>>This all makes Faurlin ineligible for some of his time at QPR, and playing ineligible players usually means a points deductions (Torquay and Hereford both lost points this season for doing it in 1 game, supposedly by accident) and Faurlin has played at least 80 games since he was signed.<<
This begs the question as to why Ken has chosen right now, this week, to make clear the ownership of LUFC. The Premier League has made plain that it wants transparency about Leeds' ownership. But the Football League clearly doesn't share those concerns as we have been allowed to compete for several years while "owned" by the secret FSF. Given that we are, all things being equal, unlikely to make the playoffs now - why not leave the ownership as-is until such a time as Ken needs to make it clear - ie when we are on the brink of promotion. So how about this: QPR's rule breaches are considered to be extremely severe - so severe that they will be docked so many points (or demoted places) that they will drop out of even the playoffs - and that could elevate us back into the top 6 by Saturday (providing we beat them). And as the playoffs are a qualifying tournament for the Premiership, perhaps competing in them was dependent upon transparency in the LUFC ownership issue? Looking at the Torquay/Hereford situation, the precedent seems to be to dock any points gained by the team while the ineligible player was playing. As Faurlin has been almost ever-present since his arrival, could QPR's punishment mean loss of almost all their points, and relegation? If this is the case, I would not be surprised if the announcement of any deduction is not made until after the end of the game. Why else would Ken rock a boat that did not need to be rocked? Just speculation.... M _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
