jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #60 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 10:32:07 » |
|
If they were to deduct enough points from QPR to take them out of the top 2, the resulting legal battle would be so messy that I doubt the FA have the bottle to pursue this. Tackling us in 1990 was one thing; taking on Ecclestone and Mittal in 2011 is quite another.
If QPR are guilty and aren't given the correct punishment and so stay in the top 2 (and the playoffs), then the FA and FL will be facing a legal battle with the team placed 3rd and 7th. Much the same as West Ham did from Sheffield United. They can't win either way, unless they issue the correct punishment and then stick to it. Not even sure the courts will be that interested in getting involved due to the tight time scales for next season, more likely it would go to arbitration or a totally independent panel (CAS?) and be dealt with very quickly. Whilst leaving the decision so late is stupid in some ways, it's clever in others - primarily that there isn't going to be the time for a lengthy court case to resolve it and no judge will want to get involved in fucking up the start of next season.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Spencer_White
|
|
« Reply #61 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 10:32:44 » |
|
This really is a farce, on the radio they have said that QPR will get the trophy if they are not deducted points before 4.45pm !!!
Disagree with the Palace fan about the whole 'integrity of the competition' lark. They havnt made a decision yet because they cant make a decision.
Would be better if QPR could start next season on -15 points, but I doubt the Premier League would be happy with that. Makes the relegation scrap much less interesting for them next season.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55508
|
|
« Reply #62 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 10:39:55 » |
|
If they get relegated instead of a points deduction can we still call you Susan?
Absolutely.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #63 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 10:40:40 » |
|
A 20 point deduction announced just before kick off would be ace.
Would turn QPR v Leeds in to a winner takes 6th battle, with a draw opening the door for Millwall or Burnley.
I reckon QPR are fucked though if found guilty of all the charges, I'm going for a 30 point deduction (or worse).
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #64 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 10:45:40 » |
|
BBC reporting they've found them guilty of two charges but no points deduction.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nemo
Shit Bacon
Offline
Posts: 21457
|
|
« Reply #65 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 10:48:28 » |
|
The London Law firms will be cock-a-hoop.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ghanimah
Offline
Posts: 3639
|
|
« Reply #66 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 10:55:42 » |
|
From BBC Sports news correspondent Dan Roan: "The Regulatory Commission hearing charges brought by the FA against Queens Park Rangers FC wish to announce that although two of the charges have been found to be proved there will be no points deduction made from Queens Park Rangers FC in this season or the next. A further announcement will follow." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9477278.stmWhat a joke
|
|
|
Logged
|
"We perform the duties of freemen; we must have the privileges of freemen ..."
|
|
|
sheepshagger
Suburban Capitalist........
Offline
Posts: 920
|
|
« Reply #67 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:09:11 » |
|
Have to say I am pleased about this - QPR have been far and away the best team in the Championship this season
I still have a massive sour taste about what happened to us - but I wouldn't wish that on other football supporters (apart from Poxford of course) !!!!
Although it does stink yet again of the F.A. bottling it against the might of the money at QPR - their lawyers would have tied the F.A. up in knots over the summer if there had been a big points deduction !!
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wise men say........
|
|
|
BANGKOK RED
|
|
« Reply #68 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:13:45 » |
|
Have to say I am pleased about this - QPR have been far and away the best team in the Championship this season
Which means they should be allowed to break the rules?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BANGKOK RED
|
|
« Reply #69 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:15:24 » |
|
And we were one of the best teams when we went up in 1990
So why were we not allowed to break the rules?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tans
You spin me right round baby right round
Offline
Posts: 25212
|
|
« Reply #70 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:19:36 » |
|
Good to see the Fa dping what they do best.
Fucking chokers
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55508
|
|
« Reply #71 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:23:07 » |
|
Not a Susan
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonah
Offline
Posts: 443
|
|
« Reply #72 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:28:28 » |
|
What a surprise..........not.
FA not willing to apply the rules to all clubs equally. The babes.
Much easier to deal with "small" clubs like Swindon and Peterborough and make scapegoats of them.
I suppose it's the way of the world - know "the right people" and you'll go far.
Jonah
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wiltshire boy born and bred - long in arm thick in 'ead.......
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #73 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:43:17 » |
|
More to the point they've got billionaire owners who'll take the FA to the cleaners if they don't go up. They'll bottle it - irrelevant but hefty sounding fine and a minor points deduction which might stop them being champions but won't stop them going up.
Well, I said all along they'd bottle it, but even I'm shocked by the scale of the spinelessness. There's no point football having rules in this country - they may as well just compare the balance sheets/wealth of the owners at the start of the season and dish out the trophies on that basis
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55508
|
|
« Reply #74 on: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:43:18 » |
|
I bet the FA probably applied the right penalty for whatever they found QPR guilty of. Its more whether they bottled finding them guilty of other charges. I'd imagine a team of expensive QPR lawyers and the ensuing fiasco influenced them, but it can't be proven.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|