Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bethnal Yellow and Green

No points deduction for QPR

Recommended Posts

Absolutely, really not bothered about the decision to not dock QPR points. Would have been a bonus to see Warnocks smug face turn into rage but instead we''ll have to settle for Cardiff cocking it up yet again and keeping our top division free of the Welsh!OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The decision not to dock the west Londoners points was made by an independent tribunal convened by the Football Association.

The panel imposed a fine of £800,000 for a breach of FA Rule E3 - which relates to bringing the game into disrepute - and a fine of £75,000 for breaking Rule A1, which outlaws the use of unauthorised agents.

The club was warned as to its future conduct with regard to regulatory compliance, and ordered to pay 50% of the costs of the tribunal.

A further five charges against the club and one charge against chairman Gianni Paladini were found not proven.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13318784.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am disappointed even though it was entirely predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the absurd thing about Swansea positon is that they accepted it as 4th but not as 3rd! Their position has moved fundamentally when they gained on Cardiff.

Either its a good decision or not.

I would say that Swansea are within their rights to look at this again, i have no idea how QPR have avoided some of these charges and what they have been guilty of. They seem v v lucky to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pleased for their fans, they didn''t deserve what has gone on.

Still totally gobsmacked by the spineless FA and their "Independent" process. No teeth, no balls, no hope of any respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the FA initially reported this as guilty of two with five "not proven"."A further five charges against the Club and one charge against Mr Gianni Paladini were found not proven."Most wont understand the implications of the term "not proven" but it''s predominantly used in the Scottish legal system and doesn''t correlate exactly to the English and Welsh courts "not guilty" finding."Not proven" can and often does mean "guilty as hell but we just couldn''t prove it". To me it was a very peculiar finding and indicative of the incompetence of those charged with bringing the case."not proven" does not exist in English law but bizarrely the English FA have chosen to introduce the phrase into a ruling which may or may not be challenged in the English courts. To me it''s the cherry on the icing on the cake as far as publically displaying how inept an organisation such as the FA is and to announce a "not proven" when the only two options are "not guilty" and "guilty"........ well make your own minds up about what''s gone on at wembley and what kind of compromise might (or might not obviously) have been struck.In Scotland a defendor who walks out of court on a "not proven" verdict gets knowing smiles from the gallery and was still at risk of being retried before Blair did away with double jeopardy once and for all.If this all seems a touch complicated it''s easier to understand that the FA did not find QPR "not guilty", many can take an educated guess why not and some could take a wild guess and still be bang on the money.Whatever the rights and wrongs imo the FA have dug themselves a legal grave with a not proven announcement if and it''s a big if but if third placed or a relegated team were to take legal action against QPR or the FA.

But personally my interest in the hearing was so I could laugh my nuts off at a competing football team and their supporters as is my duty as a norwich fan so with the opportunity lost I now happily offer QPR fans my best wishes on their promotion, knowing quite a few this has been a very entertaining aside to what''s been a great season for our two clubs.Good luck in the prem QPR!!!You''ll certainly need it if Colin and Taarabt walk in the summer.......... [:D]  [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Still totally gobsmacked by the spineless FA and their "Independent" process. No teeth, no balls, no hope of any respect. "

Perhaps you could enlighten us all, with not too much legal jargon, where the evidence presented clearly demonstrated guilt. And what guidelines were ignored when deciding upon the sanctions to be imposed.

After that, maybe point us all towards those City fans who were talking of ''"no teeth, no balls " after the ruling on our taking Lambert from Colchester.

"not proven" does not exist in English law.

As this is not English law it is not subject to he requirements of criminal or civil law. The hearing would have had to decide if FA rules and regulations were breached (much as it would were some pub team alleged to be in breach of the rules of the Norwich and District Dominoes League), not whether any ''English law'' had been broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Well, it was a panel of 3 legal experts and an ex player (who is training to be a legal type person) who made the decision - they were just put together and given a room by the FA.Also, I find it interesting how many people seem to know all the facts better than 4 experts who have been hearing the evidence for and against for 4 days. Could it be that QPR were innocent on charges which would warrant anything more than a fine?[/quote]

Don''t be so naive!!!This whole thing wreaks of under the table money!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Perhaps you could enlighten us all, with not too much legal jargon, where the evidence presented clearly demonstrated guilt. And what guidelines were ignored when deciding upon the sanctions to be imposed."

Perhaps you would like to tell me how a fine of £875k for a team and owner who counts his pocket money in the BILLIONS when found guilty of TWO charges is a disincentive to infringe the rules AGAIN if they so chose? - Yup, double checked - no legal "jargon" there.

As has been pointed out "NOT PROVEN" does not mean Not Guilty, with reference to the other charges which could or could not mean that the will was simply not there to pursue the evidence. - That uncomplicated enough for you?

No need to get snotty pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
£75,000 fine for breaking the rule about using unauthorised agents? They are having a laugh, that''s less than many Prem players earn in a week. So using unauthorised agents is only a VERY minor offence? Corridors of power and all that ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here, here!If the charges brought against QPR had been of criminal intent, then they would have had to be heard in a Criminal Court, where a decision of ''Guilty'' or ''Not Guilty'' have to be decided ''beyond all reasonable doubt''.In tribunal cases ''beyond all reasonable doubt'' is not used, and burden of proof is made on ''the balance of probabilities'' and basically means that to win you need to convince the judge that your

case is 51% likely to be true. IE your story only has to be slightly

more plausible than the other side''s story.[quote user="City1st"]"Still totally gobsmacked by the spineless FA and their "Independent" process. No teeth, no balls, no hope of any respect. "

Perhaps you could enlighten us all, with not too much legal jargon, where the evidence presented clearly demonstrated guilt. And what guidelines were ignored when deciding upon the sanctions to be imposed.

After that, maybe point us all towards those City fans who were talking of ''"no teeth, no balls " after the ruling on our taking Lambert from Colchester.

"not proven" does not exist in English law.

As this is not English law it is not subject to he requirements of criminal or civil law. The hearing would have had to decide if FA rules and regulations were breached (much as it would were some pub team alleged to be in breach of the rules of the Norwich and District Dominoes League), not whether any ''English law'' had been broken.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had personal experience of an FA hearing (albeit at a much lower level of football, but the rules are the same) and some of the charges then were "not proven" because the panel simply couldn''t find the evidence. it''stheruddyfuture isn''t trying to suggest that these were criminal charges, he is saying that the penalties imposed for the charges which were proven are completely inadequate. Bringing the game into disrepute is a very serious charge and the fine imposed is paltry when you have mega-rich owners. QPR must be feeling that they couldn''t have possibly had a better outcome to all of this.

Some of their fans were crying when they heard they had escaped points deduction and good luck to them, they are of course the people to whom it means the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I predicted, the authorities bottled it because it was in the 2nd highest League in the Country, similar to what they did with WestHam a few years back!

- Had it been a League 2 team or lower they''d of been hit harder!

Is that guy Mittal still involved at QPR?

If he is then todays released Times rich list which puts him as the richest person in Britain with a fortune running into Billions makes the £875,000 fine given to QPR look like back pocket change!

While I think dropping them into the play offs would of been overly harsh they should of been stripped of the title with a points deduction that put them below us into 2nd. Then they should have been fined about £10M then deducted 3 points in next seasons Premiership!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt somebody in journalistic circles will be delving further into the details of this case.  QPR must pray that nothing further comes to light that turns the balance of evidence against them. The FA simply left the judgement so late that a cop-out was inevitable with so much evidence to go through in such short time, and with a points penalty not available as a sanction after the last game. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We''re not in possession of all of the details of course but I''m still confused by this ''not proven'' verdict[8-)]. The player registration process appears pretty ''black and white'' to me, either QPR complied (not guilty) or they didn''t (guilty). Paladini offered a defence of ''no deliberate worongdoing'' in this respect, but intent isn''t a matter for discussion surely? The cop out of ''not proven'' is only leaving the FL open to accusations of all sorts of devious dealings (as proven by other posts on here already), not helped by QPR''s position of financial strength and the delay in announcing the verdict. The whole situation has been an absolute PR disaster for football administration in this country.I sincerely hope the precedent will stick the next time a lowly L2 team make a ''genuine mistake'' in the timing of a registration of a player- it didn''t happen soon enough to help Torquay and Hereford earlier this season did it?    Congrats to QPR though , over the season there were the best team in the division and deserve the title. It''s going to be interesting how Colin does in the PL (...assuming he stays) as his record in keeping clubs up aint that good.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buckethead"]the FA initially reported this as guilty of two with five "not proven".

"A further five charges against the Club and one charge against Mr Gianni Paladini were found not proven."

Most wont understand the implications of the term "not proven" but it''s predominantly used in the Scottish legal system and doesn''t correlate exactly to the English and Welsh courts "not guilty" finding.

"Not proven" can and often does mean "guilty as hell but we just couldn''t prove it". To me it was a very peculiar finding and indicative of the incompetence of those charged with bringing the case.

"not proven" does not exist in English law but bizarrely the English FA have chosen to introduce the phrase into a ruling which may or may not be challenged in the English courts. To me it''s the cherry on the icing on the cake as far as publically displaying how inept an organisation such as the FA is and to announce a "not proven" when the only two options are "not guilty" and "guilty"........ well make your own minds up about what''s gone on at wembley and what kind of compromise might (or might not obviously) have been struck.

In Scotland a defendor who walks out of court on a "not proven" verdict gets knowing smiles from the gallery and was still at risk of being retried before Blair did away with double jeopardy once and for all.

If this all seems a touch complicated it''s easier to understand that the FA did not find QPR "not guilty", many can take an educated guess why not and some could take a wild guess and still be bang on the money.

Whatever the rights and wrongs imo the FA have dug themselves a legal grave with a not proven announcement if and it''s a big if but if third placed or a relegated team were to take legal action against QPR or the FA.



But personally my interest in the hearing was so I could laugh my nuts off at a competing football team and their supporters as is my duty as a norwich fan so with the opportunity lost I now happily offer QPR fans my best wishes on their promotion, knowing quite a few this has been a very entertaining aside to what''s been a great season for our two clubs.

Good luck in the prem QPR!!!

You''ll certainly need it if Colin and Taarabt walk in the summer.......... [:D]  [:D]
[/quote]

 

---

 

Buckethead, I suspect more detail (and spin) will come out in the coming week, but there seems to be an oddity here. If I''ve read reports correctly then one of the charges deemed "not proven" is that of registering a player who was third-party-owned without revealing that fact.

 

Now one would have thought that was a simple matter of fact - either Faurlin was or he wasn''t. And on the face of it QPR effectively admitted Faurlin WAS third-party-owned (and so breaking FA rules) because when the Football League later brought in its rule QPR supposedly raised the issue itself and started the process of un-third-partying Faurlin.

 

Now if that summary is right I can see that QPR might plead mitigation (an honest mistake etc) but not "not guilty". Yet id did, and got a "not proven" verdict.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bunch of CHEATS and hopefully this corruption and being in the FA''s back pocket will work against them next season as every team in the Premiership and every fan in the Premiership does not let them forget it.I am hoping that they finish bottom and I am sure that many fans of other teams in the Premiership and the players of many teams will feel the same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="whoareyou"]

And Swansea say they will look at the verdict very closely before deciding what to do.

How about trying to finish 1st or 2nd to get promoted instead? They seem like very sore losers to me, this Swansea lot..

