Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on May 4, 2011 6:16:30 GMT
I don't know who Paul Smith is, but he seems to misunderstand the the term 'inflating the fee' and the essence/importance of it:
"What has particularly annoyed me about this case is the FA have built it around false claims from the club trying to impress fans"
The goal of an attempt to inflate the fee is not to impress the fans. It is the goal in itself. To INFLATE it. So that you artificially/virtually increase value of a possible transfer.
That is not a 'white lie' or 'innocent crime'. It's serious. Especially in the context of global financial crisis. Artificially boosting the value of something (almost 6 times!) brings chaos into the market.
--
And what about the contract with the third party? This IS illegal according to the FA. Any news on that?
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on May 4, 2011 6:23:05 GMT
The club also believe that last Friday's newspaper report has prejudiced the case against them and they had effectively been found guilty before the hearing.
That is one huge delusion. The paper reporting the alleged story has nothing to do neither with the hearing nor the FA.
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on May 4, 2011 6:35:52 GMT
they did not give rangers any right to reply and said that the FA had predetermined the club was guilty by default, before a trail.
If that has nothing to do with anything we may as well all pack up and go home now.
this is not a criminal case, but the story in the sun is certainly writ- worthy
|
|
|
Post by cpr on May 4, 2011 6:37:27 GMT
The club also believe that last Friday's newspaper report has prejudiced the case against them and they had effectively been found guilty before the hearing.That is one huge delusion. The paper reporting the alleged story has nothing to do neither with the hearing nor the FA. Not a delusion, a fact, it could and probably is prejudicial, the IRC will have seen it, along with the 15 minute repitition of it on SSN the following day. It could prejudice them in either direction. If a 15 point deduction is decided upon "that's fine, everyone expects it" or if 3 or 6 for example "well that's less than reported so good news". If 30 points are deducted "that'll show we take no notice of newspaper report" etc etc. This and more specifically, it's timing and claim of an FA source will doubtless be raised specifically because of the claims in it.
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on May 4, 2011 6:45:09 GMT
they did not give rangers any right to reply and said that the FA had predetermined the club was guilty by default, before a trail. If that has nothing to do with anything we may as well all pack up and go home now. this is not a criminal case, but the story in the sun is certainly writ- worthy But that was the assumption ("QPR guilty" = "big points deduction") of the paper running the story. Not the FA. Are you saying that the actual FA employees were giving their opinion to papers before the hearing? I don't believe they were THAT stupid and unprofessional.
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on May 4, 2011 6:57:01 GMT
This and more specifically, it's timing and claim of an FA source will doubtless be raised specifically because of the claims in it. What source?... On one hand, we don't really believe the source existed and that the story is real (come on... we don't), but on the other - we are trying to exploit it? The was no source. And if there was - we can't prove it. And even if someone from the FA would have said: if the club is found guilty of the charges it faces, there is a possibility of points deduction. Something like that... That is NOT prejudice. That's common sense.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on May 4, 2011 7:14:00 GMT
This and more specifically, it's timing and claim of an FA source will doubtless be raised specifically because of the claims in it. What source?... On one hand, we don't really believe the source existed and that the story is real (come on... we don't), but on the other - we are trying to exploit it? The was no source. And if there was - we can't prove it. And even if someone from the FA would have said: if the club is found guilty of the charges it faces, there is a possibility of points deduction. Something like that... That is NOT prejudice. That's common sense. Well, the story is real, that is without question. Is it believable? That really does not matter as it exists. How can it be common sense but not prejudicial? If the story did not exist, it would not be real, it would therefore not be prejudicial.
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on May 4, 2011 7:17:52 GMT
they did not give rangers any right to reply and said that the FA had predetermined the club was guilty by default, before a trail. If that has nothing to do with anything we may as well all pack up and go home now. this is not a criminal case, but the story in the sun is certainly writ- worthy But that was the assumption ("QPR guilty" = "big points deduction") of the paper running the story. Not the FA. Are you saying that the actual FA employees were giving their opinion to papers before the hearing? I don't believe they were THAT stupid and unprofessional. simon jordan was on record as saying who at the FA briefed the Sun, and so do the FA, he said. so yes I am.
