QPR points deduction?

[East Grinstead Royal]

A points deduction applied part-way through the season can be said to have some element of "fairness" about it, in that all parties know where they stand, and the authorities cannot be accused of knowing what the final outcome would be. Imposing any points deduction on the eve of the final game means that whatever decision is made, the authorities will know exactly what effect the penalty would have, i.e. they would be playing God by altering (or not) the importance of the final game for affected clubs. So instead of deducting a number of points and allowing nature to take its course, they will be interfering with the laws of nature. What on Earth would be the point of deducting (say) 10 points when QPR are already (say) 14 points ahead of 3rd place? A points deduction that leaves QPR at the top of the table would be a complete waste of time - it changes nothing and is not really a penalty at all. 10 points deducted a month earlier would have been an entirely different penalty.

That's why I agree with Z175 - the outcome will either be no points deducted at all or sufficient points deducted to move them to mid-table. What is certain, though, is that the timing is an absolute nighmare for everyone (including the other clubs) and the authorities will be cacking their undies and wondering how they managed to create such a monster.

My gut feeling is no points deducted but a fine. What I am curious about, though, is: what happens to the proceeds arising from the fine? The reason for a fine would be that QPR have cheated. That means someone else has been the victim of their cheating. Should the victims not benefit from the fine? Fat chance...

[leicsRoyal]

just out of interest.

If QPR where to be deducted points that cost them promotion, what would that roughly cost them by way of all incomings associated with the premier league, say just for one year? the figure of £60 mill is often banded about but I'm sure there are many other factors that aren't calculated into this figure.

I'm sure it would equate to one hell of a fine.

[East Grinstead Royal]

No idea, but you have to remember that their outgoings would increase as well, so it's not as simple as understanding the effect on their income. That's what SJM and NH would tell you...

[facaldaqui]

What on Earth would be the point of deducting (say) 10 points when QPR are already (say) 14 points ahead of 3rd place? A points deduction that leaves QPR at the top of the table would be a complete waste of time - it changes nothing and is not really a penalty at all. 10 points deducted a month earlier would have been an entirely different penalty.

I agree it would've been better to deduct it earlier; but should the punishment vary according to position in the league? Should a club at the top of the league be deducted more points than a club in the middle? Not if justice is to be fair: the penalites should be fixed for similar offences.

Should Mikele Leigertwood have been suspended an extra game because he wasn't eligible anyway for the one against QPR? Not in my opinion.

If you went to court for the same crime as one done by someone on benefits, would you be happy if they got a lower fine than you, while you got a bigger fine because you were better off?

[leicsRoyal]

No idea, but you have to remember that their outgoings would increase as well, so it's not as simple as understanding the effect on their income. That's what SJM and NH would tell you...

The more you look into it the more complicated it could get.

Players values will not be the same if they are a championship side

Players may well have release clauses if they do not gain promotion

[Royal Rother]

Call me naive, but I am still ultra-confident that, if it is proved that Faurlin was infact ineligible to play and that QPR at some stage knew that was the case and tried to hide the fact and / or did nothing about it and / or denied it then there is no way they will be playing in the PL next season.

It's just a case of whether any / all of the above are proven.

All this stuff about whether they have the balls to do it is to me irrelevant, as is the timing of the hearing - Svlad has told us regularly how complicated the whole issue is but if the wrongdoing is proven, they will not be promoted.

[facaldaqui]

Call me naive, but I am still ultra-confident that, if it is proved that Faurlin was infact ineligible to play and that QPR at some stage knew that was the case and tried to hide the fact and / or did nothing about it and / or denied it then there is no way they will be playing in the PL next season.

It's just a case of whether any / all of the above are proven.

All this stuff about whether they have the balls to do it is to me irrelevant, as is the timing of the hearing - Svlad has told us regularly how complicated the whole issue is but if the wrongdoing is proven, they will not be promoted.

Yes, and it's hard to believe they would charge them with deception if they hadn't got their facts right first. It should be a simple matter to prove.

Mind you, the FA have also charged Carlton Cole over his anti-Ghanaian jokes, and I can't see him being found guilty of any offence there in a month of Sundays, if he has decent representation.

[ZacNaloen]

I don't think it matters whether they knew and covered it up or it was a mitake. If he was ineligible to play.. then it's points off and should be three points for each game he played as that is how this has been dealt with in the past.

The rest of it is just the icing on the cake.

[facaldaqui]

I don't think it matters whether they knew and covered it up or it was a mitake. If he was ineligible to play.. then it's points off and should be three points for each game he played as that is how this has been dealt with in the past.

