| QPR being sued on 08:53 - Feb 13 with 1905 views | KensalT |
| QPR being sued on 04:26 - Feb 13 by SydneyRs |
This. Its he said, she said. Innocent until proven guilty.
Surely also any liability would be skewed towards the club where it allegedly happened? [Post edited 13 Feb 4:28]
|
If you go back to the Guardian article it says that the FA has already upheld a charge against Yems that he racially abused ABM:
"Crawley suspended Yems after allegations of racist behaviour were made by several squad members in April 2022, which led to him leaving the club by mutual consent the following month and being charged by the FA with 16 counts of using discriminatory language.
One of the charges upheld involved Yems calling Bansal-McNulty a “curry muncher†and asking whether he was unhappy that pizzas given to the players by a sponsor did not include “curry pizzaâ€.
So the 'he said' bit has already been established.
Regardless of where the incident happened QPR is still under a duty to protect its players, even when they are out on loan. |  | |  |
| QPR being sued on 09:02 - Feb 13 with 1837 views | patrickqpr |
| QPR being sued on 08:53 - Feb 13 by KensalT |
If you go back to the Guardian article it says that the FA has already upheld a charge against Yems that he racially abused ABM:
"Crawley suspended Yems after allegations of racist behaviour were made by several squad members in April 2022, which led to him leaving the club by mutual consent the following month and being charged by the FA with 16 counts of using discriminatory language.
One of the charges upheld involved Yems calling Bansal-McNulty a “curry muncher†and asking whether he was unhappy that pizzas given to the players by a sponsor did not include “curry pizzaâ€.
So the 'he said' bit has already been established.
Regardless of where the incident happened QPR is still under a duty to protect its players, even when they are out on loan. |
I think the I said he said refers to the discussion with Ramsay? | | | |
| QPR being sued on 09:11 - Feb 13 with 1790 views | KensalT |
| QPR being sued on 08:33 - Feb 13 by Blue_Castello |
Jeez having to sell players to settle the claim that sounds scary, fortunately as a few people have said there's a lot of he said this, he said that where you will literally be unable to substantiate the evidence unless they have witnesses, which is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Whatever happens it will drag on for a long time, the amount of money is ludicrous but they have intentionally set it high in the hope of getting something, probably hoping for a low six figure sum.
Presumably this involves a no win no fee company as I can't see ABM being able to fund the costs, surely the club needs to get Nick de Marco on the case, that could possibly prevent it dragging on for a long time. |
I assume ABM is being represented by the PFA.
They can afford the very best lawyers. | | | |
| QPR being sued on 09:24 - Feb 13 with 1744 views | francisbowles |
| QPR being sued on 08:33 - Feb 13 by Blue_Castello |
Jeez having to sell players to settle the claim that sounds scary, fortunately as a few people have said there's a lot of he said this, he said that where you will literally be unable to substantiate the evidence unless they have witnesses, which is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Whatever happens it will drag on for a long time, the amount of money is ludicrous but they have intentionally set it high in the hope of getting something, probably hoping for a low six figure sum.
Presumably this involves a no win no fee company as I can't see ABM being able to fund the costs, surely the club needs to get Nick de Marco on the case, that could possibly prevent it dragging on for a long time. |
IF he wins. I think a formula will be devised. It could be something like £3000 a week for 12 years which is nearly 2 million. If it was £5000 a week, more than £3 million, £10,000 = £6.24 million or £20,000 a week would get you the £12 million.
So if the court decided he missed a career as a good championship player, because of racism, it could possibly reach the claimed amount.
However, there could be deductions from any award for actual or expected earnings in his 'lesser career'.
The thing is with any case you never know. With a tribunal, the decision will be/should be on the balance of probabilities. | | | |
| QPR being sued on 09:40 - Feb 13 with 1663 views | Blue_Castello |
| QPR being sued on 09:24 - Feb 13 by francisbowles |
IF he wins. I think a formula will be devised. It could be something like £3000 a week for 12 years which is nearly 2 million. If it was £5000 a week, more than £3 million, £10,000 = £6.24 million or £20,000 a week would get you the £12 million.
So if the court decided he missed a career as a good championship player, because of racism, it could possibly reach the claimed amount.
However, there could be deductions from any award for actual or expected earnings in his 'lesser career'.
The thing is with any case you never know. With a tribunal, the decision will be/should be on the balance of probabilities. |
Thanks some interesting details, the more you read the more complicated it becomes because going on people's comments on here he wasn't going to achieve Championship level and then whose to say how long a career he could have achieved, there's quality players all over the league suffering injuries that are potential career ending.
The facts posted so far point to the fact he was racially abused at Crawley, it's all down to how responsible are QPR for the player once he's accepted the loan and what people like Chris Ramsey told him at the time. | | | |
| QPR being sued on 09:57 - Feb 13 with 1607 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| QPR being sued on 07:15 - Feb 13 by davman |
He'll win 'cos the Cursed Club always loses.
Not great behaviour from Crawley and I feel sorry for the lad, but £11m? Madness. |
Not read the article!
However, while he might get over the liability hurdle, the remedy phase in a case like this is much more tricky, especially when your client is a young, unproven individual, in a profession which has a myriad of reasons why a player might not make it.
£11m is obviously egging the schedule of loss pudding. Rarely, if ever, do you get it all, and if it's foundations are built on text messages, then for every Eze, QPR can point to a prospect in the likes of Jeanne, Meaker, or a Cooper., that never amounted to a hill of beans. Players who showed promise, but fizzled out: EDB, Owen, C, Richards, T, for example. Others ascent may well have been denied them by the vicissitudes of life in Prince and Jones, or the perils of the game, as in Gallen, K., or Amos.
Equally, there is some case law handed down on the full extent of and restrictions to, the duty of care owed. I ran an Employment Appeal Tribunal case about the extent a duty of care is owed by an employer to a worker for 'elements' outside of their direct control. The decision handed down put a restriction on that duty, but I don't know if it has been upheld, weakened or strengthened since.
Let's see what is handed down in the decision, but if he were to win, then I'd be amazed if he got anywhere near £11m. |  |
| |
| QPR being sued on 10:08 - Feb 13 with 1561 views | Landshark |
Let's just say we sent him on loan to Crawley but instead of getting racial abuse he got a 2 footed challenge from some League Two lump which broke his leg and ended his career. Are we still at liability because we should know in our duty of care to the player that it's a physical league and we shouldn't be sending a weak 5ft3 players to play in a mens league? | | | |
| QPR being sued on 10:11 - Feb 13 with 1531 views | themodfather |
ok, it seems more a dispute between individuals than the club, some one not rating/liking another so proving the club knew, did nothing etc is hard and will be drawn out .
proof is going to be vital , especially if claiming harassment, abuse .
i wonder who is paying for the legal fees of the claimant, they could be huge?
however if this is an industrial tribunal, they can decide on was it possible? what seems reasonable as not high court .
and if player loaned out when things happen, how can parent club know minute by minute what's going on? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| QPR being sued on 10:23 - Feb 13 with 1480 views | nick_hammersmith |
| QPR being sued on 10:08 - Feb 13 by Landshark |
Let's just say we sent him on loan to Crawley but instead of getting racial abuse he got a 2 footed challenge from some League Two lump which broke his leg and ended his career. Are we still at liability because we should know in our duty of care to the player that it's a physical league and we shouldn't be sending a weak 5ft3 players to play in a mens league? |
Thats a much easier case, as the damages and effect are more obvious.
In this situation an insurance policy would cover the players salary while he was injured for the full duration of the contract. I'd assume that the club would also be using the private medical cover to ensure the best care available.
At the point where its deemed career ending the player could use the PFA to initiate a tribunal for loss of future earnings against the player and opposing club. They could also seek to say that the challenge was unlawful outside the rules of the game, like a common assault or GBH, but that might be harder to prove.
If the player were to go down this road, then it might be the parent club helping them to describe the potential career path and earnings of the player.
I'd imagine this case would normally be settled before court, unless Crawley and QPR think there is nothing there at all... |  | | |
| QPR being sued on 10:23 - Feb 13 with 1480 views | KensalT |
| QPR being sued on 09:57 - Feb 13 by PlanetHonneywood |
Not read the article!
However, while he might get over the liability hurdle, the remedy phase in a case like this is much more tricky, especially when your client is a young, unproven individual, in a profession which has a myriad of reasons why a player might not make it.
