QPR LAWYERS APPROACH F.A.

oh dear stan.....now who's clutching at straws?.....you mentinioned the sun article this morning and used the word "IF"....the sun have more than covered themselves

Sorry Stan . The sun is way to clever they headline Guilty then you read into it that is just to get people reading the article and the article is very clear they say if QPR are found guilty and QPR have totally over reacted and upset the FA more.

I do not want QPR deducted points I would rather Cardiff go up by playing football however I think QPR are in trouble sorry Stan you seem a nice guy and true football supporter and it is supporters like you who will be hurt by the punnishment but if QPR broken rules then they have to be punnished.

As it's the SUN writing the article the FA source is easy to identify, it's a mailbox which has been hacked

Guilty is an ugly word at the best of time and in football terms it is rarely used as we will all see when the IRC publishes it's findings as in my experience they well say that the charges have been either proven or not proven.

I have been told that QPR have admitted the charge of using an unlicensed agent in relation to this transfer I am quite surprised by this because this is the only charge with a past punishment on record, 10 point deduction for Luton Town, so to admit breaching this regulation is amazing.

Mr Paladini if this is true " You Don't Know What Your Doing"

That is surprising, as even you who seems to have an excellent grasp of QPR's situation believed this to be the one charge that you felt was not going to stick. as you say, if true, then the precedent is there with Luton Town, who got 10 pts for four seperate instances of using an unauthorised agent, I believe?

Exactly but look I was told they had admitted using this guy Pirri but have submitted a defence about him being a licensed FIFA agent and being used before the new regulations came into force, But in reality that stance by QPR is nothing more than mitigation that would normally be used to lower any punishment.

If it's true and what I have been told is only on the grapevine but if the have admitted this it's a huge mistake.

stan i think you have totally lost it now ,you keep contadicting yourself and your club, i think it would be best if you stopped any more comments until after the 6th of may when qpr will get whats comming, either guilty or not guilty fines or no fines point deductions or no point deductions , your only making a fool of yourself and sometimes you forget what you have said on other threads. you have said in the past that qpr have admited to at least 1 of the charges ,which means a guilty headline is in fact correct ,why are you worried about the sun newspaper ,when you clearly stated its only the sun and you cant take them serious ,so why you so uptight ,lets be honest you going to be all over the media now ,and a lot more shit going to be printed and talked/debated on tv and radio until the verdict/punishment comes out on the 6th may

Exactly but look I was told they had admitted using this guy Pirri but have submitted a defence about him being a licensed FIFA agent and being used before the new regulations came into force, But in reality that stance by QPR is nothing more than mitigation that would normally be used to lower any punishment.

If it's true and what I have been told is only on the grapevine but if the have admitted this it's a huge mistake.

So is the case against them of using an unlicenced agent proven or not, because I'm a little confused by your reply as you seem to be saying they have admitted something they haven't done?

As it's the SUN writing the article the FA source is easy to identify, it's a mailbox which has been hacked

I find it strange the QPR lawyers have approached the FA and gone public with this. Surely they should appraoch the Sun itself.

Regardless of whether its the Sun or not influencing people which is what newspapers do affects matters.

Troobloo you are entitled to you're opinion but of course it means naff all to me.

Some of the stuff you have written has been embarrassing.

I'm sure QPR's legal people know what they're doing don't you

As I said previously if a story came to light like this in a high profile murder case it would be thrown out.

You absolutely cannot print a headline saying GUILTY & not expect legal repercussions. This will form part of evidence of corruption within the FA if its proved someone from they're organisation is talking to the press in such a high profile case.

How would we expect to get a fair hearing with bullshit like that printed? Answer-we wouldn't.

Again I think its a good move by our legal people to pounce on this early & show the FA we will not be taken for mugs.

Covering all bases.

Are you suggesting that the FA might now think "we were thinking not guilty but now the Sun have printed Guilty, their banged to rights".

You are clutching at straws for someone who was so confident yesterday!

