PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[surrounded by idiots]

Always called that Biffin Bridge. Learn something new on here everyday. Much obliged.

I've used Biffin Bridge too, it's good to be educated and have a decent and varied vocabulary

 

[Don Karleone]

Pop in to see if there's any update, and learn a new term for the gooch.

Lovely.

 

[bluemonkey71]

Goochy gang

 

[Damocles]

Depends on what the verdict was, who won and what was also found in the findings or evidence? There will be lots of negotiating from the loser on punishments, media statements, possible sackings etc and just generally how to manage the verdict announcement.

There's 0% probability that the verdict won't leak about 16 seconds after the club/PL find out.

No chance on weeks

 

[Chris in London]

The standard of proof is balance of probabilities because it's a civil case, but the nature of the most serious allegations means the evidence has to be particularly cogent, which raises the standard way beyond simple balance of probabilities, closer to beyond a reasonable doubt. Somewhere in the middle, I suppose. The panel isn't going to toss a mental coin and see which side it falls on. It will have been more like tossing a coin five times and unless the same result is achieved then forget it (yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy).

Add to that a presumption that people act responsibly and within the law, especially respected businessmen with impeccable reputations who give witness statements, and the PL better have some serious smoking documents if they want to have any chance at all of succeeding on the most serious charges. Which they won't.

No. The standard of proof is still the balance of probability. However the more serious the allegation the less likely it is to be true. So cogent evidence is needed to prove that the allegation is more likely true than not.

The allegations made against City are especially serious so the evidence needed to show City are guilty will need to be particularly cogent.

to der spiegel’s emails as an example, in isolation if half a dozen emails of that nature were relied on to show that some low level wrongdoing had taken place, say that surrounding the referee to pressurise him was a deliberate tactic, that might make the allegation more likely than not.

However the allegation in the present case is much more serious and that makes it much more difficult to prove those more serious allegations on the basis of the same evidence.

But the standard does not change. What changes is the quality of the evidence required to meet that standard.

Don’t worry, by the way. Even the Supreme Court go this wrong at first.

 

[richards30]

There's 0% probability that the verdict won't leak about 16 seconds after the club/PL find out.

No chance on weeks

If the Premier league win it will be leaked like wildfire! If we win, it is damage limitation imo Dam, especially if Masters was been led to do stuff by the yank owned clubs as well and in a sense colluding with them? Thats discrimination and corruption at the same time and arguably the biggest scandal in Premier league history and would have huge brand implications for the league?

 

[citizen_maine]

If the Premier league win it will be leaked like wildfire! If we win, it is damage limitation imo Dam, especially if Masters was been led to do stuff by the yank owned clubs as well and in a sense colluding with them? Thats discrimination and corruption at the same time and arguably the biggest scandal in Premier league history and would have huge brand implications for the league?

but that's separate from how quickly the verdict will 'leak'

 

[cheekybids]

No. The standard of proof is still the balance of probability. However the more serious the allegation the less likely it is to be true. So cogent evidence is needed to prove that the allegation is more likely true than not.

The allegations made against City are especially serious so the evidence needed to show City are guilty will need to be particularly cogent.

to der spiegel’s emails as an example, in isolation if half a dozen emails of that nature were relied on to show that some low level wrongdoing had taken place, say that surrounding the referee to pressurise him was a deliberate tactic, that might make the allegation more likely than not.

However the allegation in the present case is much more serious and that makes it much more difficult to prove those more serious allegations on the basis of the same evidence.

But the standard does not change. What changes is the quality of the evidence required to meet that standard.

Don’t worry, by the way. Even the Supreme Court go this wrong at first.

I suppose that also means if any dodgy emails between the cartel & premier league show they’ve conspired, the panel will also accept a piss poor explanation.

 

[citizen_maine]

I suppose that also means if any dodgy emails between the cartel & premier league show they’ve conspired, the panel will also accept a piss poor explanation.

not if the evidence shows they then did conspire :-)

 

[richards30]

but that's separate from how quickly the verdict will 'leak'

Not entirely imo mate as either way its one of the biggest decisions in english football history possibly? If the CEO of the premier league was complicit in discriminating against a club, bringing false charges against said club and there is evidence of collusion then its a horrendous stain of english football?

 

[Centurions]

Not entirely imo mate as either way its one of the biggest decisions in english football history possibly? If the CEO of the premier league was complicit in discriminating against a club, bringing false charges against said club and there is evidence of collusion then its a horrendous stain of english football?

I think I can see a flaw in your thinking.

 

[citizen_maine]

Not entirely imo mate as either way its one of the biggest decisions in english football history possibly? If the CEO of the premier league was complicit in discriminating against a club, bringing false charges against said club and there is evidence of collusion then its a horrendous stain of english football?

and you think City wouldn't want that out in the public domain?

 

[its a Barm]

So excuse my idiot brain do we know if a decision has been reached yet or not, if not is that why we still wait, if it has been made then why the wait.

 

[Centurions]

So excuse my idiot brain do we know if a decision has been reached yet or not, if not is that why we still wait, if it has been made then why the wait.

Well, if it hasn't been made that is most definitely the reason we're still waiting.

No idea on the rest.

 

[richards30]

and you think City wouldn't want that out in the public domain?

Of course mate but behind the scenes, its damage limitation for the league?

 

[Centurions]

Of course mate but behind the scenes, its damage limitation for the league?

Bit late for that surely? There's going to be blood on the streets either way (not literally).

 

[Leyland Blue]

I suppose that also means if any dodgy emails between the cartel & premier league show they’ve conspired, the panel will also accept a piss poor explanation.

Good point. A bit like the APT case, where I seem to remember witness testimony overrode an e-mail from a club to the PL, which specifically mentioned bringing in new rules in the wake of the Newcastle takeover.

 

[silva_is_gold]

Is Gooch a self-descriptive term for you - and I quote "the area of skin between the genitals and anus"

Well he certainly talks out of his anus!

 

[Lord Blue]

i thought scouse was the stretch of skin between a dudes meat and his potatoes

 

[cheekybids]

Good point. A bit like the APT case, where I seem to remember witness testimony overrode an e-mail from a club to the PL, which specifically mentioned bringing in new rules in the wake of the Newcastle takeover.

Exactly.