£11m is obviously egging the schedule of loss pudding. Rarely, if ever, do you get it all, and if it's foundations are built on text messages, then for every Eze, QPR can point to a prospect in the likes of Jeanne, Meaker, or a Cooper., that never amounted to a hill of beans. Players who showed promise, but fizzled out: EDB, Owen, C, Richards, T, for example. Others ascent may well have been denied them by the vicissitudes of life in Prince and Jones, or the perils of the game, as in Gallen, K., or Amos.
Equally, there is some case law handed down on the full extent of and restrictions to, the duty of care owed. I ran an Employment Appeal Tribunal case about the extent a duty of care is owed by an employer to a worker for 'elements' outside of their direct control. The decision handed down put a restriction on that duty, but I don't know if it has been upheld, weakened or strengthened since.
Let's see what is handed down in the decision, but if he were to win, then I'd be amazed if he got anywhere near £11m. |
What do you mean by elements outside of their direct control?
QPR can't control the behaviour of Crawley's coaches.
But they can be expected to do due diligence on what sort of environment they are sending young players on loan into.
And IF ABM did tell us he was being racially abused at Crawley then there probably are steps the club should take, such as:
- Raise those concerns with Crawley to ensure it doesn't happen again
- Raise those concerns with the league
- Advise the player to talk to the PFA
- As a last resort terminate the loan agreement | | | |
| QPR being sued on 10:36 - Feb 13 with 1438 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| QPR being sued on 10:08 - Feb 13 by Landshark |
Let's just say we sent him on loan to Crawley but instead of getting racial abuse he got a 2 footed challenge from some League Two lump which broke his leg and ended his career. Are we still at liability because we should know in our duty of care to the player that it's a physical league and we shouldn't be sending a weak 5ft3 players to play in a mens league? |
No. It's about foreseeablity juxtaposed with the inherent dangers of a contact sport.
However, as with Saunders v. Elliott, if a tackle is beyond what the game allows, then any action would be against the offending player and their club. | |
| |
| QPR being sued on 10:46 - Feb 13 with 1397 views | PlanetHonneywood |
@ Kensal
My case involved a prison officer racially abused by inmates. The EAT declined to hold the prison service to account for the actions of such 'elements', as they deemed them out of the control of the employer. To what extent the law has moved on, can't say and there was more to it, but I can't recall it all.There was a lot of case law at the time, we were pushing the barrier with it.
However, I remind the honourable member that I mentioned, I haven't read the Guardian article, as it wanted me to accept cookies, which I prefer not to. [Post edited 15 Feb 10:11]
| |
| |
| QPR being sued on 11:27 - Feb 13 with 1315 views | SydneyRs |
| QPR being sued on 09:02 - Feb 13 by patrickqpr |
I think the I said he said refers to the discussion with Ramsay? |
Correct | | | |
| QPR being sued on 12:17 - Feb 13 with 1144 views | KensalT |
| QPR being sued on 11:27 - Feb 13 by SydneyRs |
Correct |
Apologies.
My mistake.
I mis-interpreted which "he said" you were referring to.
You and Clive are correct in saying that what ABM said and who he spoke to about his treatment will be the key for determining any liability for QPR. And he will need to corroborate any claims he makes about talking to QPR about it.
But this is a civil hearing, not criminal. ABM doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he notified the club. He just has to convince the tribunal on the balance of probabilities that he told them. | | | |
| QPR being sued on 14:53 - Feb 13 with 922 views | numptydumpty |
This seems unbelievably speculative.
Just imagine this case being thrown at any other employer in any other industry, other than football.I would have had zero chances of getting by way of recompense, a lifetime loss of potential salaries because of being bullied or racially attacked.
So why should this be possible for a young footballer.
No justification for this and the affect on the next ten to fifteen years is ridiculous. In football also, there is less chance that you are going to miss this kind of abuse in a career. Opposition fans will not let up and a players own fans will turn on you, if you dont perform. Not saying its coŕrect, but it will happen. its human nature for some.
To blame the entire loss of career earnings over a period of bullying at a young age is a massive stretch and then to have predicted a high earning career over the next 10 to 15 years employment seems to be completely out of touch with sense and reality.
Think this as a process is totally ridiculous.
Total chancer !!!!
However, what i would say i have zero confidence in our justice system at all these days. People thrown in jail for multiple years for one written message, lucy letby villorisation, the many post masters stiil not properly recompensed. The welcome treatments and sweetners offered to illegal immigrants, never visiting or even pursuing burgalries or going in heavy handed for low level "crimes". Yep no sense of justice.