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13321601.stm

[/quote]What an absolute load of rubbish.  I would expect McNally to fight this very poor decision by the FA tooth and nail if we had finished in 3rd place and missed out on promotion to a team who had broken the rules wouldn''t you???It''s one rule for one and one rule for another (as always from the shambles of bumbling idiots who run our game at the FA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a bit of clarification might be needed - or a passing visit to planet reality for some.

This is NOT a civil case and was not heard in an English court so the degrees of probability, as in a civil case, ARE NOT applicable.

"not proven" does not exist in English law but bizarrely the English FA have chosen to introduce the phrase into a ruling which may or may not be challenged in the English courts"

Talk about flogging a dead horse ! This HAS NOT been introduced into a ruling. Check the previoius rulings. The phrase ''not proven'' has been routinely used on numerous other rulings.

A large number of those who are brought before courts are found not guilty, yet are guilty in the sense of having committed the act.. Does having a jury deciding on a not guilty verdict then mean they did not commit the offence ? Or does it simply mean that on the balance of the evidence the case was not proven ?

When somebody produces the evidence and exactly what QPR were charged with - and MORE importantly why that evidence was not enough to substantiate the charges then maybe we can have a reasoned debate, rather than a tabloid style witch hunt.

So maybe some of these self appointed ''witchfinder generals'' on her might care to dwell on the irony of their whinning about the hearing not funding QPR guilty after it had READ the evidence when they have found QPR guilty having NOT read the evidence nor provided any evidence themselves.

Bar some rather simplistic and muddled headed guff they have probably cobbled together out of the Readers Digest book on ''know your rights''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not back on here to gloat.

Thanks Bethnal Glad someone sees that we were not cheats.

Also to the poster who says we have been playing with an ineligible player all season, well he was never ineligible.

We are guilty of saying (but only saying) that we paid one amount for Faurlin when we paid another (actually said the deal was worth £3.5mil not that we paid that for it) If that''s a crime, well.

Anyway I think the FA totally f''ckd up on this timing wise and maybe not everyone would agree but came

to the right decision as we were never really guilty of anything (hence disproved). Definately right for the players and fans anyway. We or the players do not deserve to be punished for the backroom staff (imo Gianni should go, and asap).

Hope you all enjoyed your day (as did we) and see you next year. Some good games ahead.

Also hope Forest get promoted from the play offs as a Welsh team in the EPL, no way (well not until they start using English FA rules rather than go crying to FAW every time something goes against them).

Over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Buckethead"]the FA initially reported this as guilty of two with five "not proven".

"A further five charges against the Club and one charge against Mr Gianni Paladini were found not proven."

Most wont understand the implications of the term "not proven" but it''s predominantly used in the Scottish legal system and doesn''t correlate exactly to the English and Welsh courts "not guilty" finding.

"Not proven" can and often does mean "guilty as hell but we just couldn''t prove it". To me it was a very peculiar finding and indicative of the incompetence of those charged with bringing the case.

"not proven" does not exist in English law but bizarrely the English FA have chosen to introduce the phrase into a ruling which may or may not be challenged in the English courts. To me it''s the cherry on the icing on the cake as far as publically displaying how inept an organisation such as the FA is and to announce a "not proven" when the only two options are "not guilty" and "guilty"........ well make your own minds up about what''s gone on at wembley and what kind of compromise might (or might not obviously) have been struck.

In Scotland a defendor who walks out of court on a "not proven" verdict gets knowing smiles from the gallery and was still at risk of being retried before Blair did away with double jeopardy once and for all.

If this all seems a touch complicated it''s easier to understand that the FA did not find QPR "not guilty", many can take an educated guess why not and some could take a wild guess and still be bang on the money.

Whatever the rights and wrongs imo the FA have dug themselves a legal grave with a not proven announcement if and it''s a big if but if third placed or a relegated team were to take legal action against QPR or the FA.



But personally my interest in the hearing was so I could laugh my nuts off at a competing football team and their supporters as is my duty as a norwich fan so with the opportunity lost I now happily offer QPR fans my best wishes on their promotion, knowing quite a few this has been a very entertaining aside to what''s been a great season for our two clubs.

