What a mess - the only thing they can do if found guilty is to deduct enough points to prevent QPR being Champions as due to the timing, it could create the mother of all messes if you put them in the play offs or out of the play offs and they win a later appeal. Given the period in question, it is puzzling how inept the League is.
I thought the message was pretty clear from the WHU debacle, that is, break the rules at every other club's detriment and receive only a small fine. No problem for QPR then!
I had the misfortune to read (well known West Ham supporter) Martin Samuel's column in the Mail today. He's never yet missed an opportunity to bring up the agreement we had with Sheffield U not to play Matt Spring against as an example of third party influence. Not quite the same as gettgin caught lying to the FA on several accounts about Tevez's ownership but that doesn't seem to stop him equating the two and I'm sure he'd love it if they stick it to QPR/NW.
Has it got something to do with renewing his contract in 2010? Perhaps they were ok when they signed him, but if they kept the same set up in place when they renewed the contract, then that would've broken any rules that came into place in the mean time?
Comments
What a mess - the only thing they can do if found guilty is to deduct enough points to prevent QPR being Champions as due to the timing, it could create the mother of all messes if you put them in the play offs or out of the play offs and they win a later appeal. Given the period in question, it is puzzling how inept the League is.
I thought the message was pretty clear from the WHU debacle, that is, break the rules at every other club's detriment and receive only a small fine. No problem for QPR then!