THE SUN - QPR SET TO BE STRIPPED OF THE TITLE.

[Bill 1,788]

"but The Sun doesn''t tend to print the bigger sports stories without some inside knowledge. They have eyes everywhere... I''ll stick my neck out and trust them this time"

"despite the stigma attached to them, they still get plenty of the big stories right! "

"The Sun have the best football writers around, this isn''t a little "gossip column" type story but an proper substantial story."

"lots of phone hacking takes place these days and there is no smoke without fire"

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"but The Sun doesn''t tend to print the bigger sports stories without some inside knowledge. They have eyes everywhere... I''ll stick my neck out and trust them this time"

"despite the stigma attached to them, they still get plenty of the big stories right! "

"The Sun have the best football writers around, this isn''t a little "gossip column" type story but an proper substantial story."

"lots of phone hacking takes place these days and there is no smoke without fire"[/quote]Are you able to post anything without taking a sideswipe at somebody?FYI Not proven != not guilty, far from it in law in fact.

[Bill 1,788]

It''s a forum which means contributors will refer and comment on other people''s posts.

If I was taking a sideswipe any anybody I would have added the names to those quotes.

In that light I shan''t add the name to these confusing posts by the same poster

"By the way did we mention that in applying to be in our league you agreed not to seek address through court in respect of any disciplinary decision we make, it''s a condition of membership

or

''into a ruling which may or may not be challenged in the English courts'' and ''if third placed or a relegated team were to take legal action against QPR or the FA''

So they can take court action ... or not ?

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

"By the way did we mention that in applying to be in our league you agreed not to seek address through court in respect of any disciplinary decision we make, it''s a condition of membership

or

''into a ruling which may or may not be challenged in the English courts'' and ''if third placed or a relegated team were to take legal action against QPR or the FA''

So they can take court action ... or not ?[/quote]yes it has been mentioned, funnily enough I believe it was mentioned by Buckethead on this very thread 29/04/2011 @ 8:41pm.[:D]But you already knew that didn''t you.....You do understand the difference between contractual rights and statutory rights and how often they can be in conflict though don''t you? A common law contractual right is still bound by any applicable statutory rights and in this day and age ultimately by whatever has been upheld in Europe.The big clubs could have easily had the Bosman ruling overturned imo but it was patently to their fiduciary advantage to have the ability to get good young players without the overhead of a signing on fee. the Bosman ruling hurt the small clubs who couldn''t go to Strasbourg. Of course the Bosman ruling played merry hell with the FA''s cosy little club rules, which were held to be in breach of European employment laws etc., personally I don''t think the FA would welcome or could afford another run in with the Europeans looking closely at their cosy little setup, besides there''s nothing but the burden of proof preventing any club litigating directly against QPR. In saying not proven the FA have failed to say not guilty, call it semantics but legally they''re worlds apart and I''m not the only one who will have picked up on this legal nuance.

[Bill 1,788]

My understanding of your points is that whatever contracts and rules there are within a club they are still answerable to the wider justice system. ie if it is illegal to discriminate against women in the UK it will be illegal in the local dominoes league as well

However that overlooks the point that it was not ''English law'' that was alleged to have been breached but FA regulations, which in this case do not appear to be against English law.

As to the not proven verdict then this appears to be standard practice for these type of hearings when a guilty verdict is not delivered. Whether it is semantics or some kind of technical point better minds than mine could explain.

"there''s nothing but the burden of proof preventing any club litigating directly against QPR."

Much as there''s ''nothing to stop me bringing a case of mass murder against you other than the need to prove my claim, with evidence''.

I doubt this was much about Faurlin''s eligibility to play for QPR. For all the howls of anquish from City fans, there was silence over Lamberts case, silence from Cardiff fans over their financial dealings and similarly with Leeds fans and the apparently ''new'' owner Mr Bates. this case was about the murky world of payments to third parties and the methods by which ''hinvestors'' (gawd bless ''em) manage to strip money out of football.

If you imagine football as one of those trains in India with everybody clung on to it then you can see why there are an awful lot of interested people who would not welcome any sudden stopping of that train.

And that was partly the point of my post using those quotes. Not to show surprise at the Sun having either lied or fabricated a story (no more a suprise than to find the town drunk lying in the gutter a half an hour after closing time). But surprise that there are people still willing to bleat out what was clearly nonsense, without any sense of questioning or challenging.

Without that, then it is all too easy to see how the agents, the ''hinvestors'', certain managers and many others are able to happily help themselves. Football has never seen so much money coming in yet has never seen so much debt. Most clubs are carrying huge debts and are a sneeze away from bankruptcy.

Unfortunately while many fans are happy to be fed a constant stream of fairy tales and made up stories it may take a while before anything can be done.

[paul moy 235]

The next investigation is to be bribes to officials in the English League, which allegedly is rife... I hasten to add, nothing to do with QPR as far as I know..... but that will be the next item on the agenda, according to a newspaper report I read last week.  Let''s hope the FA can at least do a thorough job on that !!! 

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]The next investigation is to be bribes to officials in the English League, which allegedly is rife... I hasten to add, nothing to do with QPR as far as I know..... but that will be the next item on the agenda, according to a newspaper report I read last week.  Let''s hope the FA can at least do a thorough job on that !!! [/quote]

Dont count on it, they''ll probably set a date somewhere near 2016 near the FA cup final, involving the officials and teams in question all involved in that final to give them sufficient time to gather information before passing a ''not proven'' verdict.