Good luck in the prem QPR!!!

You''ll certainly need it if Colin and Taarabt walk in the summer.......... [:D]  [:D]
[/quote]

 

---

 

Buckethead, I suspect more detail (and spin) will come out in the coming week, but there seems to be an oddity here. If I''ve read reports correctly then one of the charges deemed "not proven" is that of registering a player who was third-party-owned without revealing that fact.

 

Now one would have thought that was a simple matter of fact - either Faurlin was or he wasn''t. And on the face of it QPR effectively admitted Faurlin WAS third-party-owned (and so breaking FA rules) because when the Football League later brought in its rule QPR supposedly raised the issue itself and started the process of un-third-partying Faurlin.

 

Now if that summary is right I can see that QPR might plead mitigation (an honest mistake etc) but not "not guilty". Yet id did, and got a "not proven" verdict.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Water under the bridge but the FA has now published its explanation of its tribunal decision, here summarised by David Conn:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2011/may/27/qpr-alejandro-faurlin-fa-ruling

 

What this shows is that, as I wrote above, it is hard to see how the tribunal did not find QPR guilty of fielding what effectively was an ineligible player.

 

The player was third-party owned. This is against the rules. QPR didn''t tell the FA this. If they had the FA would not have ratified the transfer. And the transfer, according to the FA, gave QPR a "sporting advantage".

 

Quiite how that resulted in a not proven verdict is a touch on the baffling side. And if the transfer gave QPR a sporting advantage one would have thought a sporting penalty (ie a points deduction) was appropriate. But no and no, according to the FA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]


 

Water under the bridge but the FA has now published its explanation of its tribunal decision, here summarised by David Conn:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2011/may/27/qpr-alejandro-faurlin-fa-ruling

 

What this shows is that, as I wrote earlier, it is hard to see how the tribunal did not find QPR guilty of fielding what effectively was an ineligible player.

 

The player was third-party owned. This is against the rules. QPR didn''t tell the FA this. If they had the FA would not have ratified the transfer. And the transfer, according to the FA, gave QPR a "sporting advantage".

 

Quiite how that resulted in a not proven verdict is a touch on the baffling side. And if the transfer gave QPR a sporting advantage one would have thought a sporting penalty (ie a points deduction) was appropriate. But no and no, according to the FA.

 

 

[/quote]

 

---

 

Having now read the FA''s 86-page report (sad I know) a few things to add. I was half right and half wrong in saying QPR had been acquitted of fieding an ineligible player (by virtue of being third-party owned). There were in effect two such charges and they were acquitted of one and found guilty of the other.

 

Trying NOT to take 86 pages, in brief the FA tribunal acquitted because it accepted that the Argentine third-party owner had waived his rights in  Alejandro Faurlin. That is important because the fear over such ownership is that the third-party owner will continue to exercise his rights and so have an influence over the player and events. The tribunal decided the waiver meant it didn''t matter that Faurlin was still so owned.

 

However the tribunal found QPR guilty of a more general charge because the club should have told the FA Faurlin was third-party owned but did not. Why not tell the FA? QPR says it didn''t think it necessary but the club knew if they did the transfer (which initially involved no transfer fee) would only have been ratified if they had bought out the player''s third-party ownership. Ie, they had actually bought him. And they didn''t want to spend money because he was an untried player. QPR''s Paladini admitted as much to the tribunal.

 

The tribunal doesn''t actually say that is why QPR didn''t tell the FA but the implication is clearly there and as the tribunal goes on: "The failure to notify the FA meant the club was able to acquire the player for no immediate financial outlay in circumstances where another team, in an identical position, would not have been able to do so if they had notified the FA."

 

In other words, QPR benefited financially from not telling the FA. And on the pitch as well. The tribunal states that QPR gained a "sporting advantage" all through last season and into this. Faurlin was in effect ineligible all that time because his registration was invalid because of what QPR had NOT told the FA.