So yes possibility we could be clobbered and this young lad gets loadsamoney because one man being not exactly pleasant. One things for sure if he does win ABN wont be coming back as a forever R.
This World is seriously Mad !!!!! [Post edited 13 Feb 15:07]
|  |
| |
| QPR being sued on 15:48 - Feb 13 with 823 views | NW5Hoop |
| QPR being sued on 18:43 - Feb 12 by Benny_the_Ball |
The link isn't free if you want to refuse cookies. That'll cost you £5 per month. [Post edited 12 Feb 19:15]
|
I don’t know how you end up with that. It might ask you for a fiver, but you can say no. I just turned cookies off and had no problem.
Either way, it doesn’t matter. Stealing people’s work is wrong. | | | |
| QPR being sued on 15:56 - Feb 13 with 790 views | kensalriser |
| QPR being sued on 09:57 - Feb 13 by PlanetHonneywood |
Not read the article!
However, while he might get over the liability hurdle, the remedy phase in a case like this is much more tricky, especially when your client is a young, unproven individual, in a profession which has a myriad of reasons why a player might not make it.
£11m is obviously egging the schedule of loss pudding. Rarely, if ever, do you get it all, and if it's foundations are built on text messages, then for every Eze, QPR can point to a prospect in the likes of Jeanne, Meaker, or a Cooper., that never amounted to a hill of beans. Players who showed promise, but fizzled out: EDB, Owen, C, Richards, T, for example. Others ascent may well have been denied them by the vicissitudes of life in Prince and Jones, or the perils of the game, as in Gallen, K., or Amos.
Equally, there is some case law handed down on the full extent of and restrictions to, the duty of care owed. I ran an Employment Appeal Tribunal case about the extent a duty of care is owed by an employer to a worker for 'elements' outside of their direct control. The decision handed down put a restriction on that duty, but I don't know if it has been upheld, weakened or strengthened since.
Let's see what is handed down in the decision, but if he were to win, then I'd be amazed if he got anywhere near £11m. |
Despite not having read the article, you've still managed to provide better informed comment than the preponderance of knee jerk responses!
The kid was failed by both Crawley and QPR regardless of whether he's able to convince the tribunal of the latter (and even if he is, he's obviously not going to get the eye-catching full claim). Perhaps more importantly for players in general (rather than Bansal-McNulty himself) is that these cases are brought to light and measures taken to improve welfare in the future. |  |
| |
| QPR being sued on 16:02 - Feb 13 with 773 views | Mr_Beef |
| QPR being sued on 08:21 - Feb 13 by BrianMcCarthy |
"It'll hinge on this conversation with Ramsey."
Definitely going to be important.
There might also be a question of whther we knew anything, ot learned anything about Yems's likelihood to behave in such a way and exposed our employee to this risk through any action or inaction.
From the point of view of the player, I feel sorry that he might have experienced any racial abuse.
From our point of view, I feel sorry that we should be embroiled in such a sad event after all the great work done through the years to encourage and promote inclusivity.
Either way, I hope justice is done. |
Very well put, Brian.
The sum in question seems very excessive, but there is a bigger picture here than the woe is me QPR perspective. As you also rightly point out the club has worked very hard on this side of the game.
Let's hope for justice either way as you say. |  | | |
| QPR being sued on 16:21 - Feb 13 with 725 views | BklynRanger |
| QPR being sued on 15:56 - Feb 13 by kensalriser |
Despite not having read the article, you've still managed to provide better informed comment than the preponderance of knee jerk responses!
The kid was failed by both Crawley and QPR regardless of whether he's able to convince the tribunal of the latter (and even if he is, he's obviously not going to get the eye-catching full claim). Perhaps more importantly for players in general (rather than Bansal-McNulty himself) is that these cases are brought to light and measures taken to improve welfare in the future. |
Maybe not being able to read the article helped?! Sometimes less is more. |  | | |
| QPR being sued on 20:38 - Feb 13 with 513 views | ChrisNW6 |
https://share.google/gzZKN3mwF
The 2023 employment tribunal is an interesting read especially the Steve Mclaren and Mark Warburton references. The 2026 case must be a new civil challenge and it doesn't sound like the club did much wrong at the time. | | | |
| QPR being sued on 20:42 - Feb 13 with 503 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| QPR being sued on 20:38 - Feb 13 by ChrisNW6 |
https://share.google/gzZKN3mwF
The 2023 employment tribunal is an interesting read especially the Steve Mclaren and Mark Warburton references. The 2026 case must be a new civil challenge and it doesn't sound like the club did much wrong at the time. |
Thanks for this, Chris.