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on May 4, 2011 7:29:18 GMT
I would add that we are not 100% that this guy is actually at the hearing.
|
|
|
Post by gibraltar on May 4, 2011 7:43:38 GMT
yeh i am not sure i believe this guy is "good friends" with the lawyer representing us.
|
|
|
Post by gibraltar on May 4, 2011 7:43:57 GMT
as much as i would love to believe everything he is saying
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on May 4, 2011 7:45:25 GMT
|
|
eskey8
Dave Sexton
www.cycle2austria.com
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by eskey8 on May 4, 2011 7:49:55 GMT
Paul SMith may or may not be good friends with the Lawyers - he is though, someone in the know - you don't become chief sports editor for a national newspaper otherwise. He seems to have some good information - and its certainly the most positive I have felt over the last few days.
Maybe I will sleep better tonight now.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on May 4, 2011 7:57:30 GMT
I'd bet that if the FA/Football League/Premiership focused their attention on ANY club, and really went to work/auditing/exploring, they'd find things to charge that club with.
|
|
|
Post by gibraltar on May 4, 2011 7:59:39 GMT
too true mac.
and certainly with us.
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on May 4, 2011 8:00:58 GMT
What source?... On one hand, we don't really believe the source existed and that the story is real (come on... we don't), but on the other - we are trying to exploit it? The was no source. And if there was - we can't prove it. And even if someone from the FA would have said: if the club is found guilty of the charges it faces, there is a possibility of points deduction. Something like that... That is NOT prejudice. That's common sense. Well, the story is real, that is without question. Is it believable? That really does not matter as it exists. How can it be common sense but not prejudicial? If the story did not exist, it would not be real, it would therefore not be prejudicial. If crime is proven, it must be punished. That's common sense. Logic. But above all - that's justice. How is that not prejudicial?... When the story exists on paper that does not mean it necessarily exists in real life. If you believe it does - that's your belief. But it's closer to prejudice than an opinion expressed above.
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on May 4, 2011 8:06:58 GMT
But that was the assumption ("QPR guilty" = "big points deduction") of the paper running the story. Not the FA. Are you saying that the actual FA employees were giving their opinion to papers before the hearing? I don't believe they were THAT stupid and unprofessional. simon jordan was on record as saying who at the FA briefed the Sun, and so do the FA, he said. so yes I am. Until it's proven, I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking. You'll have to have the FA representatives, not Simon Jordan, on record (tape) to start building a possible case. How strong that case would be - that is yet another question.
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on May 4, 2011 8:08:30 GMT
It's obvious Cardiff will moan vociferously. With their players they should have pissed this league and are under huge financial pressure but I'm genuinely surprised by the Nor Folk inbreds. Throughout this whole affair Narricgh fans have come across as some of the most bitter and nasty. I think their support do their fine club a great disservice. If we meet next season I anticipate some very ugly scenes.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on May 4, 2011 8:40:07 GMT
My big problem with what those fans are saying is that none of them actually know the facts of the case, for example they don't know that the FA and FL both sanctioned the transfer at the time and he hasn't been ineligible this season, it was last season this relates to.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on May 4, 2011 8:45:25 GMT
Hayley Wheeler - QPR deserve their shot at the Premier LeagueFootball.co.ukIsn't it ironic that it was Neil Warnock's side that felt aggrieved in 2007 when West Ham and their star player, who was owned by a third party, knocked them out of the Premier League. For that is the very reason that QPR have found themselves in the sticky situation they are in today. When Carlos Teves helped to keep West Ham in the Premier League at the expense of Sheffield United, the Hammers were forced to pay hefty fines to the FA and to the Blades in compensation. That was the catalyst for the FA to introduce new rules regarding third party ownership of players - a rule which QPR are accused of breaking with Argentine midfielder Alejandro Faurlin. If the Championship table-toppers are stripped of points (it could be up to 15 points if it is worked out on precedents set by other cases), we could see them slip into the play-off places and lose their automatic promotion spot. It would be a travesty for the best team in the Championship to not be rewarded for their endeavours during the season and they undoubtedly deserve to return to top flight football. Neil Warnock has done a remarkable job - taking his side from 20th in the league to promotion in just 13 months. The pain of having promotion ripped from your grasp must be even harder to accept than facing relegation. They have even admitted that the atmosphere around the training ground is like a morgue, and understandably so. The players would have allowed themselves to dream of running out onto the best grounds in the country, and going into battle with some of the world's greatest players. To have it taken away would be a crushing blow. And if QPR are blocked from returning to England's elite league it could prove a tough task holding on to the Championship's player of the season 2011. Adel Taarabt could not have been more worthy of the accolade after his goal-scoring exploits and assists throughout the campaign, captaining his side to their most successful season in 15 years. Adel is a playmaker worthy of top flight football and after showcasing his talent this season, he will be hot property if he is forced to remain in the Championship next season. The club are facing seven charges of misconduct and if found guilty, they could face a substantial fine or point deduction. For a club that has been in and out of administration, a fine would seem far from a good result, but luckily for QPR they have wealthy owners in Flavio Briatore and Bernie Ecclestone and could cope with the financial strain. If QPR are found guilty, I, along with their players, staff and army of fans will be hoping for a conclusion to the matter that doesn't punish the team who have worked so hard to give their fans what they have wanted since 1996 - a return to the big time www.football.co.uk/blogs/5025/1655546.shtml
|
|
|
Post by cpr on May 4, 2011 8:48:40 GMT
Well, the story is real, that is without question. Is it believable? That really does not matter as it exists. How can it be common sense but not prejudicial? If the story did not exist, it would not be real, it would therefore not be prejudicial. If crime is proven, it must be punished. That's common sense. Logic. But above all - that's justice. How is that not prejudicial?... When the story exists on paper that does not mean it necessarily exists in real life. If you believe it does - that's your belief. But it's closer to prejudice than an opinion expressed above. I agree that if a "crime is proven" it must be punished, however this is a hearing not a lawcourt and there is no documented punishment, if a "crime" is indeed proven. Not sure I follow your second sentence, as I already said, the story exists, therefore it is real. I did not imagine it. I was only commenting on the Sun story, not the case itself.
