 Thursday, 26th May 2011 00:22 by Clive Whittingham As if a deliberate attempt to keep LFW feature writers up late into the night the FA decided that today, of all days, was the day to release their report into QPR’s signing of Alejandro Faurlin. A good day to bury bad newsCan anybody tell me, as a starter for ten, who Jo Moore is/was? Chances are you can’t, because in this bizarre 24 hour media society we currently inhabit the sheer volume of people who are pursued vigorously for an apology and then forgotten about almost as soon as the words have passed their lips is staggering and it would be impossible to remember them all. The sub-headline for the final part of LFW’s assessment of an astonishing day at Loftus Road should give you a clue. Jo Moore was a political aide to the beleaguered Labour transport minister Stephen Byers in 2001. In her role as advice giver to an increasingly isolated and vulnerable politician she said that the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001, made it a “good day to bury bad news.” Understandably the focus of the world was entirely on America, so nobody was around to notice the Department for Transport sneaking another couple of skeletons out of the cupboard under a white sheet. She was forced to apologise, as everybody is these days for reasons I have never quite comprehended. Would it be wrong of me to imagine that Gianni Paladini may sit back this evening with a glass of red and reflect that, for once, the Football Association may have got its timing absolutely spot on? Paladini does not come out of the official report into the Alejandro Faurlin transfer particularly well, although little that’s said will come as a surprise to even casual followers of QPR over the past few years. But having begun the investigation in September, waited until March to issue charges, waited until the morning of the final match of the season to reveal the results and then waited another fortnight to actually release the details as to how the judgement was reached what odds would you have got on the FA finally releasing their bloody report (86 pages) on a day when focus is split equally between season ticket prices and the resignation of Amit Bhatia from the board? Reading the report Paladini probably can’t believe his luck on more than one level. Ignoring the timing, the full report is available to read by clicking here. It’s worth pointing out that right at the end of the report is an appendix relating to a hearing that took place before the main event. It refers to attempts by QPR to have the two committee members from the FA struck off the panel because of the now infamous, inaccurate Shaun Custis article in The Sun that had quoted an unnamed FA source saying QPR were guilty and would be deducted 15 points. The application was refused, but the potential bias of the two committee members was examined closely. The report begins by setting out facts that were not disputed by either QPR or the FA and goes on to tell the whole convoluted affair of how QPR came to own an unknown Argentinean midfield player for, as it turns out, about £615,000. The report states that Alejandro Faurlin was actually bought from Instituto Cordoba for £250,000 by a company called TYP Sports Agency, run by Franco Tasco, in 2007. That deal cancelled his contract with Cordoba and entitled TYP to his economic and other rights, and 70 per cent commission on other aspects of the player. QPR did not dispute that in 2009 Gianni Paladini travelled to Argentina to discuss signing the player, fully aware of the agreement with Tasco with whom he held discussions over the transfer. Following that meeting a letter setting out an oral agreement between Paladini and Tasco as to how the rights would be suspended were Faurlin to move was sent to QPR. This letter confirmed that although TYP owned Faurlin 100 per cent, they would exercise no influence nor claim any money during his three year contract with QPR. However, were Rangers ever to offer the player a new contract they would have to agree a fee to purchase the player with TYP. The FA alleged that the letter only covered the first 12 months of Faurlin’s contract, and TYP would be able to exert third party influence thereafter if QPR did not buy the player out of his agreement. The FA’s allegation is not an unreasonable one because that’s what it said in the letter. In the letter TYP state that the suspension was until June 2010, not June 2012, but QPR and TYP claim this was a human error. The FA was unable to contact the secretary who drafted the letter, Fernanda Perez, much to its frustration as her evidence would have been “tested closely” according to the report. The error was not picked up by Mr Tasco at TYP when he signed the letter, or by Paladini when he received it. Paladini was described by the club’s solicitor in evidence as someone who “tends not to be a finer-detail person.” Having received the letter Paladini apparently filed it, without checking it or telling anybody at the club about it, and then proceeded with the transfer. It was also said that when requesting a letter suspending the economic rights Paladini had asked for the deal to run for the “first year”, however it was concluded that what Paladini “really meant to say” was the first period meaning the first three year contract he signed. The commission was “troubled” by this “trilogy of errors” in the letter but satisfied that they were just errors all the same and that no third party influence could have been exerted over the player during his first contract with the club. The FA argued that the agreement only lasted for one year, and said it would be unlikely that Tasco and TYI would be happy not to see a return on their £250,000 investment on the player for three years. Tasco denied this, said he was confident in the players’ ability, and was found to be vindicated when QPR bought him out of the deal for £615,000 a year into it. The commission was satisfied that no