Will read through tomorrow. |  |
| |
| QPR being sued on 22:01 - Feb 13 with 430 views | KensalT |
| QPR being sued on 20:38 - Feb 13 by ChrisNW6 |
https://share.google/gzZKN3mwF
The 2023 employment tribunal is an interesting read especially the Steve Mclaren and Mark Warburton references. The 2026 case must be a new civil challenge and it doesn't sound like the club did much wrong at the time. |
I've only skimmed through it, and it is a lengthy judgement, but sections 25-27, and section 107 are worth a look.
The gist appears to be that the judge thought ABM's recollection of his conversation with Ramsey to be credible.
The judge also thought that if ABM's recollection of his conversation with Ramsey were accepted then the claim against QPR for victimisation was "relatively strong"
Selected quotes below:
"
25.
In March or April 2022 the Claimant (on his account) called CR to tell him that the racist banter was really bad at CTFC. He deliberately did not mention JY as he knew that CR and JY were friends. CR responded to say, as the Claimant put it in his witness statement, “it is old school down thereâ€. This ‘brush off’ surprised and upset the Claimant as he had expected CR to be sympathetic because he is black. I record here that what the Claimant put in his witness statement about this conversation is not the same as what is pleaded in his particulars of claim. The Claimant was cross-examined on the nature of these differences. This conversation is, on the face of QPR’s pleadings, denied and I have not received evidence from CR, nor has Mr Shillingford (whose account of his own conversations with both CR and the Claimant tends to support the Claimant’s account) been cross-examined. I am not therefore making any findings about what was actually said in this conversation. The reason why the Claimant was cross-examined on it by Mr Wallace was, as I understood, to cast doubt on the merits of the Claimant’s case and by way of illustration of the difficulties of remembering oral accounts after a passage of time. Dealing with that point, I record here that there was nothing about the Claimant’s answers in cross-examination that gave me cause to doubt his recollection on this point. The differences between the pleading and the witness statement do not go to heart of the conversation and are the sort of differences that may arise naturally from recounting the same event on different occasions. The differences mean that, if the matter proceeds to trial, the Tribunal may only be able to make findings as to the gist of the conversation rather than as to specific words used, but if the gist is clear that does not weaken the merits of the Claimant’s case."
"
107.
Finally, I need to consider the merits of the case insofar as I am able and insofar as I am specifically invited to do by Mr Wallace in QPR’s strike-out application. It seems to me that the core of the Claimant’s case is a relatively strong one. Some of his allegations against JY were upheld by the FA Disciplinary Commission, and some of them are admitted by JY in these proceedings, and more of them are admitted by CTFC. The core of his victimisation claim against QPR is also relatively strong. Taking the Claimant’s case at its highest, in accordance with the usual approach when considering a claim at the early stages (including whether to strike out or make a deposit order), if his evidence of the calls with CR is accepted, it is likely they will be found to be victimisation because, in particular for the calls on 23 April, if the Claimant’s account is accepted, the victimisation is essentially explicit in what the Claimant says CR said. 107. Finally, I need to consider the merits of the case insofar as I am able and insofar as I am specifically invited to do by Mr Wallace in QPR’s strike-out application. It seems to me that the core of the Claimant’s case is a relatively strong one. Some of his allegations against JY were upheld by the FA Disciplinary Commission, and some of them are admitted by JY in these proceedings, and more of them are admitted by CTFC. The core of his victimisation claim against QPR is also relatively strong. Taking the Claimant’s case at its highest, in accordance with the usual approach when considering a claim at the early stages (including whether to strike out or make a deposit order), if his evidence of the calls with CR is accepted, it is likely they will be found to be victimisation because, in particular for the calls on 23 April, if the Claimant’s account is accepted, the victimisation is essentially explicit in what the Claimant says CR said. " | | | |
| QPR being sued on 07:59 - Feb 14 with 295 views | KensalT |
| QPR being sued on 22:01 - Feb 13 by KensalT |
I've only skimmed through it, and it is a lengthy judgement, but sections 25-27, and section 107 are worth a look.
