PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keith Moon said:
I believe that, in the case of Aabar/IPIC, there is a case to be made that HHSM was directly involved in day-to-day operations, with close aides managing IPIC and Aabar. Against that background, claiming that he had no influence over the deals they entered into is at least questionable.

The Premier League was obliged to investigate the Der Spiegel revelations. The only way for the league to put this behind it is to be able to say that it has investigated everything — including Mancini and Fordham.

My point is that there’s a possibility that the charges are not as serious as expected, and that the Premier League would be satisfied with winning a few of them — enough to give City a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...
I much prefer your cymbals and hi-hats work tbh.
 
halfcenturyup said:
ChatGPT is a tricky bugger. It tries so hard to give the user what he wants, it makes stuff up whilst claiming it's authentic. I was looking for a quote from Joe Wilson, a nineteenth century Geordie poet (long story, don't ask), and it came up with an "authentic" "quote" perfect for the situation I was contextualising. When pushed on a source, though, it said well yes I don't have an actual source but it's the sort of thing he might have said. And that's not the only time cross-checking has shown some "creativity" with the"truth".

Staggering, absolutely staggering, Jeff.

Don't get me wrong. It can be extremely useful, and has been for me in my extra-Bluemoon activities. But a trusted source it isn't.
Click to expand...
The only correct answer would have been “I’m Ant, I’m Declan, a duo a twosome, so many lyrics were frightened to us em” tbf.
 
halfcenturyup said:
ChatGPT is a tricky bugger. It tries so hard to give the user what he wants, it makes stuff up whilst claiming it's authentic. I was looking for a quote from Joe Wilson, a nineteenth century Geordie poet (long story, don't ask), and it came up with an "authentic" "quote" perfect for the situation I was contextualising. When pushed on a source, though, it said well yes I don't have an actual source but it's the sort of thing he might have said. And that's not the only time cross-checking has shown some "creativity" with the"truth".

Staggering, absolutely staggering, Jeff.

Don't get me wrong. It can be extremely useful, and has been for me in my extra-Bluemoon activities. But a trusted source it isn't.
Click to expand...
Barristers have been disbarred for relying on cases that were completely made up by AI
 
manimanc said:
There are some iffy posts coming in the last few pages.

How can the Premier League suddenly want to change their mind about a sponsor 12 years later?

It's nonsense.
Click to expand...
1. "In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties, its....."
 
Chris in London said:
Barristers have been disbarred for relying on cases that were completely made up by AI
Click to expand...
I've seen this but I thought that they were let off the hook. The case I'm thinking of, the lad fully admitted it so there may have been a few.

I academically tutor some people and one of the things I try to show them is putting their sources into an LLM and telling it to specifically find the quote from the primary source that corresponds to the claim. Hit rate might be 5%. Kids are now writing full essays and just banging them into ChatGPT and saying source/reference all claims here, and its killing them.

Shit, if TurnitIn didn't have an AI detector on it, I'm fairly sure most degrees would now be getting attained by AI.
 
Chris in London said:
Barristers have been disbarred for relying on cases that were completely made up by AI
Click to expand...
Actually unbelievable that a barrister has put an authority before a court without cross referencing its provenance and whether it was still good law. They deserve nothing less than disbarment because they are, at the very least, conspicuously shite, reckless and quite possibly dishonest.
 
I don't think there has ever been anything official on this, but various reports on 115 have suggested that there could have been anything from 50,000 to 500,000 separate pieces of documentary evidence submitted by both sides during the hearing process. Assuming that the lower figure applies, if the 3 panel members reviewed these documents on a full time after the hearing which concluded in early Dec 2024, it would mean that they could only spend an average of 9 minutes on each of them and do nothing else. If the level of documentary evidence reported is accurate, this is going to take a long long long time. No doubt they'll be tempted to put some of it through an AI tool to save time LOL...what a shambles!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top