PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bigA]

But all these youtubers said we're getting relegated/points deduction/put out of business/millions of pounds in fines/banished to playing at Hough End on a Sunday morning.

And these kids have their ears to the ground and their fingers on the pulse....

More like their fingers on their cocks. Or up their jacksie.

 

[M18CTID]

I had a rag mate mention the same yesterday. I told him the players mustn’t have known about it in the first half against Brighton and Sporting, or for 80 minutes against Feyenord, nor against Forest.

Exactly the answer I gave the other week. But to a City fan. It’s not just opposition fans coming out with it!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I have read the text book again, just now and it says that establishing fraud is higher than for other types of civil action but not as high relating to criminal matters, but close to the criminal standard. :-)

Just to complicate things further the standard of proof in criminal trials isn’t universally applied as being ‘sure’.

Certain defences, if raised by the defence, require the mental gymnastics of the jury/tribunal of fact applying the balance of probabilities to that particular defence in conjunction with being sure the offence has been made out more widely by the prosecution.

So two standards of proof for one offence.

Any statutory due diligence defence for a regulatory offence, once raised, requires the application of this standard of proof, with the burden of proof resting with the defence, in respect of that defence, once raised by them. The burden of proof for the jury being sure of guilt for the index offence rests with the prosecution.

Hopefully that further clears things up…

 

[bigA]

Pinto is already a convicted criminal. The prosecution case was proven in his first trial. The court rejected his claims to be a whistleblower and the evidence was overwhelming. He demanded money from Doyen Sports agency not to relase information he had hacked. The next trial involves more extortion charges. None of these cases relate to City. He has not a cat in hell's chance of convincing any court he is a whistleblower. He had money in Swiss bank accounts he had taken from other organisations. There is no evidence he has more material from City other than that already publshed by Der Spiegl.

And a criminal in the witness protection program. Would a whistleblower be given that level of protection? Somehow I don't think so.

Pinto claims that he has received death threats as a result of his actions. If that is the case he must have pissed off some heavy and high powered people along the line somewhere. Yet he won't disclose who the threat was from.

Hopefully someone will catch up with this rat and give him his deserved comeuppance. Don't be surprised if he has an "accident" sometimes in the future.

 

[JewelZee]

And a criminal in the witness protection program. Would a whistleblower be given that level of protection? Somehow I don't think so.

Pinto claims that he has received death threats as a result of his actions. If that is the case he must have pissed off some heavy and high powered people along the line somewhere. Yet he won't disclose who the threat was from.

Hopefully someone will catch up with this rat and give him his deserved comeuppance. Don't be surprised if he has an "accident" sometimes in the future.

This guy is a POS, low life, scum of the Earth douche bag...

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Nope, I want a bit of excitement, winning isn't everything.

It literally is. It's the whole point of football.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Just to complicate things further the standard of proof in criminal trials isn’t universally applied as being ‘sure’.

Certain defences, if raised by the defence, require the mental gymnastics of the jury/tribunal of fact applying the balance of probabilities to that particular defence in conjunction with being sure the offence has been made out more widely by the prosecution.

So two standards of proof for one offence.

Any statutory due diligence defence for a regulatory offence, once raised, requires the application of this standard of proof, with the burden of proof resting with the defence, in respect of that defence, once raised by them. The burden of proof for the jury being sure of guilt for the index offence rests with the prosecution.

Hopefully that further clears things up…

What a load of cunts the legal 'profession' are. Absolutely having us over with their made up bollocks. ;-)

 

[mcfcphil]

Just to complicate things further the standard of proof in criminal trials isn’t universally applied as being ‘sure’.

Certain defences, if raised by the defence, require the mental gymnastics of the jury/tribunal of fact applying the balance of probabilities to that particular defence in conjunction with being sure the offence has been made out more widely by the prosecution.

So two standards of proof for one offence.

Any statutory due diligence defence for a regulatory offence, once raised, requires the application of this standard of proof, with the burden of proof resting with the defence, in respect of that defence, once raised by them. The burden of proof for the jury being sure of guilt for the index offence rests with the prosecution.

Hopefully that further clears things up…

Yes I agree, that’s what I was going to say.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

It literally is. It's the whole point of football.

There was a time when 5 pints either side of the game and possibly getting noshed off by something unspeakable was the best a blue could hope for on a Saturday.

 

[Lost for words]

Just to complicate things further the standard of proof in criminal trials isn’t universally applied as being ‘sure’.

Certain defences, if raised by the defence, require the mental gymnastics of the jury/tribunal of fact applying the balance of probabilities to that particular defence in conjunction with being sure the offence has been made out more widely by the prosecution.

So two standards of proof for one offence.

Any statutory due diligence defence for a regulatory offence, once raised, requires the application of this standard of proof, with the burden of proof resting with the defence, in respect of that defence, once raised by them. The burden of proof for the jury being sure of guilt for the index offence rests with the prosecution.

Hopefully that further clears things up…

Our case may or may not be covered in your assessment but in a case of law, the jury doesn't need mental gymnastics. The jury is there to decide if either the defence or the prosecution are lying, nothing else. Punishment, if any, will be decided by the Judge. As I said, our investigation may well be different unless one side or the other is lying. I would think that if we have irrefutable proof of our innocence then we should be in the clear.