FA Hearing Thread..MERGED THREADS

[haqpr1963]

You don't do yourself any favours haqpr1963..

As for pals with Briatore, is that your assumption because they are both italian.

I was under the impression Gianni worked with Amit last season to get us promoted? With Warnock in charge of the playing side.


By the way

If the FA find an individual guility of lying or giving false evidence they have powers to expel that person for up to 10 years from all football leagues.

They have the power not haqpr1963 or anyone else

Interesting that you say that Pete. As far as I am aware nobody has accused Mr Paladini of this, or has said that that is why we got the £800,000 fine.

It was because of his incompetance, no more no less. Strange really considering that we have been told so many times that he was a top, top agent and not to expect managers to get involved with paperwork when Gianni is there to sort it all out.

[haqpr1963]

Amazed that this thread has been merged, but thanks for reminding me of the results of my original poll.....

How is it there are so many threads about a subject, and yet some still seem to be incapable of seeing the plain facts.

Sorry guys if I seem to have a bit of a thing about this, but I think that the whole thing stinks.

As Pete said I am not doing myself any favours..... Hmmm, I wonder who I have upset?

[DeepcutHoop]

All threads are merged when they carry the same subject, over and over again

There's so many threads on the subject because GP still has his job, despite embarrassing the club, over and over again.

People think it's important Pete. I understand it's uncomfortable for you, but that's just unfortunate, I'm afraid.

[qblockpete]

All threads are merged when they carry the same subject, over and over again

[WeAreQPR12]

Disgraceful that this had been merged. Pete's friendship with gp shouldn't effect how this board is run. Apologies haqpr

[vblockranger]

been merged on Pete's orders

[vblockranger]

all there in black and white..
Im actually ashamed of the club and owners for NOT sacking him and instead finding a scapegoat like they did. Despicable.

[WeAreQPR12]

Ha1963 ignore my pm as there was clearly more incompetence than I realised. Good read and that has changed my opinion on the matter

[haqpr1963]

Really.

[qblockpete]

You don't do yourself any favours haqpr1963..

As for pals with Briatore, is that your assumption because they are both italian.

I was under the impression Gianni worked with Amit last season to get us promoted? With Warnock in charge of the playing side.


By the way

If the FA find an individual guility of lying or giving false evidence they have powers to expel that person for up to 10 years from all football leagues.

They have the power not haqpr1963 or anyone else

[Scarlet pimple]

He was chairman when the club re-negotiated fourlin's contract, that's when the trouble started, but don't know why he was sacked.

If the buck stops at the top, could be why.

Prob the powers that be didn't want to sack their m8, so ishan had to take the fall.

[stanistheman]

Reading that it seems clear that he was at fault and to be honest, he should have been the one to get sacked not Ishan Saksena, who was not even Chairman of the club when Faurlin was signed in 2009.

But he is friends with Briatore and so gets to stay at the club.

[haqpr1963]

Gianni and the FA Fine (£800,000)

Well, this is my last post on the matter as it seems that some can't seem to see the facts even when they are staring them in the face.

I will only look at charge 4 as that was the one we got the £800,000 fine for (I am sure some will point out that Gianni was found not guilty on his charge, but that has nothing to do with this.)

The Evidence :

9. CHARGE 4

“A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute …”

9.2 The FA alleges that by failing to disclose its Oral Agreement with TYP to the FA, both initially and at any time thereafter until September 2010, the Club failed to act in the best interests of the game, in breach of Rule E3. Charge 4 is noteworthy for the fact that it is not brought pursuant to any of the specific TPIPR provisions, although the Charge alleges that the failure to notify was in respect of an agreement which “was or might be” contrary to FA Rule C1(b)(iii). Rule E3 is not therefore limited in its wording or scope, and is capable of covering the myriad factual circumstances that are said to constitute misconduct in any given case. It is a “catch all” Charge.

9.3 The Club submits that the reason why the letter of 4th July 2009 and/or the fact of the Oral Agreement was not disclosed to The FA until the Club had decided to enter into a new playing contract was that the Oral Agreement did not allow for any third party involvement unless and until such a new playing contract was made. There was therefore no duty to disclose it prior to that potential event occurring, according to the Club.

9.4 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 Club’s 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 Club’s 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 “might be” 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. Paladini’s 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.

9.6 On its face, though, the Comfort Letter was clearly capable of being interpreted in such a way as to give rise to at least the possibility of third party influence within the meaning of Rule C1(b)(iii). The drafting was, as Mr. Mill put it, “inept”. The very fact of these proceedings and, in particular, the way in which the first three Charges have been framed with specific reference to the date of 30th June 2010 in the Comfort Letter ought to have led a reasonable person to conclude that the agreement, on the face of the terms of the Letter, “might be” in breach of Regulation C1(b)(iii), even if it was subsequently shown not to be, at least, not as charged under Charge 1, by virtue of extensive witness evidence. In the position of responsibility that he was in, Mr. Paladini is deemed to have been sufficiently knowledgeable of the Rule to have known, as his work colleagues and his Solicitors clearly knew, that the TPI should be brought to the attention of the Regulatory Authorities for their consideration. It was self-evident from his repeated apologies during the hearing that Mr. Paladini regrets not having done so.

9.7 The absence of notification of the third party issue to The FA for approximately fifteen months meant that the Club self-policed the arrangement with TYP for that period and deprived The FA the opportunity to consider the arrangement, decide whether it did, or might, contravene Rule C1(b)(iii), and to take action, if necessary, to regularise matters.

