Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
A worrying read?
Collapse
X
-
As you say the PL are indeed a seperate entity that could allow for or not, as the case may be, for a points deduction to be carried over from another bodies (FL) competition into theirs.Two points here...
Seperate competitions yes, but perfectly allowable for points deductions to be carried over. Precedent set with Boston being deducted points from the National Conference, carried over into the Football League and vice versa IIRC with Chester, Luton and, I believe Darlington, taking points penalties down with them. Obviously the PL is an entirely seperate entity to the FC so they may have a different view but there's no reason to believe they would not allow the penalty to carry through.
We have 14 days to appeal, which must be heard within 28 days subsequent to the appeal being lodged - which would take us well beyond the end of this season. I've not seen this personally but has been quoted in various documentation floating around and is consistent with the appeal time frames previously applied.
.Comment
-
Final Version - Hope you like it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1z0UQ0eqRM
Follow Me On Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/QPRGoddardComment
-
if your in trouble!
need some help!
maybe if you can find them!
Neil Lennons parcel bomber,he may help..........................Chelmsford City the home of RadioComment
-
Oh.
That'll explain why he steers clear of Harlow then.Final Version - Hope you like it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1z0UQ0eqRM
Follow Me On Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/QPRGoddardComment
-
I'm sure the FAW would rubber stamp all that... we submitted false documents that he was actually born in Tiger Bay, you know...that's another 40 points off and a week's detention.
Faurlin is my hero!!! Love him!!! ######### 
Comment
-
I remember the Swindon case too and it doesn't fill me with confidence knowing that at least 5 Blue Sq Leage sides have had points deducted this season by the FA for irregularities. Why should QPR be let off with just a fine?Comment
-
Because Swindon's case enabled them to retain players, who they wouldn't otherwise have kept, who then performed well enough to get them promoted -- a clear on the field advantage.
Precedent for unregistered agent = 30k fine.
No ineligible players.
No administration.
Submitting false info -- largest punishment for this was a 4 point deduction for many false documents submitted over a long period of time -- not one document submitted ONCE.
The burden of proof of deception is on the FA -- we are not obliged to prove ourselves innocent. Without proof, in law there can be no punishment.
I wish we could ban all threads on this right NOW -- people need to get themselves informed -- I've posted (and so have many others) the above so many times I'm sick of it.
OUR CASE IS NOTHING LIKE SWINDON'S FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE HAVE NOT FIELDED AN INELIGIBLE PLAYER AND HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH DOING SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rage:
Faurlin is my hero!!! Love him!!! ######### 
Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Brighton... Thanks for the response, I have been looking forward to your response all day. From my understanding the club have said there was no deliberate wrong doing, which to me says "we may have done something wrong but not intentionally" is that not how you see it?.. Whether he has deliberately mislead the authorities or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is he has cocked up with the paperwork and the club has been bought into disrepute again by him. If he is responsible for overseeing these aspects then there should be no **** ups and everything should be done spot on, i's dotted and t's crossed, no excuses for errors that could cost the club.
Unfortunatly trouble seems to follow him around and yet again he is defending himself and this time the club as well infront of the authorities, this can not be allowed to happen ever again.
As a poster who likes to stay balanced, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming fromComment
-
Not sure anyone can disagree with that Terry. Though, if we are cleared of all charges, presumably he should stay and we should all move on?Brighton... Thanks for the response, I have been looking forward to your response all day. From my understanding the club have said there was no deliberate wrong doing, which to me says "we may have done something wrong but not intentionally" is that not how you see it?.. Whether he has deliberately mislead the authorities or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is he has cocked up with the paperwork and the club has been bought into disrepute again by him. If he is responsible for overseeing these aspects then there should be no **** ups and everything should be done spot on, i's dotted and t's crossed, no excuses for errors that could cost the club.
Unfortunatly trouble seems to follow him around and yet again he is defending himself and this time the club as well infront of the authorities, this can not be allowed to happen ever again.
As a poster who likes to stay balanced, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming fromComment
Comment