PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[tolmie's hairdoo]

There are many situations where an arbitration panel only has one lawyer. If the arbitration concerns, say, disputed payments under a building contract, you might have a panel made up of an architect and an accountant chaired by a KC. In other cases where it is all about the legal issues - and ours might be just such a case - you might have a panel consisting of three KCs. So I don't read anything into the fact that only one member of the panel needs to be legally qualified. Since, on the other hand, a number of the issues will be accountancy issues I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one accountant on the panel.

We did raise in the court proceedings 2 years ago certain arguments suggesting that there might be in-built bias in favour of the PL in terms of how the 'members of the independent commission' were chosen. There have been since then changes to the way in which the PL appoints its commissions, and so the concerns we might have had about the constitution of the panel have in my view been reduced.

Thank you. So if a forensic accountant is on the panel, is their opinion based on the actual law of probability, rather than any actual real evidence?

My only concern remains what level the burden of proof is at, if the Premier League have had all these years to tailor a guilty template?

 

[richards30]

Thank you. So if a forensic accountant is on the panel, is their opinion based on the actual law of probability, rather than any actual real evidence?

My only concern remains what level the burden of proof is at, if the Premier League have had all these years to tailor a guilty template?

Are we not as confident now?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

As long as the other two are directed properly by the one who knows what he is talking about, then it doesn't matter. If they aren't directed properly, that is a different issue and probably grounds for an appeal?

A jury, after all has, almost always, no legal experience.

So how do you assure impartiality and non-confirmation bias?

Most jury's won't be exposed to the level of reporting we already have, jurors are certainly weeded out in the States and profiled.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Are we not as confident now?

FFS!

Merely asking a very relevant question, as had seen on Stefen's timeline that only one person needs to have a legal qualification and that shocked me.

 

[Bandofblues]

Are we not as confident now?

Concern Concern Meter GIF - Concern Concern Meter Level Of Concern - Discover & Share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Did you not say that 95% of the charges are off the table now anyway. Do you know which ones are left?

Nope.

 

[aguero93:20]

Any update? And does anyone know if the pints and pies be cheaper once we a relegated to non league?

Nope. Going up to £50 each to cover the lost CL money.

 

[domalino]

They are fucked, they have joined the party too late, and the lovely thing is they all know it, hence the hate.

They aren't fucked, there's 1,000s of clubs out there to buy.

But you have to question if they're doing it for the "right" reasons. CFG is a marriage of commercial and scouting, and it's been going on for 10 years. So are these clubs getting involved because they see the potential for commercial growth? Because they see the advantages of a global network of local scouting operations or simply because they like the idea of snapping up clubs like cheap real estate?

They'll be 15 years behind by the time they get going as well.

 

[paska]

I'd guess (and it is only a guess) that it may contain full contact details for them and their agents, family life, pastimes, injury records with full details etc etc. That is all personal and private even if some may be in the public domain to some extent. The club definitely have a duty of care. I'd be interested to know what happened to the person whose log in details were used but of course that's private & confidential too :)

Not their fault if they get hacked though, is it?

Obviously you have to protect yourself against hackers as part of that GDPR duty of care, but nobody is immune to hacking, no person or organisation, and I’m sure the standard procedures have been taken to not “invite it” upon ourselves, such as it’s being framed as

 

[Chris in London]

Thank you. So if a forensic accountant is on the panel, is their opinion based on the actual law of probability, rather than any actual real evidence?

My only concern remains what level the burden of proof is at, if the Premier League have had all these years to tailor a guilty template?

No, when non-lawyers are on the panel their approach is usually framed by the chair - ie, the "issues we have to decide are A, B, and C" and "the evidence on issue A is as follows..." Their decision is their own based on their own view of the actual evidence.

The burden of proof remains on the Premier League. They have to persuade the panel that it is more likely than not that we are guilty of the breaches alleged. But as we've discussed before, the evidence needed to satisfy the panel that we are guilty of conduct that amounts to serious criminal offences will need to be very cogent indeed.