Let justice be served.

Regardless of whether its the Sun or not influencing people which is what newspapers do affects matters.

Troobloo you are entitled to you're opinion but of course it means naff all to me.

Some of the stuff you have written has been embarrassing.

I'm sure QPR's legal people know what they're doing don't you

One flaw in that argument Stan is legal representatives give advice to their clients they don't tell them what to do and all legal representation is bound by the principle of following the Client’s wishes.

So even if QPR's legal people are contacting the FA via correspondence it doesn't necessary mean they are doing it because they think it's the right thing to do.

explain embarasing, becouse if im embarasing my club or forum members i will apoligise immiediatly, its still a shame you cant answer my original question ,but you can answer loads of others today .incase you dont remember it was what should the punishment be for any club found guilty of the 7 alledged offences your club have been charged with, by not answering i can only assume you dont want to answer in case qpr are infact guilty

As I said previously if a story came to light like this in a high profile murder case it would be thrown out.

You absolutely cannot print a headline saying GUILTY & not expect legal repercussions. This will form part of evidence of corruption within the FA if its proved someone from they're organisation is talking to the press in such a high profile case.

How would we expect to get a fair hearing with bullshit like that printed? Answer-we wouldn't.

Again I think its a good move by our legal people to pounce on this early & show the FA we will not be taken for mugs.

Covering all bases.

Are you suggesting that the FA might now think "we were thinking not guilty but now the Sun have printed Guilty, their banged to rights".

You are clutching at straws for someone who was so confident yesterday!

Let justice be served.

I have to agree with you there Howey. I mean can you really see the prospect that a copy of the SUN is included in the official documentation submitted before the IRC?

As I said previously if a story came to light like this in a high profile murder case it would be thrown out.

You absolutely cannot print a headline saying GUILTY & not expect legal repercussions. This will form part of evidence of corruption within the FA if its proved someone from they're organisation is talking to the press in such a high profile case.

How would we expect to get a fair hearing with bullshit like that printed? Answer-we wouldn't.

Again I think its a good move by our legal people to pounce on this early & show the FA we will not be taken for mugs.

Covering all bases.

Are you suggesting that the FA might now think "we were thinking not guilty but now the Sun have printed Guilty, their banged to rights".

You are clutching at straws for someone who was so confident yesterday!

Let justice be served.

Not at all howard. Simply that QPR want it made clear by the FA that the thoughts of the Sun newspaper are not the thoughts of they're organisation as it has been claimed an FA source has leaked the story. Simples.

All this looks very bad on the FA should this go to appeal.


Comment on talk sport from Adrian Durham just now

Adrian Durham on Talksport ''If they deduct them points, there will be hell to pay''. I agree.

not talking to me any more then stan

Regardless of whether its the Sun or not influencing people which is what newspapers do affects matters.

Troobloo you are entitled to you're opinion but of course it means naff all to me.

Some of the stuff you have written has been embarrassing.

I'm sure QPR's legal people know what they're doing don't you

You are a very trusting individual to make such a statement about QPR's legal team. Cardiff have fairly recent first hand experience with legal teams, as Sam Hammam and Langston chose to bring costly legal proceedings against the club, which when actually heard by the courts, were farcical, having watched that case over 3 days, I came away thinking that Langston had truly been taken for a ride to the tune of hundreds of thousands by their legal team for bringing such a case. But hey, if egos out way financial costs then they only have themselves to blame

remind me i said i will buy you a drink when we meet down here in the prem league next season

As I said previously if a story came to light like this in a high profile murder case it would be thrown out.

You absolutely cannot print a headline saying GUILTY & not expect legal repercussions. This will form part of evidence of corruption within the FA if its proved someone from they're organisation is talking to the press in such a high profile case.

How would we expect to get a fair hearing with bullshit like that printed? Answer-we wouldn't.

Again I think its a good move by our legal people to pounce on this early & show the FA we will not be taken for mugs.

Covering all bases.