The gist appears to be that the judge thought ABM's recollection of his conversation with Ramsey to be credible.
The judge also thought that if ABM's recollection of his conversation with Ramsey were accepted then the claim against QPR for victimisation was "relatively strong"
Selected quotes below:
"
25.
In March or April 2022 the Claimant (on his account) called CR to tell him that the racist banter was really bad at CTFC. He deliberately did not mention JY as he knew that CR and JY were friends. CR responded to say, as the Claimant put it in his witness statement, “it is old school down thereâ€. This ‘brush off’ surprised and upset the Claimant as he had expected CR to be sympathetic because he is black. I record here that what the Claimant put in his witness statement about this conversation is not the same as what is pleaded in his particulars of claim. The Claimant was cross-examined on the nature of these differences. This conversation is, on the face of QPR’s pleadings, denied and I have not received evidence from CR, nor has Mr Shillingford (whose account of his own conversations with both CR and the Claimant tends to support the Claimant’s account) been cross-examined. I am not therefore making any findings about what was actually said in this conversation. The reason why the Claimant was cross-examined on it by Mr Wallace was, as I understood, to cast doubt on the merits of the Claimant’s case and by way of illustration of the difficulties of remembering oral accounts after a passage of time. Dealing with that point, I record here that there was nothing about the Claimant’s answers in cross-examination that gave me cause to doubt his recollection on this point. The differences between the pleading and the witness statement do not go to heart of the conversation and are the sort of differences that may arise naturally from recounting the same event on different occasions. The differences mean that, if the matter proceeds to trial, the Tribunal may only be able to make findings as to the gist of the conversation rather than as to specific words used, but if the gist is clear that does not weaken the merits of the Claimant’s case."
"
107.
Finally, I need to consider the merits of the case insofar as I am able and insofar as I am specifically invited to do by Mr Wallace in QPR’s strike-out application. It seems to me that the core of the Claimant’s case is a relatively strong one. Some of his allegations against JY were upheld by the FA Disciplinary Commission, and some of them are admitted by JY in these proceedings, and more of them are admitted by CTFC. The core of his victimisation claim against QPR is also relatively strong. Taking the Claimant’s case at its highest, in accordance with the usual approach when considering a claim at the early stages (including whether to strike out or make a deposit order), if his evidence of the calls with CR is accepted, it is likely they will be found to be victimisation because, in particular for the calls on 23 April, if the Claimant’s account is accepted, the victimisation is essentially explicit in what the Claimant says CR said. 107. Finally, I need to consider the merits of the case insofar as I am able and insofar as I am specifically invited to do by Mr Wallace in QPR’s strike-out application. It seems to me that the core of the Claimant’s case is a relatively strong one. Some of his allegations against JY were upheld by the FA Disciplinary Commission, and some of them are admitted by JY in these proceedings, and more of them are admitted by CTFC. The core of his victimisation claim against QPR is also relatively strong. Taking the Claimant’s case at its highest, in accordance with the usual approach when considering a claim at the early stages (including whether to strike out or make a deposit order), if his evidence of the calls with CR is accepted, it is likely they will be found to be victimisation because, in particular for the calls on 23 April, if the Claimant’s account is accepted, the victimisation is essentially explicit in what the Claimant says CR said. " |
A PS to this.
The judgement from the July 2023 hearing indicates that Chris Ramsey did not give evidence at that hearing:
"This conversation is, on the face of QPR’s pleadings, denied and I have not received evidence from CR, nor has Mr Shillingford (whose account of his own conversations with both CR and the Claimant tends to support the Claimant’s account) been cross-examined. I am not therefore making any findings about what was actually said in this conversation."
The Guardian report for the most recent hearing says that Ramsey did give evidence this time:
"Bansal-McNulty has given evidence to the tribunal along with Yems and several witnesses from QPR, including the long-serving academy director Alex Carroll, the former technical directors Les Ferdinand and Chris Ramsey, and the former manager Mark Warburton."
As Clive suggested in his earlier post this could be the crux of the matter in determining any liability on the part of QPR. It could al hinge on what was said between ABM and CR, and who the judge prefers to believe! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
