Tweet
If this was in The Daily Sport we wouldn't give a monkeys about it. The Sun is one level up. As for it having some substance? Well, let's look at this...
"SunSport understands (believes to suit purpose) the run away Championship leaders are likely (but may not happen) to face a big points deduction. if (not definite then?) they are found guilty of breaking 3rd party rules over the signing of Ali Faurlin.
The evidence against the West London club is said to be (said to be by anyone) damning and they could (not conclusive then?)) now end up in the play-offs.
The only winners would (if this were to happen?) be Cardiff and Norwich who could (that word again) go up automatically.
In theory (which probably means they will in fact but hey, we like to sensationalise) they should begin with a blank sheet of paper but many (nice get out, could be 4?) are openly discussing the case (They would, it's where they work) and reckon they are in big trouble (Ooh, I'm scared).
An FA source (nice get out) said: "There's no doubt QPR have broken the rules. They know it as well. The only debate (still a debate and nothing decided then?) is what to do about it.
"If they are not found guilty you might as well scrap the rules about 3rd party owners" (said the Cardiff supporting source).
Some within the corridors of power (as with any major employer, maybe even in your own workplace?) believe QPR should be hit hard because they were well aware of they were acting outside the regulations. (Others probably don't believe that but that's a non-story).
There then follows a bit about Tevez and says Since then the FA have made third-party ownership illegal so the argument is QPR were worse offenders because they were well aware they were committing an offence. (Yep, that's the argument. We know that.)
The rest is all about appeals and stuff.
There is nothing in that story of substance and, more importantly, despite our reaction to it's tone, nothing we can do about it on a legal basis as they've pretty much covered all their bases legally. No named sources and lots of "Could, Would, Should" happen. Chuck in a "likely" and an "if" too. Which is what I expect from journalists as someone who has worked amongst them.
It's The Sun, it's what they do best. Panic over, guys.
"SunSport understands (believes to suit purpose) the run away Championship leaders are likely (but may not happen) to face a big points deduction. if (not definite then?) they are found guilty of breaking 3rd party rules over the signing of Ali Faurlin.
The evidence against the West London club is said to be (said to be by anyone) damning and they could (not conclusive then?)) now end up in the play-offs.
The only winners would (if this were to happen?) be Cardiff and Norwich who could (that word again) go up automatically.
In theory (which probably means they will in fact but hey, we like to sensationalise) they should begin with a blank sheet of paper but many (nice get out, could be 4?) are openly discussing the case (They would, it's where they work) and reckon they are in big trouble (Ooh, I'm scared).
An FA source (nice get out) said: "There's no doubt QPR have broken the rules. They know it as well. The only debate (still a debate and nothing decided then?) is what to do about it.
"If they are not found guilty you might as well scrap the rules about 3rd party owners" (said the Cardiff supporting source).
Some within the corridors of power (as with any major employer, maybe even in your own workplace?) believe QPR should be hit hard because they were well aware of they were acting outside the regulations. (Others probably don't believe that but that's a non-story).
There then follows a bit about Tevez and says Since then the FA have made third-party ownership illegal so the argument is QPR were worse offenders because they were well aware they were committing an offence. (Yep, that's the argument. We know that.)
The rest is all about appeals and stuff.
There is nothing in that story of substance and, more importantly, despite our reaction to it's tone, nothing we can do about it on a legal basis as they've pretty much covered all their bases legally. No named sources and lots of "Could, Would, Should" happen. Chuck in a "likely" and an "if" too. Which is what I expect from journalists as someone who has worked amongst them.
It's The Sun, it's what they do best. Panic over, guys.
Comment