9.8 In arriving at that decision, we did not find that there was any bad faith or dishonest intention on the part of the Club, acting through Mr. Paladini, in failing to notify the Regulatory Authorities of the existence of the agreement with TYP. We accept that Mr. Paladini held a genuine and honest belief that he had not committed the Club to entering into any contract which gave TYP any third party interest during the First Playing Contract. It would have been somewhat contradictory for him to go to the trouble of seeking such reassurance if he knew, or suspected, that it did not provide it. He was clearly mindful of the Tevez saga and wished to protect the Club’s interests.
He did not go far enough. At the time when he did so, as we so find, the TPIPR had not been introduced. But Rule C1(b)(iii) was in force, and had been so for some considerable time.

9.9 Unless bad faith or a dishonest intention is specifically pleaded in the context of a particular charge under Rule E3 - as with the Charge against Mr. Paladini - the Commission finds that there is no requirement for The FA to establish dishonesty, or bad faith, on the part of the Club for the purposes of Charge 4. The Commission has no hesitation in finding that the best interests of the game were not served by the Club’s failure to notify the Regulator of material information and/or documentation in connection with one of the key aspects of FA Rules and Regulations. Those interests are best served by clubs enabling the Regulator to regulate, and not to self-police themselves.

9.10 It is not therefore necessary for the Commission to decide whether “improper” conduct requires evidence of dishonesty or bad faith to be proved (as the Club submitted), or merely negligence (as The FA contended). Likewise, whether the alleged misconduct that is the subject-matter of this Charge could be said to have brought the game into disrepute. The use of the words “and/or” between each one, means that only one of the consequences of misconduct referred to in Rule E3 needs to be proved for the offence to be made out.

9.11 Whether the third party interests of TYP were suspended for three years or one year is immaterial for the purposes of this Charge. It is the failure to notify The FA of an agreement which “might be” contrary to Rule C1(b)(iii) which gives rise to liability, even on the Club’s own case as to the period for which TYP’s interest in the Player’s economic rights was suspended.

9.12 The Commission therefore finds that this Charge has been proved.

Mitigation:

16. MITIGATION GENERALLY

16.2 Mr. Paladini, who was clearly mindful of the issue of third party investment by the very existence of the subject-matter of the Oral Agreement and insistence upon the ‘Comfort Letter’, did not consider it necessary to consult with The FA and seek its approval for the course he was taking. He did not consult with the Club’s Solicitors. He did not refer the matter to Ms. Springett. Instead, he took it upon himself to undertake what was a lawyer’s task of negotiating a suspension of a third party’s interest in the economic rights over a Player he was proposing to sign on behalf of the Club. Having taken the initial step of insisting upon the protection which he thought the Comfort Letter would provide, he then failed to take the essential further precautionary step of having the arrangement considered and approved by the Club’s lawyers and the FA. In the light of the Tevez saga, the course that he took was inadvisable and fraught with risks. With hindsight, Mr. Paladini clearly appreciated that that was the case.

17.1 The Commission considered that a significant financial penalty should be imposed, in principle, for this offence. On the facts, we considered that a proper basis for assessing the level of the fine would be the likely increase in the market value of the Player over the course of approximately 15 months, the period for which we have found that a sporting advantage was obtained by the failure of the Club to notify The FA of the presence of the TPI. We undertook this assessment summarily, drawing on our collective experience and, in particular, that of the Specialist Panel Member. Having regard to the history of the matter, and the media attention that it has attracted, finality to the proceedings was highly desirable. If the Commission had adjourned the question of sanctions for consideration of comparables it would only have served to increase costs.

17.2 Ultimately, the Commission concluded that if the Club had had to go into the open transfer market in or around July 2009, in order to acquire a midfield player with similar playing credentials to the Player, but who was similarly untried and untested in the Championship, a fee in the region of £200,000 would have been required. After just over a season, and having proved himself at Championship level - so much so, that he was named the Club’s player of the year - and adjusted to life in England, the Commission considered that his likely market value would have increased to approximately £1,000,000. On that basis, the added value in the Player, or accrued benefit, was £800,000.

17.3 There is a respectable argument for saying that the actual benefit to the Club was simply £1,000,000, on our analysis, for the reason that the Club paid nothing for the Player when they acquired him. However, in making the calculation, we cannot ignore the fact that the Club did eventually pay the equivalent of £615,000 in order to buy-out the third party interest. Further, since we have undertaken a summary assessment, we have endeavoured to err on the side of caution. These are not matters of precise arithmetical science, but a way of arriving at an appropriate, proportionate, and fair penalty.

17.4 Player values are something upon which opinions can reasonably differ. The parameters that we have adopted for the purpose of assessing the accrued benefit may therefore be debated. Ultimately, though, we judge that the net increase in the market value of the Player over the 15-month period in question that we have arrived at is likely to be within the range of reasonable opinion. The task that the Commission set itself was to arrive at a reasoned basis for assessing the appropriate level of financial penalty, albeit on a summary assessment. That course is clearly preferable than simply plucking a figure out of the air. At the same time, to have imposed a fine of, say, £3.5 million for no other reason than that was the figure placed on the value of the “deal” which brought the Player to the Club, and which was false, would be arbitrary, capricious and grossly punitive.

17.5 Accordingly, for this offence, the Commission imposes a fine of £800,000.
I know it is a lot to read, but please do and then make your own conclusions...

H

[gravesendhoop]

well he did save our club Ted its the least we could do

[qprted]

yeah

yeah i am going to get a troop of volunteers to clean his rolls royce are you up for it gravesend