But a reasonable assumption. IMO KB will, rightly, attack any decision that allows QPR to not be 'maxed' in punishment terms. Everyone in the league will back him. He's in a 'no lose everything to gain position.' For once I hope that justice will work in our favour. Make a bloody change. Any decision that doesn't decimate QPR is grossly unfair. Fifteen points is not enough.....if they played an illegal player in those circumstances. Do you get a reduction in punishment if your crime is repeated often. The Teves precedent will work against them.or should at least. The only thing in QPR's favour is the wait. If we get into the play offs can we win?
Sent from my iPad Dr. Michael Benjamin Community Psychiatrist On May 4, 2011, at 1:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> 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) > _______________________________________________ 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)
