One minor point regarding Flaviogate

[Jamie]

shamie, if he can convince all parties to stay with him, then I think thats the loophole

He can sell some of his shares?? maybe and have say 29%??

it says unequivocally, "prohibits a party being involved with a Football League club"

doesnt matter if its 30%, or 0.30%, he now fails the Fit and Proper Test and as set out by the guidelines is prohibiting from ANY involvement with QPR

[m_cooper]

the real point is,that if flav stays our sponsors and probably mittal and bernie will pull out as they will not want to be associated with flav

[Shamie]

shamie, if he can convince all parties to stay with him, then I think thats the loophole

He can sell some of his shares?? maybe and have say 29%??

But he would still be an investor who is banned from another sport.

If he did as you say and end up with 29%,do you think he would be happy with not being the majority shareholder at the club?

[Robbo]

But he would still be an investor who is banned from another sport.

If he did as you say and end up with 29%,do you think he would be happy with not being the majority shareholder at the club?

And also not allowed to be a director, and take a seat on the board??

[Shamie]

And also not allowed to be a director, and take a seat on the board??

Exactly!

[Olly]

if he's looking for something to do, give him the drum in Qblock

[Nodge70]

the real point is,that if flav stays our sponsors and probably mittal and bernie will pull out as they will not want to be associated with flav

They can't.

They are contracted with the club, not any one individual.

[Jamie]

They can't.

They are contracted with the club, not any one individual.

well technically they could tear up the contracts but you'd hope this supposedly more professional setup would have built in some hefty penalties for doing so

[Nodge70]

well technically they could tear up the contracts but you'd hope this supposedly more professional setup would have built in some hefty penalties for doing so

Oooh yes...........early redemption penalties. I know all about those! :exciting:

[PeterG]

"They can't.

They are contracted with the club, not any one individual."

I have seem a fair few sponsorship contracts and i have seen a fair few breakout clauses in them relating to a company or individual bringing a brand into disrepute

Think Micheal Jackson and Pepsi or Jade Goody and pretty much all her deals prior to shilpagate

Briatore is the figurehead of QPR and the reason the sponsorships where placed, the phrase tarnished by association could be applicable here.

[Nodge70]

"They can't.

They are contracted with the club, not any one individual."

I have seem a fair few sponsorship contracts and i have seen a fair few breakout clauses in them relating to a company or individual bringing a brand into disrepute

Think Micheal Jackson and Pepsi or Jade Goody and pretty much all her deals prior to shilpagate

Briatore is the figurehead of QPR and the reason the sponsorships where placed, the phrase tarnished by association could be applicable here.

All individuals directly linked to the product in question though Peter? Not a third party linked to these actions only by association?

I would hope that the contracts negotiated with us wouldn't have any break clauses for circumstances outside the control of the football club (not the individual - taking into consideration that, whatever his motives, for the incident in question, FB was acting on behalf of Renault Motorsport, not himself and certainly not QPR FC) - if they do, whoever signed them off at QPR FC needs shooting.

[Captain Clunge]

All individuals directly linked to the product in question though Peter? Not a third party linked to these actions only by association?

I would hope that the contracts negotiated with us wouldn't have any break clauses for circumstances outside the control of the football club (not the individual - taking into consideration that, whatever his motives, for the incident in question, FB was acting on behalf of Renault Motorsport, not himself and certainly not QPR FC) - if they do, whoever signed them off at QPR FC needs shooting.

I'd imagine they all come with a "change of ownership" clause.