More Ji nonsense

There`s one thing wrong with this Bri and that`s the fact that the FA are never, ever, under any circumstances, wrong.

 

Doesn't matter what they think if it goes to court though. Fact will remain that they only knew of the infringement because of us and our honesty led to them learning of their own mistake and that it was taken into consideration, quite rightly , In their punishment. Our defence is our spent punishment and the circumstances under which it was issued.

Any court action will only draw attention to the Premier league's failure. They'll be dreading legal action more than us imo. It'll be a **** storm for them. Media clearly hate them more than us evident in their present stance on the situation to actually back us in the situation (Who's have thought after the way they've treated us this season). It's going to be a rough ride for the Premier League, they won't be able to hide from this one.

 

Just reading there about we could be demoted ! hehe. We lost to Fulham when he played so there is no grounds for Fulham to stick their noses in, and only Norwich would benefit with a points deduction, but the case is closed as you say so why is any one mentioning it in the first place !, unless the f a say well we must help Norwich somehow so they can stop up !.

 

It has already been dealt with so can't be reopened..We will win our last two home games anyway for good measure..

 

A decent article about the situation here, reading it, we have not got much to worry about

http://www.theguardian.com/football...-legal-challenge-sunderland-ineligible-player

 

We should have played 4 matches without Ji surely that was the answer, or maybe next season.

 

This is the thing. He played in 4 games and we gained 1 point. I read somewhere that the deduction, if required, is the number of points gained in games involving the player up to a maximum of 3. What about the 9 points that having him play gained the opposition in those games? Maximum deduction was 1 point as far as I can see and the PL have dealt with the matter so it's null and void.

It's like saying "OK you admitted that so here's a fine and be on your way" then knocking on the door 6 months later to say "we're locking you up for that thing we fined you about 6 months ago"

 

When you put it like that it does seem a bit daft.

 

Guess that's the end of that then.

 

Song for the trio of ****ty clubs.

[video=youtube;pc0mxOXbWIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU[/video]