PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

I don't mind seeming foolish, or being called a fool. Why would I? I've heard from multiple sources over the years that I am not a fool so I am led to believe that is a fact. I think :)

But once again, I don't believe in absolute certainty. I don't believe it's absolutely certain that the club didn't do what is alleged on sponsorship funding, but I think it's extremely likely that they didn't; I am not absolutely certain the PL couldn't prove the most serious allegations but I think it's extremely unlikely that they could, nearing the point of impossibility; and I don't believe it's absolutely certain that the club haven't received the judgment just because some bloke on the internet says so, whoever he is. Although, taking everything else into account, I think that is probably right.

What a silly conflation of complex matters and a binary fact also confirmed by David Pannick just a few weeks ago and an article in the Independent days ago. But keep going with this garbage

 

[Keith Moon]

On a positive note, after a liability phase lasting this long, any sanctions imposed on City would have to be reduced to reflect the length of the proceedings.

 

[East Level 2]

Not just the club though - it's also our existing sponsors and new investors together with Guehi, Semenyo, Donnarumma, Reijnders, Cherki, Ait -Nouri, Trafford, Marmoush, Khusanov et al and Pep plus the players extending their contracts. They have clearly been given assurances of our innocence which they believe.

You forgot refusing £60M? for Savinho and giving him a new contract. Does that mean we have loads to spend or we're keeping Championship level players for next season.

 

[johnny crossan]

You forgot refusing £60M? for Savinho and giving him a new contract. Does that mean we have loads to spend or we're keeping Championship level players for next season.

I did mention contract extensions - if we really did turn down £60m for Sav it may have been a show of confidence but it was also a big mistake.

 

[Blue Pete]

My dissertation was on the linguistic use of the word 'Know', I can categorically state
A. Stefan is correct in his usage.
B. He might still be wrong
C. He probably isn't
D. I know nothing regarding the case other than what is on here.

 

[East Level 2]

Well 1-15 was ten minutes ago, and still no news.

 

[SilverFox2]

Youve assumed that I was talking about Stefan only, it was a generalisation about people who provide good information from ITKs. Lots of people have good contacts but they can’t be certain until after the event what they are being fed is accurate.

I’m always mindful of Sturidge getting his ban due to passing information onto a relative whbest ich turned out to be wrong.

Not only that but like negotiating with Club for a player even the negotiaters are not certain of the result until contracts are signed.

 

[wolviedinho]

The independent cough cough premier leagues chair is most certainly dicky masters and his mutely crew.

Now this is a fellow I can relate to:

I rest my case…

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

Did the kids all call him Bogey?

I know......cause he once told me!

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

That isn't true. It is very hard to collate the current Judicial Panel. In fact, the chair is more likely one of these people https://supremecourt.uk/former-justices such is the importance of the case. Dyson did the APT case but I am not sure if the same people are on IC shortlist.

At least one of these is an ass.

 

[johnny crossan]

My dissertation was on the linguistic use of the word 'Know', I can categorically state
A. Stefan is correct in his usage.
B. He might still be wrong
C. He probably isn't
D. I know nothing regarding the case other than what is on here.

Absolutely A & B - Knowledge is simply having enough good reasons to believe something is true - the truth of the proposition's object is epistemologically irrelevant, what counts is whether the reasons are 'good' enough.

 

[johnny crossan]

I know......cause he once told me!

 

[halfcenturyup]

My dissertation was on the linguistic use of the word 'Know', I can categorically state
A. Stefan is correct in his usage.
B. He might still be wrong
C. He probably isn't
D. I know nothing regarding the case other than what is on here.

I know that's bollocks :)

 

[Legalamb777]

Kerplunk

……and what a game that was:)

 

[Keith Moon]

That isn't true. It is very hard to collate the current Judicial Panel. In fact, the chair is more likely one of these people https://supremecourt.uk/former-justices such is the importance of the case. Dyson did the APT case but I am not sure if the same people are on IC shortlist.

Maybe David Kitchin.

 

[burning blue soul]

Maybe David Kitchin.

Kitchins gonna sink us?

 

[Stoned Rose]

Absolutely A & B - Knowledge is simply having enough good reasons to believe something is true - the truth of the proposition's object is epistemologically irrelevant, what counts is whether the reasons are 'good' enough.

You can “know” something and be completely wrong.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Where are Pannick's replies, anyone? What's his username?

See @Paladin posts.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Does anybody actually think that our stellar legal counsel, after spending two and a half months defending us at the panel over a year ago, still don't have a scooby about the result?

I certainly don’t. Everyone present throughout the hearing will have an excellent idea of the way the wind has blown.

 

[Coatigan]

Not just the club though - it's also our existing sponsors and new investors together with Guehi, Semenyo, Donnarumma, Reijnders, Cherki, Ait -Nouri, Trafford, Marmoush, Khusanov et al and Pep plus the players extending their contracts. They have clearly been given assurances of our innocence which they believe.

Yea always noted the same.

Believe vs know though, is the only debate here.