Are you suggesting that the FA might now think "we were thinking not guilty but now the Sun have printed Guilty, their banged to rights".

You are clutching at straws for someone who was so confident yesterday!

Let justice be served.

Not at all howard. Simply that QPR want it made clear by the FA that the thoughts of the Sun newspaper are not the thoughts of they're organisation as it has been claimed an FA source has leaked the story. Simples.

All this looks very bad on the FA should this go to appeal.


Comment on talk sport from Adrian Durham just now

Adrian Durham on Talksport ''If they deduct them points, there will be hell to pay''. I agree.

Jesus wept, don't start quoting that clown, talk about clutching straws, my respect for you Stan, is quickly starting to wane. I'm off for a beer now mate, don't spend much more time on here, it's not good for your sanity.

Exactly but look I was told they had admitted using this guy Pirri but have submitted a defence about him being a licensed FIFA agent and being used before the new regulations came into force, But in reality that stance by QPR is nothing more than mitigation that would normally be used to lower any punishment.

If it's true and what I have been told is only on the grapevine but if the have admitted this it's a huge mistake.

So is the case against them of using an unlicenced agent proven or not, because I'm a little confused by your reply as you seem to be saying they have admitted something they haven't done?

Tony if the club state that they used Mr Pirri in their written submission in my experience the IRC will accept that evidence as proving the breach in regulations. I have been told and please understand this is the fruit of the grapevine that the club has said YES we did use Mr Pirri but in defence blah blah blah.

In my experience the Chairman will first as the club to confirm that the agent was used in this transfer and then immediately tell them their statements regarding why will be kept for the mitigation stage of the IRC.

If the IRC find any of the charges proven the club are allowed to present mitigation prior to deciding on the sanction or punishment.

I think this is a big mistake by the club if its true because there is a past precedent - Luton Town.

I hope that makes sense

You are a very trusting individual to make such a statement about QPR's legal team. Cardiff have fairly recent first hand experience with legal teams, as Sam Hammam and Langston chose to bring costly legal proceedings against the club, which when actually heard by the courts, were farcical, having watched that case over 3 days, I came away thinking that Langston had truly been taken for a ride to the tune of hundreds of thousands by their legal team for bringing such a case. But hey, if egos out way financial costs then they only have themselves to blame

Actually that's not quite true. Langston have received payments of £83,000 p/m since January 2010 and it is hard to believe they would have got that had Sam not shot accross the bows of PMG/Ridsdale in 2008.

Admittedly the Summary Judgement was dismissed, but the Judge did order a 'grace period' from March 2008 up to the 31 December 2009 for both sides to find an acceptable solution, which eventually lead to the payments mentioned above.

This will certainly give the FA something to think about and could steer there verdict and if needed, punishment into a favourable decision.Great move by our lawyers as it will show them that if there has been any failures on there part we will be onto it & investigating with a fine tooth comb.

Damaging article which shouldn't be ignored by the club.

With respect, stan....RUBBISH!!

The FA/FL are not daft and will see through the antics of BOTH (alledged) sides (F1 and Murdoch)

At the end of the day QPR will either be guilty or not guilty....

Premiership IF the former BUT Championship IF the latter can be the ONLY outcome that is FAIR to ALL (ironically inc. QPR if you can ask in your heart of hearts what YOU would EXPECT if it were another team other than yourselves involved)

Just pointing out, mate....

i just fell down the stairs.....

ive being pointing that out allday with no acknowledgement from stan

As I said previously if a story came to light like this in a high profile murder case it would be thrown out.

You absolutely cannot print a headline saying GUILTY & not expect legal repercussions. This will form part of evidence of corruption within the FA if its proved someone from they're organisation is talking to the press in such a high profile case.

How would we expect to get a fair hearing with bullshit like that printed? Answer-we wouldn't.

Again I think its a good move by our legal people to pounce on this early & show the FA we will not be taken for mugs.

Covering all bases.

