The discussion has moved on and this was ignored. However, it's worth coming back to, I think, because there's a error here that's cited regularly and should be corrected.
The standard of proof applicable before the CAS was NOT the balance of probabilities, even though that's commonly asserted on here. As numbered para 200 of
the CAS Award on page 56 stated, the Parties agreed "that the standard of proof [was] that of
comfortable satisfaction" (my emphasis).
In the current PL proceedings, yes, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities as the PL's own rules make provision for this standard of proof. The proceedings are also subject to English law, meaning that there will be a requirement for evidence to be particularly cogent given the serious nature of the matters the PL has alleged. (A similar requirement for cogency existed before the CAS, too).
Comfortable satisfaction, which is discussed
here, is a standard of proof that is tougher than the balance of probabilities but less tough than a formulation such as beyond reasonable doubt. It was originally developed for matters concerning alleged doping penalties, where it was felt that a balance of probabilities standard was unfairly low given the potentially catastrophic effect on an athlete's livelihood of a finding against that person, which would likely entail a lengthy ban.
The practice of the CAS evolved, however, to apply the comfortable satisfaction standard of proof in arbitrations where the parties hadn't themselves agreed to a different standard. It's relevant in our context because it's one of the outright lies or deliberately misleading half-truths propagated by out detractors in the wake of the CAS proceedings to cast a negative light on the result, allowing them to argue that the PL should nonetheless continue to investigate allegations against MCFC despite the UEFA case being resolved.
People may have forgotten about it now. However, the elevated standard of proof at play in CAS proceedings was cited by many of those hostile to us at the time as an important factor in regarding the CAS award as flawed - notwithstanding that the CAS found "no evidence" of guilt on the charges it examined, meaning UEFA wouldn't even have met a theoretical comically low standard of proof such as guilty on a vague notional possibility.
Many of us will no doubt remember some of the other arguments along similar lines. I mean stuff such as City having selected two of the arbitrators, UEFA's statute of limitations being applicable when there'd be no limitation issues for the PL (despite restrictions in the Limitation Act covering PL proceedings), and UEFA failing to appeal to the Swiss Court after the CAS issued its award (though the Swiss legal system would likely have laughed any such appeal out of court).
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk