was the source of the Clubâs 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 Clubâs web-page is concerned, the report of a ÂŁ3.5 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 âpuffâ; something that was done in order to show the Clubâs 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 âpuffâ, or a âlieâ, depends on oneâs moral compass, with some necessary re-calibration to take into account âthe ways of footballâ, 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 Clubâs 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. Paladiniâs evidence, which were cited by Mr. Lewis in his closing submission to show just how unreliable Mr. Paladiniâs 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. Paladiniâs subsequent failure to notice the error was put down to a manifestation of what we find to be Mr. Farnellâs apposite observation of him in interview, namely that Mr. Paladini ââŚtends not to be a finer-detail person.â 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 tohave 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 Clubâs 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 the Clubâs 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 âmight beâ 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. Paladiniâs 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 Clubâs 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 the Clubâs 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 âmight beâ 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. Paladiniâs 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. Tirriâs 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.
.Full Report www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FA-v-QPR-and-Paladini-Full-Written-Reasons-for-Distribution.ashx
"Definitely good vibes so far though, with my agent talking to Gianni Paladini the other day and he expressed a desire to offer me a one-year contract too, so hopefully we can sit down and thrash something out in the next few weeks." Peter Ramage on Sky, 5/27
EXCERPTS FROM THE FA REPORT
"...4.1.19 In or around 9 August 2010, Mr. Paladini requested the sum of US $1,000,000 (ÂŁ615,000) from the Clubâs 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
was the source of the Clubâs 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 Clubâs web-page is concerned, the report of a ÂŁ3.5 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 âpuffâ; something that was done in order to show the Clubâs 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 âpuffâ, or a âlieâ, depends on oneâs moral compass, with some necessary re-calibration to take into account âthe ways of footballâ, 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 Clubâs 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. Paladiniâs evidence, which were cited by Mr. Lewis in his closing submission to show just how unreliable Mr. Paladiniâs 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. Paladiniâs subsequent failure to notice the error was put down to a manifestation of what we find to be Mr. Farnellâs apposite observation of him in interview, namely that Mr. Paladini ââŚtends not to be a finer-detail person.â 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 tohave 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 Clubâs 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 the Clubâs 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 âmight beâ 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. Paladiniâs 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 Clubâs 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 the Clubâs 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 âmight beâ 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. Paladiniâs 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. Tirriâs 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.
.Full Report www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FA-v-QPR-and-Paladini-Full-Written-Reasons-for-Distribution.ashx