QPR points deduction?

[Svlad Cjelli]

The ownership is legal under current FL rules whereby investors who own under 10% need not declare themselves.

With leeds, they all own 9.9%. The law of course, needs to be looked at again.

Although Scudamore said to the DCS enquiry on Tuesday that if Leeds get promoted they'll have to properly declare the owners. The FL simply don't have the resources to properly investigate the whole paper trail of ownership when such things go through numerous anonymous investment trusts in various tax havens. The PL say they do have the resources and will investigate properly using forensic accountants etc - although they refuse to share the results in the case of the Glazers and questions regarding ownership of Man Utd - all they'll do is confirm that the ownership is in line with their rules.

[Royal Rother]

So, Mr Cjelli, straight question - what do you personally think is the percentage chance of QPR playing in the PL next season?

[ZacNaloen]

What do the bookies currently say?

[leicsRoyal]

I can't see how the football league can come away from this without one hell of a mess.

All they can do is to act incredibly leniently so that QPR don't need to appeal, thus not throwing the last game of the season and playoffs into chaos. However this is not the sort of message that any governing body would want to send out.

I can see a very large fine but no points deductions, QPR would probably take the hit financially bearing in mind how much promotion will earn them and not bother with any appeal, whilst the league have given a message to other clubs by way of a heavy hit on the bank balance.

[Svlad Cjelli]

So, Mr Cjelli, straight question - what do you personally think is the percentage chance of QPR playing in the PL next season?

I have absolutely no idea - I think the complexities of ownership in this case are too complicated for anyone outside the legal and/or accountancy professions to understand.

The only prediction I will make is that as one of the charges is falsifying documents to cover their tracks so if they are found guilty they'll be punished big time.

But then again, I saw the weight of evidence against Bellamy and trusted the FAW to act with impartiality and objectivity in their judgement, so what do I know?

[facaldaqui]

The ownership is legal under current FL rules whereby investors who own under 10% need not declare themselves.

With leeds, they all own 9.9%. The law of course, needs to be looked at again.

Although Scudamore said to the DCS enquiry on Tuesday that if Leeds get promoted they'll have to properly declare the owners. The FL simply don't have the resources to properly investigate the whole paper trail of ownership when such things go through numerous anonymous investment trusts in various tax havens. The PL say they do have the resources and will investigate properly using forensic accountants etc - although they refuse to share the results in the case of the Glazers and questions regarding ownership of Man Utd - all they'll do is confirm that the ownership is in line with their rules.

The League may not have the resources to investigate properly, but they should make it a rule that all owners and debts are transparent. It's impossible to believe that Ken Bates is not up to something nefarious.

[Svlad Cjelli]

The ownership is legal under current FL rules whereby investors who own under 10% need not declare themselves.

With leeds, they all own 9.9%. The law of course, needs to be looked at again.

Although Scudamore said to the DCS enquiry on Tuesday that if Leeds get promoted they'll have to properly declare the owners. The FL simply don't have the resources to properly investigate the whole paper trail of ownership when such things go through numerous anonymous investment trusts in various tax havens. The PL say they do have the resources and will investigate properly using forensic accountants etc - although they refuse to share the results in the case of the Glazers and questions regarding ownership of Man Utd - all they'll do is confirm that the ownership is in line with their rules.

The League may not have the resources to investigate properly, but they should make it a rule that all owners and debts are transparent. It's impossible to believe that Ken Bates is not up to something nefarious.

No arguments whatsoever on that one.

[TFF]

I can't see how the football league can come away from this without one hell of a mess.

All they can do is to act incredibly leniently so that QPR don't need to appeal, thus not throwing the last game of the season and playoffs into chaos. However this is not the sort of message that any governing body would want to send out.

I can see a very large fine but no points deductions, QPR would probably take the hit financially bearing in mind how much promotion will earn them and not bother with any appeal, whilst the league have given a message to other clubs by way of a heavy hit on the bank balance.

How large? Half a million? A million?

Promotion to the Premier League is quoted as worth £60M. That is the figure that the club finishing in third could attempt to sue the League/FA for if they didn't go up via the play-offs.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I'm not sure what grounds a 3rd placed club would have for legal action - there's no precedent for scale of penalties in cases like this since the shared-ownership thing is so new.

It used to be that all ineligible-players cases had all points won while playing that player deducted, but AFC Wimbledon took legal action a few years ago that got that principle removed - and AP has shown how that that an inappropriate penalty.

[leicsRoyal]

I can't see how the football league can come away from this without one hell of a mess.

All they can do is to act incredibly leniently so that QPR don't need to appeal, thus not throwing the last game of the season and playoffs into chaos. However this is not the sort of message that any governing body would want to send out.

I can see a very large fine but no points deductions, QPR would probably take the hit financially bearing in mind how much promotion will earn them and not bother with any appeal, whilst the league have given a message to other clubs by way of a heavy hit on the bank balance.

How large? Half a million? A million?

Promotion to the Premier League is quoted as worth £60M. That is the figure that the club finishing in third could attempt to sue the League/FA for if they didn't go up via the play-offs.

Exactly my point, the FL will avoid a chaotic end to the season but not deducting points and a hugely large fine, even if it were 10 million, will probably be enough to stop a club appealing that are gaining 60 mill but also enough for other clubs to look at and think twice.

[TFF]

I'm not sure what grounds a 3rd placed club would have for legal action

I'm not sure they'd succeed but surely the argument would be that QPR took one of the auto places by cheating and that the relevant authorities should have dealt with it more severely than just with a fine because without the ineligible player being involved they would not have performed nearly as well.

