QPR points deduction?

[roadrunner]

Perhaps they'll make the deduction next season - you never know.

Meanwhile QPR get Premiership football, Premiership money..? The clubs that lose out as a result of this would have all sue. It can't be left until next season.

[Ian Royal]

Agree with Dirk. If there isn't a suitable punishment there will be a que of clubs lining up to sue for missing out on either automatic promotion and the play-offs. Complete nightmare for the FA and FL.

Still don't think you'll see many clubs get far in a legal case... far too many variables for most of them to be able to actually point out definite loss. Potential, might have been, possible loss isn't going to swing a lot in Court.

So if no points deduction is made it'll be the team finishing third that sues. Second will still have won the big pay day to the Prem, title is pretty much immaterial and I doubt a Court would be interested. 7th has a tenuous case at best because it would take a huge points deduction to move them into the play offs and then that's a total craps shoot anyway.

You might get 22nd sueing as well on the basis that QPR should have been automatically relegated, but that's reaching as a claim and the financial implications are pretty small in comparison to promotion to or relegation from the Premier League.

Obviously if QPR get penalised and fail to go up, then the chances are decent they will try an appeal at least and quite possibly legal action.

[URZZZZZZZZ]

I very much doubt the Premier League will like one of their newly promoted teams coming up with such a cloud hanging over them. Highly unlikely that any points deductions will be implemented in the Premier League.

[No Hoops]

Because the Rooney incident is a one off cut and dried and all captured on camera.

QPR have to be given the time to go through the evidence the FA has compiled and try to build a case against it through their lawyers. And there is going to be a hell of a lot of evidence and stuff to go through given the offense was over a season and a half, originated almost two years ago, there are multiple charges and finances, dodgy ownership and a cover-up are involved.

They have already been charged so QPR have the evidence already.

It's clearly a situation where the rules have been broken. The only item QPR could appeal against is the punishment, however the FL has yesterday set the record by deducting 3 pts for the game the player was involved in. I'm not sure if there is a max pt deduction but you would expect the ruling not to be too good for QPR.

But hey, it is the FL so who knows.

[Royal Rother]

I've said it before but I really don't believe that QPR will be playing in the Premier League next season.

But what do I know...?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Because the Rooney incident is a one off cut and dried and all captured on camera.

QPR have to be given the time to go through the evidence the FA has compiled and try to build a case against it through their lawyers. And there is going to be a hell of a lot of evidence and stuff to go through given the offense was over a season and a half, originated almost two years ago, there are multiple charges and finances, dodgy ownership and a cover-up are involved.

They have already been charged so QPR have the evidence already.

It's clearly a situation where the rules have been broken. The only item QPR could appeal against is the punishment, however the FL has yesterday set the record by deducting 3 pts for the game the player was involved in. I'm not sure if there is a max pt deduction but you would expect the ruling not to be too good for QPR.

But hey, it is the FL so who knows.

It's certainly not "clearly a situation where the rules have been broken" - that's the whole point in this and that's what makes it so open interpretation and subject to legal argument - and why they've scheduled 3 days for the hearing.

The rules on third-party ownership are torturous, extremely complicated and very much open to interpretation. As I understand it, QPR's case is that they believe that the player wasn't owned by a 3rd party in that they had done everything they needed to ensure they had control of the player, even though a third-party had financial interest in that player's contract. The FA believe the opposite, in that the third-party had a controlling interest in the player rather than QPR. But it's not a simple contract which is owned by one person or another - it's a contract which is wholly or partly owner by external, overseas, investors.

So this will be lots of legal argument about financial interests and so on - rendered horrible complicated and open to interpretation and argument by lawyers (and QPR will have paid for the best lawyers to represent them, of course!) so it's anything but a cut and dried - "they've broken the rules".

[Alan Partridge]

That seems a little harsh...

Of course but when does the little guy get a chance against the FA/FL?

I'm sure QPR will get a £2 fine and told nto to do it again.

The whole nonsense about the Robinson signing for us, and the Purdie signing for Hereford. They were both done on transfer deadline day no problem, but the FL in their eternal wisdom scheduled a round of fixtures less than 24 hours after the closing of the most manic day for clubs in the calendar year. Torquay signed 2 players that day Craig Stanley and Jake Robinson, the club presumed both were eligible to play. As it turns out Stanley WAS but Robinson WASN'T. All down to the timing at which they signed as if it isn't confusing enough.

Torquay were made aware 10mins into the match, they informed the FL immediately after the game that they had found out Robinson was ineligible, yet they've still hit us fairly hard.

For Hereford their situation is even more confusing in that Puride was on loan there, they made it permanent on deadline day which then made him ineligible to play.

It's bloody obvious no one has deliberately tried to pull a fast one, it's a simple error by both clubs secretaries caused by the Football League's ludicrous fixture scheduling and rules on transfers.

I also had to chuckle at the Hereford chairmans little rant on BBC where he says they got done worse than Torquay, not really, we got a fine of £10k they got £2.5k, they won the match so were always going to lose those points. We've effectively lost an extra point from a game where Jake hasn't even been involved. Torquay have been hit just as if not harder than them in all honesty.

Will QPR get the same treatment? Over my dead arse.

[Royal Lady]

What's with this "WE" Partridge?!!! Once a Royal always a Royal.

