Alan Swann Peteborough journo...

[Nodge70]

Has written the most arrogant pied eyed article in relation to our FA case. He practically wetting himself that we weren't deducted points. Anyone want to have a read and then email him, telling him that sarcasm isn't the best tool for a journalist to use in print and that, in a battle of wits, you can't come into the arena as unarmed as he has.

Fill your boots. His email address is in the article. Also available on Twitter.



http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...logy_1_2686412

Bell end.

[Sprocket]

That's a very funny read. Cannot believe anyone can take him seriously including himself.

[BennyBoyRs]

Donut.

[Stedders]

He is just trolling via a newspaper.

[Nodge70]

That's a very funny read. Cannot believe anyone can take him seriously including himself.

He's on work experience from his school paper.

[Kevster269]

Thats what happens when siblings breed.....

[Bluehoop]

What an absolute fraggle

[Jamie]

Why would anyone hand any credence to an article with that Many spelling mistakes?

[stanistheman]

A pathetic article and the bit about QPR is just lazy journalism.

However, just to clarify one point. The reply from a fan refers to the discrepency over the fee between the website and the one disclosed to the FA.

The website never stated it was a £3.5M fee, but a deal worth up to £3.5M. Most of us queried this at the time and many were convinced QPR paid nowhere near that figure but guessed at it including agents fees, signing on fees, add-ons based on apps and success and even wages.

I just wish the club and others would make this clear, so that people can stop accusing QPR of cheating. The only cheating they did was to try and make people think they were spending big. That's hardly breaking football rules.

[Bluehoop]

A pathetic article and the bit about QPR is just lazy journalism.

However, just to clarify one point. The reply from a fan refers to the discrepency over the fee between the website and the one disclosed to the FA.

The website never stated it was a £3.5M fee, but a deal worth up to £3.5M. Most of us queried this at the time and many were convinced QPR paid nowhere near that figure but guessed at it including agents fees, signing on fees, add-ons based on apps and success and even wages.

I just wish the club and others would make this clear, so that people can stop accusing QPR of cheating. The only cheating they did was to try and make people think they were spending big. That's hardly breaking football rules.

Agreed. The sooner the independant tribunal publishes a transcript of the hearing - or at the very least of its findings, the better.

[JonDoeman]

"Fill your boots. His email address is in the article. Also available on Twitter."
==============================================
Thought about it, and filed under "Not worth it!"

[robith]

I think I might be the QPR fan he's talking about.

He wrote an article a week ago saying we cheated the title so I e-mailed him

Must have hit a nerve.

And typically I can't get into gmail to c+p my e-mail

[Dazzer1977]

This bit says it all about his football knowledge.... 'I LIKE Alan Smith as a co-commentator at Sky football matches. He’s a quietly-spoken, intelligent speaker of good sense who doesn’t feel the need to interrupt every five seconds (take note Chris Coleman) to ram his opinions down our throats.'

I can't think of a more boring voice to listen to than that of Alan Smith!

[robith]

Got it

From: robith (e-mail deleted obvs!)
Date: 10 May 2011 13:55:42 GMT+01:00
To: alan.swann@jpress.co.uk
Subject: QPR


Hello there Alan,

I must confess not being from Peterborough I am not familiar with your quaint newspaper, but found it through the medium of twitter. It's not just for finding out which celebrity is bonking who you know.

I'm afraid sir, as a devout QPR fan that I must take umbrage with the pure nonsense you have written about my club. You wrote:

"SO QPR break the rules and go unpunished (a piffling fine for a club owned by billionaires is not a punishment). How does that work then?

Presumably Neil Warnock will be criticising the decision with the same level of anger as he did when West Ham escaped scot free for the same offence a few seasons ago."

Sadly, this is all grossly inaccurate. If you had looked at what had happened we were found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and an unlicensed agent. But on the charges pertaining to third party ownership, we were found not guilty. For those not familiar with legal parlance, this means that we didn't do it guv'nor. Those were the charges that carry the points penalties. Also, as it was proven that Faurlin's ownership wasn't an issue, this would mean, unless my logic is failing me, that it wasn't the same thing as the West Ham case. In which case Neil's family can rest easy at night.

In which case I presume you'll be printing a correction? There's a good chap.

Yours.

robith

Obviously this was before the clarification on the not guilty vs not proven stuff, but I think my points are still valid