They'd have had to make do with Leigertwood.

Obviously any "wronged" parties would also take action directly against QPR like in the Sheff U/West Ham case

[Svlad Cjelli]

What many of you are missing is that the FA is bringing the charges against QPR, because this is a breach of their rules on ownership. Not the Football League as many are saying.

Torquay, Hereford, etc were charged and found guilty by the Football League - as competition organiser - since these clubs had breached regulations on the registration of players within their competition.

I need to make some checks and phone a few people to try and find out exactly what powers the FA has to impose punishments within a specific league.

Just FTR, the specific charges are quite different to those within a league for not registering a player properly. They are :

The FA can confirm an Independent Regulatory Commission will shortly hear charges brought against QPR in relation to alleged breaches of FA Rules.

The hearing will commence on Tuesday 3 May, with a decision due on Friday 6 May.

Queens Park Rangers FC has been charged with seven breaches of FA regulations.

‪The Club charges relate to the player Alejandro Faurlin and concern the alleged existence of an agreement between the Club and a third party in respect of the player’s economic rights, and the alleged failure by the Club to notify The FA of that agreement before the player was registered to play in England in July 2009.

‪These charges are brought under FA Rules C1(b)(iii) and E3, and the Third Party Investment in Players Regulations, A1 and A2.

‪The Club is also charged with allegedly using or seeking to pay an Unauthorised Agent in relation to the player’s registration in July 2009. This charge is brought under the Players Agents Regulations, A1.

‪The Club and Club Official Gianni Paladini are also charged in respect of allegedly false information contained in documents submitted to The FA in relation to the same player signing an extension to his playing contract with the Club in October 2010. These charges are brought under the Players Agents Regulations, C2, and FA Rule E3.

[TFF]

Exactly my point, the FL will avoid a chaotic end to the season but not deducting points and a hugely large fine, even if it were 10 million, will probably be enough to stop a club appealing that are gaining 60 mill but also enough for other clubs to look at and think twice.

So you think the FA/League would fine a club £10M and risk being sued for £60M?

A fine of £10M would certainly be saying it was a serious breach of the rules, but it would also be acknowledging that there really ought to have been a points deduction. Other clubs may seek to take advantage of that.

[facaldaqui]

Exactly my point, the FL will avoid a chaotic end to the season but not deducting points and a hugely large fine, even if it were 10 million, will probably be enough to stop a club appealing that are gaining 60 mill but also enough for other clubs to look at and think twice.

I can imagine them thinking like this, but in my opinion it would be an objectionable way to administer justice. In theory there should be an established set of penalties for various offences, which should be applied without consideration of the circumstances of those who are punished. QPR should be punished the same as if they were in tenth position or twentieth position.

[TFF]

What many of you are missing is that the FA is bringing the charges against QPR, because this is a breach of their rules on ownership. Not the Football League as many are saying.

Torquay, Hereford, etc were charged and found guilty by the Football League - as competition organiser - since these clubs had breached regulations on the registration of players within their competition.

Which makes the timing of this case even more unfortunate - if found guilty of fielding an ineligible player by the FA then surely FL action for the same offence would have to follow.

[Svlad Cjelli]

The only guidance the FA Rulebooks gives on this matter is :

These Regulations are made in accordance with Rule C.1.(b).(iii) of The Association and are binding
on all Participants.
Any breach of these Regulations shall be Misconduct and shall be dealt with in accordance with the
Rules of The Association and shall be determined by a Regulatory Commission of The Association.
All other decisions by The Association pursuant to these Regulations shall be made by or under the
authority of the Football Regulatory Authority and shall be made at its absolute discretion.
In dealing with any issue under these Regulations, regard shall be given to the substance of any
dealings or arrangements and not just their legal form.

Just to muddy the waters even more - the Tevez enquiry that failed to penalise West Ham for a similar issue of third-party ownership was a Premier League commission, since the rules breached were the PL's, not the FA's.

FWIW, I think the QPR charges are a lot harder to prove than the Tevez one, but if they are found guilty it'll be deemed to be a lot more serious than that one.

[Royal Rother]

So as a gambling man Svlad, (can I call you Svlad?) if I were to offer you odds of 2/1 against QPR playing in the Championship next season, would you be tempted...?

[Svlad Cjelli]

So as a gambling man Svlad, (can I call you Svlad?) if I were to offer you odds of 2/1 against QPR playing in the Championship next season, would you be tempted...?

If I really had to put money on it, I'd say my gut feeling is that a fudge will emerge, and QPR will be deducted enough points to finish second rather than first. But I'd only put a very small amount on it because I have no degree of confidence in any of the possible outcomes here. FA Regulatory Commission are notoriously unpredictable, and the details of the charges are far too complicated for anyone mortal to understand.

Having said that, I wonder what odds I'd get on Norwich winning the Championship.

[Svlad Cjelli]

The only precedents I can of FA punishments are :

Spurs in 1994 - deduction of 12 points from the next season's Premiership campaign

Swindon - Initially relegated despite winning the play-offs, but Swindon were initially relegated to the Third Division but later reversed on appeal and stayed at the same level (i.e. promotion cancelled)

Luton in 2008 - 10-point deduction and £50,000 fine for making irregular payments to agents .

Thinking more about it, I'd say points deduction NEXT season is the most likely outcome if they're found guilty, plus a hefty fine.

[ZacNaloen]

Surely Swindon is the most applicable?

And that's cancelled promotion.