What punishment should QPR get for breaching FA rules

I think they should and I think they will get hammered by the FA - it's a 30 point deduction for me preventing them reaching the play offs. In effect an immediate relegation from the premier League without playing a game.

I think it will be 15 points

i posted yesterday. if. they are guilty. then qpr should not be in the playoffs, its like them having a second chance

I haven't really followed it because I think it should be decided on the pitch. But, from what I've heard I think the rules state 3 points for every game, and he'd played 5 games, so it should be 15 points?

What I really don't understand is why it's taking so long, and why they're allowed to continue playing him?

I haven't really followed it because I think it should be decided on the pitch. But, from what I've heard I think the rules state 3 points for every game, and he'd played 5 games, so it should be 15 points?

What I really don't understand is why it's taking so long, and why they're allowed to continue playing him?

think he played 6 and i guess he was "eligible" after the 6th game

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

if everything was hunky dory why submit a fraudulent document .
read the charges against you.

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

if everything was hunky dory why submit a fraudulent document .
read the charges against you.

Have done plank. Being charged does not make you guilty. The guilt St this stage is being whipped up by certain sections of the press and a few desperate supporters of teams who Frank.y weren't good enough to win the league. Ring any bells?

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

if everything was hunky dory why submit a fraudulent document .
read the charges against you.

Have done plank. Being charged does not make you guilty. The guilt St this stage is being whipped up by certain sections of the press and a few desperate supporters of teams who Frank.y weren't good enough to win the league. Ring any bells?

Hahahahahahha. I hope the matter gets resolved once and for all next week cos one way or the other some people are gonna have their tail between their legs.
Truth is none of us know whats gonna happen.At the end of the day we are nobodies playing a guessing game.
My concern is middlesborough and burnley. I dont even care about norwich because theres nothing we can do about it
Welcome to the 6 day rollercoaster that is Cardiff City

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

if everything was hunky dory why submit a fraudulent document .
read the charges against you.

Have done plank. Being charged does not make you guilty. The guilt St this stage is being whipped up by certain sections of the press and a few desperate supporters of teams who Frank.y weren't good enough to win the league. Ring any bells?

well we`ll all find out next week! ... btw QPR whats with the kiddies and plank bollox? cant you answer someone nicely?

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

if everything was hunky dory why submit a fraudulent document .
read the charges against you.

Have done plank. Being charged does not make you guilty. The guilt St this stage is being whipped up by certain sections of the press and a few desperate supporters of teams who Frank.y weren't good enough to win the league. Ring any bells?

Can't ever remember any charges being brought by the FA against a club not being upheld. They gotcha hook line and sinker. All that hard work by the players and Warnock undone by the administrators of your club. From a personal point of view I would say the best team won the league but they had to cheat to do it, that makes their league victory invalid and I have a feeling the FA will take the same view.

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

if everything was hunky dory why submit a fraudulent document .
read the charges against you.

Have done plank. Being charged does not make you guilty. The guilt St this stage is being whipped up by certain sections of the press and a few desperate supporters of teams who Frank.y weren't good enough to win the league. Ring any bells?

you have had seven months plank to satisfy the fa over the 3rd party ownership and you havent been able to satisfy them enough to not be charged.

Its good to see so many fans of alternative clubs posting on here, but guys lets keep it clean, and refrain from insults and name calling.

thank you.

I absolutely think that if the QPR have the charge of submitting false documentation to the FA Investigation Department proven then the FA will make an absolute example of them and because of that you need to add 2 more options to the poll.

Relegated 1 Division and Relegated 2 Divisions.

It doesn't get any more serious then lying to the National Association the FA would have no option other than to send the biggest statement possible to any other club who thinks it's OK to do the same.

death by hanging.

I haven't really followed it because I think it should be decided on the pitch. But, from what I've heard I think the rules state 3 points for every game, and he'd played 5 games, so it should be 15 points?

What I really don't understand is why it's taking so long, and why they're allowed to continue playing him?

From what I understand QPR have now bought out the 3rd party agreement and Faulin is now their player 100%.

However, he did play 6 games before the full deal was done so that's why they are now facing charges.

TBH I think the 15 points is just a press story estimate, although Castle did a good post the other day about the use of an unauthorised agent which they are bang to rights on and have admitted their guilt.