 

Whether that should have resulted in a points penalty is a matter of opinion. The tribunal gives various reasons why not and says it doesn''t think QPR acted in bad faith. But if fielding an ineligible player for more than a season doesn''t get you a points penalty it''s hard not to think that you''ve got lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if there was not points deduction for fielding an inelligible player because one player cant affect an out come can anyone why all clubs will not plead this defence in any future non registration case???

They will only get fined with no risk of a points deduction and suggests past decisions for points deductions were wrong.

For me the David Pleat argument is patently wromg - it is irrelevant whether a player does affect a game, the key thing is QPR had a "sporting" advantage by effectively trialling the player for free when they would not have signed him otherwise. The punishment for such a breach (non registration of players within deadline being the perfect example) is a deterrent - not an assessment of the contribution.

Here QPR admitted they had been economical with the truth, had hid facts and had the use of a player that had they told the truth from the outset that they would not have bought as every other club would have had to have done.

How many dodgy deals will now be done by less scrupulous (financially embarrassed) clubs knowing a points penalty will not hit them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]So if there was not points deduction for fielding an inelligible player because one player cant affect an out come can anyone why all clubs will not plead this defence in any future non registration case??? They will only get fined with no risk of a points deduction and suggests past decisions for points deductions were wrong. For me the David Pleat argument is patently wromg - it is irrelevant whether a player does affect a game, the key thing is QPR had a "sporting" advantage by effectively trialling the player for free when they would not have signed him otherwise. The punishment for such a breach (non registration of players within deadline being the perfect example) is a deterrent - not an assessment of the contribution. Here QPR admitted they had been economical with the truth, had hid facts and had the use of a player that had they told the truth from the outset that they would not have bought as every other club would have had to have done. How many dodgy deals will now be done by less scrupulous (financially embarrassed) clubs knowing a points penalty will not hit them?[/quote]

 

---

 

Zipper, I couldn''t agree more. The only point I would make is that the tribunal didn''t just rely on this ludicrous Pleat argument. It took into account the FA policy that a points penalty is a last resort, that QPR had a previous good record, that Faurlin didn''t play that many games THIS season before he was legalised, and that a points peanlty this season wouild have been unfair. Quite why unfair isn''t specified. A cynic would say because it would actually have had an effect!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let''s hope that third placed Swansea lose the play-off final and then appeal the QPR decision. It could still get very interesting !!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be very interesting to see how any Swansea appeal fared. I guess they could end up like Sheffield United and get some financial compensation from QPR. Of course this would still be no great punishment or penalty.

 

As for the future, I agree with you gentlemen but I can''t believe the authorities haven''t thought this through. A letter to all clubs explaining the rules and drawing attention to the fact that ignorance is not an excuse would close that loophole. But having said that it shouldn''t be an excuse anyhow. It''s just a case that the FA bottled it, yet again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QPR have far too much money to be worried about trifling things like justice. Any probs a deep wallet will get them out of it. Smells fishier than a russian world cup bid to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a postscript, I had a fascinating conversation today on The Guardian website with - I assume - a QPR fan calling themselves Big BananaFeet. Certainly no more stupid a name than PurpleCanary...[;)][:D][;)]

 

This exchange started with BigBananaFeet describing my assessment of this saga (that QPR had gained a sporting advantage by using an ineligible player for more than a season) as "Simply bollocks."

 

Dear me, I didn''t think we Guardian types used such language. Anyway, it ended with BBF (we were by now firm friends) admitting that actually I was right about that (not surprising, since that was what the tribunal said as well) but extenuationg circumstances meant it was right not to deduct points. Possibly so. Possibly not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was actually David pleat who stated "No one player can affect the outcome of any match,unless he is of the quality of Messi etc"

So to me this sets a precedent...Any team can now break the rules and only expect a fine if they use the excuse"he isnt as good as Messi!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...