Tweet
"I have spent 30 minutes on the phone to my friend this evening who is a Council member of a county association of the FA, I attempted to drill him on what he said to me last week about the exact nature of the charges against QPR.
Well tonight he has told me he has been told that QPR have admitted the charge of using an unlicensed agent in their written response to the FA. QPR have however put forward the defence that the agent "Peppino Pirri" was used in the discussions leading up to the agreement and this took place before 4th July 2009 when the new FA regulations came into effect. QPR submitted the registration documents on Monday 5th July and received clearance on Wednesday 7th July 2009 and the word is the FA is unsure how the IRC will view this information. Has there been an infringement of the regulations yes but how will the IRC view these mitigating circumstances apparently the FA are concerned the charge may be dismissed.
However the 3rd party ownership charges are considered stronger even with the fact the documents were submitted the day after the regulations came into force, QPR are again using the defence that ALL the documents were completed and signed prior to the regulations coming into force and have therefore denied all charges.
The story is that the FA are unsure how the IRC will view these almost cross over dates and it may just be possible that these 3rd party ownership charges will be thrown out.
That will only leave Mr Paladini and the false documents and apparently he is bang to rights so maybe he will be the only one to feel the barbed stick. Maybe just maybe he has been the target throughout."
Obviously a large pinch of salt is needed.... but given the fact that the majority of sheepshaggers are jumping up and down asking for us to be hung - there may be some truth in this.....
Well tonight he has told me he has been told that QPR have admitted the charge of using an unlicensed agent in their written response to the FA. QPR have however put forward the defence that the agent "Peppino Pirri" was used in the discussions leading up to the agreement and this took place before 4th July 2009 when the new FA regulations came into effect. QPR submitted the registration documents on Monday 5th July and received clearance on Wednesday 7th July 2009 and the word is the FA is unsure how the IRC will view this information. Has there been an infringement of the regulations yes but how will the IRC view these mitigating circumstances apparently the FA are concerned the charge may be dismissed.
However the 3rd party ownership charges are considered stronger even with the fact the documents were submitted the day after the regulations came into force, QPR are again using the defence that ALL the documents were completed and signed prior to the regulations coming into force and have therefore denied all charges.
The story is that the FA are unsure how the IRC will view these almost cross over dates and it may just be possible that these 3rd party ownership charges will be thrown out.
That will only leave Mr Paladini and the false documents and apparently he is bang to rights so maybe he will be the only one to feel the barbed stick. Maybe just maybe he has been the target throughout."
Obviously a large pinch of salt is needed.... but given the fact that the majority of sheepshaggers are jumping up and down asking for us to be hung - there may be some truth in this.....
Comment