Apparently the precedence is a 10 point deduction.

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

Yes but isn't the problem that on QPR's website it was reported that the Faulin deal was worth £3.5m but you only paid £600,000 in 2009 when the FA to sanctioned the deal?

That meant that the 3rd party still had a £2.9m economic stake in the player, which was contary to what you told the FA at the time?

Oh so wrong on the number of games, read my previous post kiddies. But what I did not mention is that it was the FA and FL who sanctioned the original transfer in 2009. The third party rules were not brought in until 1/09/2010 and were made retrospective from 7/7/2009. Faurlin was signed on 4/7/2009. Third party ownership does not make a player ineligible. The type of third party ownership this relates to is some 'economic rights' of the player. Still makes for some good debate on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Speculation is far more exciting than facts!

Yes but isn't the problem that on QPR's website it was reported that the Faulin deal was worth £3.5m but you only paid £600,000 in 2009 when the FA to sanctioned the deal?

That meant that the 3rd party still had a £2.9m economic stake in the player, which was contary to what you told the FA at the time?

The net is closing.

i think you might be stan in disguise

15pts

The obsession with QPR on here really is extraordinary, the clearest proof of pressure beginning to tell off the field (other than D.Jones burgeoning paranoia).

All sorts of assumptions are being made but there are some key points which are being missed again and again. The title of this thread, for example, assumes guilt. But the known facts are more complex: ironically The Sun's article may actually have helped compromise the FA's case Custiss has certainly not helped the FA's position by repeating on radio today that he had info from inside the FA... the result of all this is that QPR may lodge an application with the independent regulatory comisssion for the case's dismissal or delay, citing claims that their case has been pre-judged. Every time some fantasist pops up on a board claiming to have inside info, it adds fuel to that fire.

Then there is the fact that the alleged key breach (re third party economic involvement at the time of the sale) took place BEFORE the key rule change. This obviously undermines the FA's case - don't be surprised if the result of all this a self imposed bullet in the foot by the authorities (again).

Furthermore, since the FA have been investigating since September, it could be argued in mitigation that the resultant season long pressure has been a punishment in itself: Colin admitted that it finally got to the boys and their form has suffered. Which makes winning the Championship an even more remarkable achievement...

If this drags on - and it has the potential to do so, believe me - and the FA still insist on a dock, it's much more likely that it would apply to next seasons campaign. But I'd be very tempted to stand even money against a ban, I'm sure with an Escrow arrangement we could sort something, a PM will find me. But despite all the puffing and blowing on here, I dont expect to be knocked over in the rush

Any Bluebirds disenchanted with the outcome always have the option of playing under a different, more local regulatory authority

The obsession with QPR on here really is extraordinary, the clearest proof of pressure beginning to tell off the field (other than D.Jones burgeoning paranoia).

All sorts of assumptions are being made but there are some key points which are being missed again and again. The title of this thread, for example, assumes guilt. But the known facts are more complex: ironically The Sun's article may actually have helped compromise the FA's case Custiss has certainly not helped the FA's position by repeating on radio today that he had info from inside the FA... the result of all this is that QPR may lodge an application with the independent regulatory comisssion for the case's dismissal or delay, citing claims that their case has been pre-judged. Every time some fantasist pops up on a board claiming to have inside info, it adds fuel to that fire.

Then there is the fact that the alleged key breach (re third party economic involvement at the time of the sale) took place BEFORE the key rule change. This obviously undermines the FA's case - don't be surprised if the result of all this a self imposed bullet in the foot by the authorities (again).

Furthermore, since the FA have been investigating since September, it could be argued in mitigation that the resultant season long pressure has been a punishment in itself: Colin admitted that it finally got to the boys and their form has suffered. Which makes winning the Championship an even more remarkable achievement...

If this drags on - and it has the potential to do so, believe me - and the FA still insist on a dock, it's much more likely that it would apply to next seasons campaign. But I'd be very tempted to stand even money against a ban, I'm sure with an Escrow arrangement we could sort something, a PM will find me. But despite all the puffing and blowing on here, I dont expect to be knocked over in the rush

Any Bluebirds disenchanted with the outcome always have the option of playing under a different, more local regulatory authority

You have won me over. I now hope QPR get relegated.