[Alan Partridge]

What's with this "WE" Partridge?!!! Once a Royal always a Royal.

Bit of both m8.

[Royal Rother]

AP, in saying "that's a little harsh" I was having a little joke because the post had said they were fined for fielding an eligible player... (if everyone got fined for that it would make an interesting table.)

I actually think the rules are there for a purpose and have to be upheld all the way along the line otherwise clubs might be able to wriggle out due to precedent being set.

[Alan Partridge]

AP, in saying "that's a little harsh" I was having a little joke because the post had said they were fined for fielding an eligible player... (if everyone got fined for that it would make an interesting table.)

I actually think the rules are there for a purpose and have to be upheld all the way along the line otherwise clubs might be able to wriggle out due to precedent being set.

Ahh ok I didn't see that bit.

I'm happy with the rules, I knew Torquay would get punished for it, but I've always felt a points deduction should be the last resort, and in Torquay's case I feel it's harsh. Unfortunately for Hereford it's probably the only just cause. I can't remember the exact case but I'm sure Accrington did the same thing a year ago or so and got away with no points deduction. I suppose it could have been worse but even so I just feel Torquay losing a point from a game where Jake hasn't been involved is harsh.

i also think as i mentioned in my previous post the FL is 50% culpable as well for their utterly ludicrous planning of fixtures with regard to the window and should have accepted a portion of the blame themselves when it came to handing out the punishments, meaning a perhaps slightly less harsh deal for both clubs.

[roadrunner]

I actually think the rules are there for a purpose and have to be upheld all the way along the line otherwise clubs might be able to wriggle out due to precedent being set.

In an ideal world. Rarely happens like that though.

QPR will get a slap on the wrist, small fine, small points deduction and carry on as you were.

[Alan Partridge]

AP, in saying "that's a little harsh" I was having a little joke because the post had said they were fined for fielding an eligible player... (if everyone got fined for that it would make an interesting table.)

I actually think the rules are there for a purpose and have to be upheld all the way along the line otherwise clubs might be able to wriggle out due to precedent being set.

Ahh ok I didn't see that bit.

I'm happy with the rules, I knew Torquay would get punished for it, but I've always felt a points deduction should be the last resort, and in Torquay's case I feel it's harsh. Unfortunately for Hereford it's probably the only just cause. I can't remember the exact case but I'm sure Accrington did the same thing a year ago or so and got away with no points deduction. I suppose it could have been worse but even so I just feel Torquay losing a point from a game where Jake hasn't been involved is harsh.

i also think as i mentioned in my previous post the FL is 50% culpable as well for their utterly ludicrous planning of fixtures with regard to the window and should have accepted a portion of the blame themselves when it came to handing out the punishments, meaning a perhaps slightly less harsh deal for both clubs.

Here it is, wasn't quite a year ago, don't know the ins and outs only they had TWO ineligible players, got a £12k suspended fine of whcih they had to pay half of and no points off. They earned 7 points with these players.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 511377.stm

[Alan Partridge]

One thing is for certain, if QPR are found guilty and this player is ineligible then the FL have set a precedent here. Deducting points from a club where said player hasn't even been involved, it could get very messy for QPR. They could lose nearly everything.

[ZacNaloen]

What makes it harder is that the offence was for part of last season as well, do they punish them for that as well or just for this year?

[brendywendy]

good

[andrew1957]

The only thing I wonder about the lateness of the hearing in the season is whether the FA and FL are determined to make a huge example of QPR. If they set a points deduction now and QPR still got promoted - then it would achieve nothing. Perhaps they do intend to throw the book at them and ensure that they do not get promoted with a big deduction - so will know by the time of the hearing what that needs to be.

The harsh treatment of Torquay and Hereford for minor infringements might be an omen of what QPR are to expect.

I guess only time will tell. However, if so the season could end in chaos if an appeal is lodged. Although - as the play offs will be set immediately after the end of the season, the likelihood is that QPR would not be reinstated and could only sue for loss of finance as a result of losing their place in the PL.

[facaldaqui]

I actually think the rules are there for a purpose and have to be upheld all the way along the line otherwise clubs might be able to wriggle out due to precedent being set.

In an ideal world. Rarely happens like that though.

QPR will get a slap on the wrist, small fine, small points deduction and carry on as you were.

The more I read of the ramifications, the more I suspect you're right. A fine and/or small points deduction will send a message without involving the league in complex legal appeals. I'm sure QPR will use delaying tactics as much as possible, because it is hard to remove a promotion once it's been secured.

If the League is going to come down on murky ownership of players, it's time they came down on murky ownership of clubs. Apparently Leeds are owned by obscure investment foundations in the Caribbean and the Premier League would investigate them before allowing them in. If that's the case, the Football League should do so as well.

[ZacNaloen]

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.

[East Grinstead Royal]

This HAS to be done and dusted before the play offs start, because if a decision is not made until after, or a decision is overturned after. Then you'd have carnage, essentially having to play them all over again because one of the automatic teams should have been involved, and QPR or possibly one of the play off teams, shouldn't have been involved.

You would think so. But remember Swindon in 1989/90? They won their play-off final at Wembley, but it was Sunderland that ended up in the top flight the following season. I don't remember West Ham (the side that had finished 7th) suggesting they had been hard done by... although obviously they had!