third party influence was, or could have been, exerted as alleged in charge one and that a further two charges could not stand as even if influence by a third party could be proved the rules came in after QPR had agreed the signing of Faurlin with TYI and had no retrospective powers. The signing was announced on July 9, 2009. Neither QPR nor the FA disputed that although the QPR official website (first and fastest with all your QPR news) reported the transfer to be worth £3.5m in fact no money had been paid at all at that stage. The report described this statement as “clearly false” and said that Paladini had appeared to accept responsibility for it in interview before being evasive about it under cross examination. Ian Mill, QPR’s barrister, described the article as a “puff” designed to placate supporters about the direction the club was taking. Something LFW suggested was the case at the time and has maintained ever since and something to bear in mind when reading official club news in future. Faurlin signed a three year deal and QPR submitted the paperwork to the FA with no mention of any third party influence. QPR also agreed to pay a “finder’s fee” to agent Peppino Tirri who was registered with FIFA but not as an overseas agent with the FA. It is this failure to notify the FA of the agreement between QPR and TYI to suspend the third party influence that saw the club fall foul of rule E3 – essentially not acting in the best interests of the game. Paladini admitted in evidence that not only had he not told the FA about the agreement and “comfort letter” confirming it, he hadn’t even informed QPR secretary Terry Springett, or lawyer Chris Farnell who would almost certainly have drawn attention to it had they been told. The commission found Paladini’s knowledge of the FA rules to be “inconsistent” but found that he should clearly have known it needed flagging up, and saw his repeated apologies during the hearing as regret for not doing so. Ian Mill described the drafting of the letter itself as “inept.” The commission found Paladini’s actions, while not deliberately dishonest, meant QPR were policing the agreement with TYI themselves and depriving the FA the chance to do so. This was clearly contrary to the best interests of the game and the charge was upheld. In August 2010, after a successful first season in English football, Faurlin was offered an improved deal by QPR. As part of this Paladini requested a sum of £615,000 from the club’s finance director having agreed the fee with TYP to buy out the economic rights of the player. The club’s solicitor subsequently instructed Rangers to refer this deal to the Football League. The league was indeed notified, and the FA was made aware of the deal in September last year. The contract was agreed and signed with Faurlin at the start of October. Faurlin, through conspiracy or coincidence, was out of the team through injury during the latter part of September and the start of October – the only time he has been ruled out through ill-health during his time with the club. When the new contract was submitted to the FA a further payment of £200,000 was made to Tirri. The FA initially approved the deal, then withdrew its approval on November 5 due to “ongoing concerns about the nature of the third party arrangements surrounding the player.” The FA launched an investigation in December before finally approving the buyout in January. On January 27, £615,000 was paid by QPR to TYP for the economic rights of Faurlin. The use of Tirri in the first transfer, and subsequent payments to him after the second contract re-negotiation drew the final three charges against the club and one against Paladini as the agent was not licensed with the FA during the first deal. The club argued that he only carried out agency activity for which he was remunerated on the second negotiation in October 2010, by which time he was registered. Mr Tirri was unwilling to give evidence to the hearing because his fee had been withheld by the FA. Paladini said that Tirri’s involvement in the first deal had been to send the club initial video of Faurlin, and help bring the player to England to discuss the transfer. But the commission found that Tirri had been materially significant to the recruitment of the player and did provide agency activity while unlicensed. Paladini, a former football agent himself, said he was unaware FIFA registered agents had to be registered with the FA as well. Again Terry Springett the secretary was not advised of Tirri’s involvement, and his name was not included in the original documentation. With charge five proved, the FA then alleged that Tirri did no work at all on the second contract negotiation but was still paid £200,000 – money they say was belated payment for the first contract when he was not registered. The inference being that QPR knew they were dealing with an unlicensed agent initially and therefore delayed the payment until he was signed up and legal, then stuck his name on the second agreement that he’d had nothing to do with to enable them to pay him for the first one when he shouldn’t have been involved at all. Clear? In interview Tirri said he hadn’t even been present at the second set of negotiations and Paladini backed that up in his interview saying the payment was for his work on the first deal - when he wasn’t registered. In evidence Paladini sought to clarify this, saying Tirri had been out of the country but still involved with the second deal. With “hesitation” the commission found that the FA had not proved its case that Tirri had had no involvement in the second contract negotiations and had merely been named on the documents as a way of covering up the use of him first time around when he wasn’t licensed. The commission found that neither QPR nor Gianni Paladini had sought to conceal Tirri’s role in the second playing contract. The report states, in not so many words, that even QPR would not be so stupid as to do so when the FA was already investigating the deal. Don’t be so sure lads. Anyway, this all meant charges five, six and seven against Rangers and the charge against Paladini were dismissed. It will come as no surprise to anybody who saw Gianni Paladini in the witness box at Blackfriars Crown Court when he had accused then director David Morris of hiring a gang of heavies to force his resignation from the club at gun point that the report was critical of the quality of the Italian’s evidence. The report reads: “Paladini repeatedly answered questions by making the points that he wanted to get across, and at some length, rather than answer the question that had been asked of him. At the same time, though, we did not form the impression at any time that Mr. Paladini was being deliberately evasive or untruthful. He prevaricated, unnecessarily we felt, over whether he was the source of the club’s web-site report regarding the value of the deal to bring the player to the club, but otherwise we accept that he was doing his best, albeit imperfectly, to assist us when giving his evidence.” To his credit though the commission repeatedly absolved Paladini of lying, acting dishonestly or trying to deceive them. They spoke of his clear and obvious trauma at the prospect of a decade of hard work at Loftus Road coming to nothing if the decision went against the club. On the question of sanctions for failing to notify the FA of the agreement with TYP, the commission did find that QPR had gained a sporting advantage, which means the escape without a points deduction was an extremely fortunate one. The commission found that QPR would not have paid the significant £615,000 fee it eventually did for an unproven player like Faurlin in the first instance – the failure to notify the FA of the third party arrangement meant QPR were able to get a player for free in a way other clubs would not have been able to do. This sporting advantage covered the whole of the 2009/10 season, and until November this season which will surely be of interest to Championship clubs considering legal challenges. On the basis that we were found to have gained a sporting advantage, I would say we’ve been lucky to escape a points deduction. The commission’s reasons for not imposing one included the FA’s policy that outcomes should be decided on the field of play, QPR’s previous excellent record (stop laughing at the back), no evidence of dishonesty or bad faith and the voluntary disclosure by QPR and full cooperation with the commission. The commission also took into account evidence from David Pleat (not such a bad fella after all as it turns out) who said in his expert opinion QPR’s midtable finish in 2009/10 showed no tangible advantage that affected the outcome of the Championship season had been gained. Although reading into Pleat’s evidence, it seems he believes only prolific goal scorers can be said to give a team a serious sporting advantage. Pleat clearly didn’t give consideration to how Faurlin had carrier a rancid QPR side though the second half of last season and it’s just as well he didn’t. Oh, and that mysterious injury Faurlin picked up at Ipswich in September I spoke about earlier helped us too – in his absence we won three and drew two, further reducing any perceived advantage we were gaining by having him. This column, in its original guise, borrowed its title from Neil Warnock’s Independent column – “What have we learnt this week” – before I shortened it so News Now would pick it up. Staying true to the column’s roots; what have we learnt from this report? That QPR were lucky to escape without a points deduction? I would say so. Having found the club to have gained a sporting advantage for a season and a half by failing to disclose information to the FA I think a points deduction must have been a serious consideration. The commission fortunately found that it didn’t reflect the seriousness of the offence and would be disproportionate. Instead they levied an £800,000 fine against us, worked out roughly along the lines of Faurlin’s transfer value at the end of the advantage in November 2010 (estimated at £1m) compared to the beginning of it 15 months previously when a player of his experience and ability may have cost £200,000. That Gianni Paladini is a disaster waiting to happen? Certainly, though this is more a reaffirmation of what we already knew. In obtaining an “inept” draft of a “comfort letter” suspending the third party influence for an incorrect amount of time Paladini had taken it upon himself to act as the club’s lawyer. He then filed said letter away without telling the FA about the agreement, or even mentioning it to his own club’s lawyer or secretary. QPR are now a Premiership club that will, over the next year, turnover many millions of pounds and complete some of the most high profile transfers in its history, probably bringing in a good few foreign players in the process. Should somebody who feels, at a time when the Carlos Tevez transfer was headline news, that an “inept” letter with the wrong date on it bunged in a cupboard and forgotten about is adequate protection against third party regulations be involved at any kind of level with such a club? Is it right that our transfer deals this summer will be at least partly conducted by somebody whose knowledge of the FA’s regulations is said to be “inconsistent” and who despite working as an agent for many years claims not to have known that you have to be registered with the FA, not just FIFA, to work in this country? As I’ve said before, if the situation remains as it is now it’s only a matter of time before we’re going through something similar again. Follow @loftforwords on Twitter and win a free moan tweeted direct to your feed. Photo: Action Images Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.
You need to login in order to post your comments |
   Blogs 31 bloggersCharlton Athletic Polls |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