Are you suggesting that the FA might now think "we were thinking not guilty but now the Sun have printed Guilty, their banged to rights".

You are clutching at straws for someone who was so confident yesterday!

Let justice be served.

Not at all howard. Simply that QPR want it made clear by the FA that the thoughts of the Sun newspaper are not the thoughts of they're organisation as it has been claimed an FA source has leaked the story. Simples.

All this looks very bad on the FA should this go to appeal.


Comment on talk sport from Adrian Durham just now

Adrian Durham on Talksport ''If they deduct them points, there will be hell to pay''. I agree.

Sorry Stan, I'm not sure if newspaper tittle tattle will make one jot of difference to the appeal. It's not to a judicial court for a start so it's not subject to the same rules as if it was a court case.

And as I have posted elsewhere other media outlets such as the BBC have seemingly had information from their sources
( presumably FA) that it will be a fine, so should the FA deny this as well???

I think there will be hell to pay either way incidentally, if some or all of the charges are proved

Tony if the club state that they used Mr Pirri in their written submission in my experience the IRC will accept that evidence as proving the breach in regulations. I have been told and please understand this is the fruit of the grapevine that the club has said YES we did use Mr Pirri but in defence blah blah blah.

In my experience the Chairman will first as the club to confirm that the agent was used in this transfer and then immediately tell them their statements regarding why will be kept for the mitigation stage of the IRC.

If the IRC find any of the charges proven the club are allowed to present mitigation prior to deciding on the sanction or punishment.

I think this is a big mistake by the club if its true because there is a past precedent - Luton Town.

I hope that makes sense

Sorry Castle as I'm not as experienced as you are in these matters but I do think what you are saying is very important, so can I just clarify my understanding?

Is it QPR have over played their hand by trying to justify (in other words deny) using an unlicensed agent by using mitigation (instead of evidence) in their initial statement?

That was a huge mistake, in your opinion because once they admitted to using Pirri there was no going back and they are guilty and of. This tactic has also left them totally vulnerable as they now have no mitigation, because those reasons have already been dismissed during the investigation part of the hearing?

Without any mitigation the IRC have no alternative but to impose the maximum penalty, which is 10 points which is the precedence set by the Luton Town case?

Sorry for going on but I just want to get things clear.

I think you have to ask why would QPR do this if they are not worried about what punishment they get?

the fa have put a statement on their site distancing themselves from the report in the sun newspaper and reiterating that there has been and will not be any comment until after the hearing.
so thats that particular avenue shut off stan

the fa have put a statement on their site distancing themselves from the report in the sun newspaper and reiterating that there has been and will not be any comment until after the hearing.
so thats that particular avenue shut off stan

Very well worded statement I thought Steve

the fa have put a statement on their site distancing themselves from the report in the sun newspaper and reiterating that there has been and will not be any comment until after the hearing.
so thats that particular avenue shut off stan

Very well worded statement I thought Steve

the fa have put a statement on their site distancing themselves from the report in the sun newspaper and reiterating that there has been and will not be any comment until after the hearing.
so thats that particular avenue shut off stan

Very well worded statement I thought Steve

the other thing here elwood is that looking back over the last few years whenever the fa has summoned a club or player to one of these hearings they have always proved their case and with the timing of the hearing bearing in mind the worry of disruption to the playoffs leads me to believe the fa think they have a cast iron case with no prospect of a successful appeal from qpr.

the fa have put a statement on their site distancing themselves from the report in the sun newspaper and reiterating that there has been and will not be any comment until after the hearing.
so thats that particular avenue shut off stan

Very well worded statement I thought Steve

the other thing here elwood is that looking back over the last few years whenever the fa has summoned a club or player to one of these hearings they have always proved their case and with the timing of the hearing bearing in mind the worry of disruption to the playoffs leads me to believe the fa think they have a cast iron case with no prospect of a successful appeal from qpr.

Indeed. They''ve been accused of being slow on this. I think they probably know exactly what they are doing