THE BIG question now has to be....

[W12_Ranger]

Leveller maybe you should get the Mods to sticky it so everyone can read it so you don't keep repeating yourself

[WeAreQPR12]

Goddard can u tweet smudge about whether he will do another round up like he has over the last couple of days?

[Goddard]

Funnily enough, He's just started again now.

http://twitter.com/#!/Smudge1962

[Dale]

Good question Goddard that you asked Smudge

Any chance you could ask him if the hearing is taking place tomorrow and is there a chance the verdict could be announced then

[The Leveller]

What is the legal teams arguement?

Unbelievable, I have been viewing this site for 2 years, not logged on until this mess and this is my 100th post in a mater of a fortnight.

This is what I posted earlier:

As I have previously that in law when it comes to civil matters, the standard of proof is generally "on the balance of probabilities" or "a preponderance of the evidence", meaning that if it is more likely than not that the fact alleged is true, then the standard has been met. Ian Mills and the team will be attempting to flip this over back to the FA and change the balance.

The legal team would take apart the so called evidence forensically and follow the flow where it went, who it went to and look for flaws and inconsistencies.

Such as the rules document which was produced in May, were the clubs advised in advance that this was about to be launched. How did the FA communicate it, was it direct to the clubs or via the FL. At the time of the Faurlin paperwork what if anything did the FA say to the club given the impending introduction of the new rule, if not why. Was there advice given on whether this is for all future cleared contracts or would this be retrospective. If not why not. I am not saying this is what is being pursued, it is the kind of thought process that takes place. Only the legal team actually know as they have the documentation

Smudger post made me chuckle because he mentioned Vicarious liability. And I was waiting for some to ask what is that. He has a source and he has gone very quiet, I think he has been spoken to.

This is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.

I refer to my points above, that is what the legal team are pursuing, it was not intentional, we advised you the (FA respondeat superior) , you did not stop us (the club which is subordinate) and your act ofomission therefore allowed us to perform the act that was in breach. This omission is actionable in law.

Bloody hilarious because there are now 5 possible 6 clubs that can sue on the basis that a detriment has been suffered, ie the potential financial loss of not being promoted and getting the PL payments.

Now is that an own goal or is it not.

Great work by the legal team

Hilarious because this opens up the FA for delay and serious litigation, another little, sorry make that a years earner for the legal boys

[The Leveller]

Good question Goddard that you asked Smudge

Any chance you could ask him if the hearing is taking place tomorrow and is there a chance the verdict could be announced then

Sometimes you should not wake people up, you might not like what you hear; just having got his tweet.

[davman]

Not in Essex.

Thank the Lord for that...

[Pyrford Ranger]

So Leveller , are you saying we've turned it 180 on them and they're now effectively in the dock! If so surely we're safe as they can't bust us now as all manner of litigation will follow

[The Leveller]

So Leveller , are you saying we've turned it 180 on them and they're now effectively in the dock! If so surely we're safe as they can't bust us now as all manner of litigation will follow

Yes, that is what the legal team is trying to do by turning the mirror back on the FA (put them in the dock as you say); whether it has been successful we will have to see. You assume that they (IRC) accept that line.

I said that there would be many twists and turns and I say again, they are at the edge of a legal minefield. Ian Mill and the legal team are doing an excellent job.

[Pyrford Ranger]

Cheers chap, I know it's not over but I think I'll sleep better tonight

[LBLOCK]

On vicarious liability are you saying defence is the waiter was acting ultra vires?
If so that holds little water in my eyes and they will say he was deemed by the club a fit person for that office.
If it does hold then sack him immediately this nitemare is over !

IN WARNOCK WE TRUST
(In others some of us never did)

[The Leveller]

On vicarious liability are you saying defence is the waiter was acting ultra vires?
If so that holds little water in my eyes and they will say he was deemed by the club a fit person for that office.
If it does hold then sack him immediately this nitemare is over !

IN WARNOCK WE TRUST
(In others some of us never did)

For others who want to know whether this is a STD or a legal term. Ultra vires is Latin for ‘beyond the powers’. It is a concept or doctrine in the law of corporations that holds that if a corporation (QPR) enters into a contract (Ali Faulins) that is beyond the scope of its corporate powers (I think LBlock is referring to the waiter here), the contract is illegal.

In short my answer is no.

[qblockpete]

In simple terms

if we get massive fine on the inflated price of Faurlin, I reckon you could find 800 odd deals similar over a period of time in the Premier League and other leagues that would be open to question, the leagues could be looked at for all of them.
I would imagine our barristers would be using this?

The third party rule has even changed several times since we got Faurlin and in Europe the deal would be perfectly legal.

The more and more I think of this, FA win pratically every case they start without redress. They are trying to pin something on QPR, but cannot do it. They could well be trying for us to accept something to save face and we predictably are digging our heels in.

After final whistle tomorrow football league is over and the Premier league will not touch this case with a barge pole.

The case has rumoured to have cost the FA nearly 2 million big ones and they cannot simply afford it

[LBLOCK]

Off on a frolic of his own.........

Someone can certainly frolic off --- in fact quite a few of them after the week I've (we've just been through)!!!!

Everyone thinks the delays are a good thing. I disagree -- if we were cut and dry innocent then wrapped up very nicely, your gentlemans club or mine and wasn't that a tedious show old boy?
If we were bang to rights guilty then see above for outcome after cautiously worded statements about appeals and careful consideration.

As it is there simply MUST be a huge grey area.
I cannot believe that a case of this nature would generate enough discovery work and the documents therein to justify more than 4 solid days of investigation.

I did say if they screw us I may well finish with football all-together, even if we remain Champs I still think I am rapidly falling out of love with "the peoples game"

I just want it all to end and end the right way for the good people of Queens Park Rangers

IN WARNOCK WE TRUST
(In others some of us never did)

[qblockpete]

Football league officially ends after full time whistle tomorrow.

Premier League will not have anythng to do with this, so you can forget points deduction next season

Play Offs start Thursday?

We will not get a points deduction, even more convinced with this delay.

(though the whole day is being spoiled)