I think there is definitely a difference between the deliberate and inadvertent fielding of an ineligible player. Deliberate deception is more serious, surely.

[Silver Fox]

Mind you, the FA have also charged Carlton Cole over his anti-Ghanaian jokes, and I can't see him being found guilty of any offence there in a month of Sundays, if he has decent representation.

I'm fairly sure he's going to be deducted 15 twitter followers

[fester_royal]

relegation with no leave to appeal, it's the only sensible solution

I prefer liquidation and Loftus Road burnt to the ground.

Motion seconded...

[PieEater]

My gut feeling is no points deducted but a fine. What I am curious about, though, is: what happens to the proceeds arising from the fine? The reason for a fine would be that QPR have cheated. That means someone else has been the victim of their cheating. Should the victims not benefit from the fine? Fat chance...

A fine would be because they broke the rules not that they have cheated. The only victim is the FL league. The probable beneficiary of a points deduction is Cardiff, so for that reason I hope they just get a fine.

The idea of the rule against third party ownership is to avoid players throwing games, not very likely when you're top of the league.

[ZacNaloen]

I don't think it matters whether they knew and covered it up or it was a mitake. If he was ineligible to play.. then it's points off and should be three points for each game he played as that is how this has been dealt with in the past.

I think there is definitely a difference between the deliberate and inadvertent fielding of an ineligible player. Deliberate deception is more serious, surely.

Yes, they should get loads more points deducted.

What I meant to say was, that if precedent is followed they should get deducted 3 points for every game he played in this season before becoming legible regardless of why he was ineligible and whether they knew about it.

And be fined a certain amount for every game pre-this season. Plus whatever punishment they get for the alleged cover up.

But I don't really expect anything this severe.

[andrew1957]

A points deduction applied part-way through the season can be said to have some element of "fairness" about it, in that all parties know where they stand, and the authorities cannot be accused of knowing what the final outcome would be. Imposing any points deduction on the eve of the final game means that whatever decision is made, the authorities will know exactly what effect the penalty would have, i.e. they would be playing God by altering (or not) the importance of the final game for affected clubs. So instead of deducting a number of points and allowing nature to take its course, they will be interfering with the laws of nature. What on Earth would be the point of deducting (say) 10 points when QPR are already (say) 14 points ahead of 3rd place? A points deduction that leaves QPR at the top of the table would be a complete waste of time - it changes nothing and is not really a penalty at all. 10 points deducted a month earlier would have been an entirely different penalty.

That's why I agree with Z175 - the outcome will either be no points deducted at all or sufficient points deducted to move them to mid-table. What is certain, though, is that the timing is an absolute nighmare for everyone (including the other clubs) and the authorities will be cacking their undies and wondering how they managed to create such a monster.

My gut feeling is no points deducted but a fine.

Spot on analysis. I suspect a fine will be all they will get BUT there is an outside chance that the authorities want to make an example of them.

[philM]

Skybet have now got 2 sets of prices, one price "with QPR" and one "without QPR".

RFC are 7/2 to win the Championship "without QPR".

If the points deduction does happen some people could be well in if they've bet before the markets seperated the prices.

http://www.skybet.com/betting/football/npower-championship/betting-without-q.p.r./e12815941.html

[Royal Rother]

There are too many precedents here. The only way it can be just a fine (I'd have thought) if it is case not proven but found that they were somehow unco-operative or obsctructive or that their paperwork left something to be desired when asked to assist in the enquiry.

[Kitson12]

Skybet have now got 2 sets of prices, one price "with QPR" and one "without QPR".

RFC are 7/2 to win the Championship "without QPR".

If the points deduction does happen some people could be well in if they've bet before the markets seperated the prices.

What favourite does that make us? 2nd, 3rd or 4th for winning "without QPR"?

[philM]

Cardiff 9/4
Norwich 5/2
Swansea 11/4
Reading 7/2
Leeds 40/1
N Forest 40/1
Millwall 50/1
Burnley 100/1

[philM]

bet365 are still offering 80/1 on RFC winning the Championship. No mention of QPR, no apparent special conditions.

Seems they are a step behind skybet.

Worth a punt maybe on teams 2-6 currently? Or do you think they could squirm out of it if QPR were taken out by a points deduction?

Or are the chances of a points deduction too remote to make it worthwhile?

Sod it, I'll put a tenner on RFC, Norwich Swansea and Cardiff. So basically its £40 at something like 40/1 that QPR get enough points taken off.

With my luck Leeds will walk it.

[Bacon Double Cheese]

relegation with no leave to appeal, it's the only sensible solution

I prefer liquidation and Loftus Road burnt to the ground.

Motion seconded...

Thirded.