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on May 4, 2011 8:49:17 GMT
morning all
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on May 4, 2011 8:50:34 GMT
Good man...(Think ex-QPR youth?) Don't dock QPR points - says Reading FC strikerBy Jonny Fordham - Reading Post May 04, 2011 Simon Church has urged the FA not to dock Queens Park Rangers any points and throw the end of the season into chaos after their alleged transfer rule-breaking.Neil Warnock’s side are set to find out on Friday what action will be taken against them in relation to the signing of Alejandro Faurlin. QPR deny all seven charges made against them, but if they are found to be guilty, they could lose points or fined. If that was the case then they could then find themselves in the play-offs, despite already being promoted as champions. The Championship play-off semi-finals are scheduled to take place on May 12, 13, 16 and 17, with the final at Wembley on Monday, May 30. However, any decision that finds QPR guilty would result in subsequent appeals, meaning that there is a chance of the play-offs changing dates. But Wales striker Church said: “They have done fantastic to get where they are. “It would be disappointing if they got the points deducted, but if that’s how they see it then fair enough. “We now want to be the third team to be promoted. “We always believed that we could get to the play-offs and we wrote down what we needed to do. It’s worked and the team have been fantastic recently. “The manager has been brilliant too with his team selections and squads and it is a good place to be right now.” Follow Jonny Fordham on Twitter here For now, Church admits that there is some uncertainty around the Superhoops’ case, but all Reading’s attentions should be focused fully on facing Derby County at Madejski Stadium on Saturday (12.45pm kick-off). “It’s a game where we don’t feel any pressure so it’s a great way to end the season before having the play-offs,” Church added. “The next couple of days will be important and then after that, the next couple of weeks will be very important. “This season I still haven’t scored as many goals as I would have liked to, but the season isn’t over and I’m sure there will be a lot more chances. “The run we have had and the teams we have beaten this year, we won’t fear anyone.” www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/readingfc/s/2092006_dont_dock_qpr_points__says_reading_fc_striker
|
|
|
Post by cpr on May 4, 2011 8:50:56 GMT
Saveloy and peas pudding please maud. ;D
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on May 4, 2011 8:54:27 GMT
Saveloy and peas pudding please maud. ;D another long day ahead cpr, I'll throw in some extra cracklin, to keep the energy up ;D
|
|
|
Post by gibraltar on May 4, 2011 8:56:44 GMT
i wish they would just say "F this S in the A, clearly nothing to answer, so QPR = NOT GUILTY. Paladini = £50k fine"
tho i am sure he would just take another loan from QPR to pay it(!)
|
|
eskey8
Dave Sexton
www.cycle2austria.com
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by eskey8 on May 4, 2011 8:57:46 GMT
I'm hungry now Maud
|
|
|
Post by cpr on May 4, 2011 9:02:53 GMT
Pickled egg?
|
|
|
Post by gibraltar on May 4, 2011 9:04:15 GMT
why do a fraction of the threads in this forum end up as a shopping list?!!?!? lol
has the hearing started yet (2nd day obv)?
|
|
|
Post by cpr on May 4, 2011 9:05:09 GMT
10AM Gib, glued to SSN, I'll keep you posted. Eusebio is on site
|
|