The balance of probabilities is that city did something that broke their stranglehold on the champions league places & given the rules were only written to protect aforementioned stranglehold. Therefore it stands to probable reason in their minds that it must have been against the rules due to the sole objective of the rules not being achieved.If they can't establish fraud, then they can't win in the long term
If they find us guilty under the balance of probabilities, with the overriding inference of fraud, than City are able to take this to a proper Court.
Prem are caught between pulling the guillotine but also putting their own head in with ours.
I want to know how 3 people on a tribunal can ascertain guilt based on no evidence?
They would need to get to a point where no other reasonable explanation can be ascertained.
No evidence means no case. Looks like they have taken their ball home in a huff.
Was he a small, old, grey but balding, dull as fuck, miserable twat that has stabbed virtually everyone he has ever worked with, in the back, that nobody has ever had a good word for, that is completely and utterly blinkered and biased, if not corrupt to the core about his beloved Liverpool; but someone deemed impartial and fair by the PL?In work and a dipper expert explaining to a rag why city are fucked. Were going to be got hard aparently. Might aswell end the season now. Were done for
Stupid procedure. It’s impossible without evidence. How do we gauge if their opinion is fair and true?When they looked at all the evidence it be down to those 3 people in there opinion if all the people at city are lying
Blues constantly under attack. Sickening tbf.**** with rag hat noticed my city scarf ..
rag- you are a cheat
me - i didn’t know your wife was married
rag- no it’s about 115 charges
me- i paid her 115 plus tips
walks off and give me finger from far away.
Bye ****
Love people who start a bit of banter and then immediately throw their toys out of the pram when someone gives it back.**** with rag hat noticed my city scarf ..
rag- you are a cheat
me - i didn’t know your wife was married
rag- no it’s about 115 charges
me- i paid her 115 plus tips
walks off and give me finger from far away.
Bye ****
I hope that is the case, otherwise we would need to worry about a smoking gun.My guess is that the PL never wanted to take it as far as this. Certainly ever since the CAS hearing as it appears that they don't have anything more in the way of evidence than UEFA had. An article in The Athletic (I know!) soon after we won at CAS made the point that the expectation was that the PL investigation would collapse off the back of that verdict. Yet it didn't and we have to ask ourselves why it didn't. Without knowing for sure, there's a huge whiff of the PL being railroaded into this by certain clubs and individuals.
When this is all over and if what you're suggesting proves to be bona fide, then I hope the protagonists are exposed by one means or another.My guess is that the PL never wanted to take it as far as this. Certainly ever since the CAS hearing as it appears that they don't have anything more in the way of evidence than UEFA had. An article in The Athletic (I know!) soon after we won at CAS made the point that the expectation was that the PL investigation would collapse off the back of that verdict. Yet it didn't and we have to ask ourselves why it didn't. Without knowing for sure, there's a huge whiff of the PL being railroaded into this by certain clubs and individuals.
Stupid procedure. It’s impossible without evidence. How do we gauge if their opinion is fair and true?
My next little nag is that it sounds as though the info will only be released if agreed by both sides, so if we’re found not guilty, the PL could stop the reasoning being published, perpetuating our “guilt” with rival fans forever.I should add as well that there would be a good chance that the High Court may find that a "guilty" judgement at the IC might be found to have prejudiced any further consideration of the charges if based on grounds of reasonable doubt (just as some newspaper coverage of high profile events does) and conversely, if the IC reaches its decision on grounds of probability, City could argue that this also prejudiced further consideration because the IC had planted the seed that the evidence was not sufficiently convincing to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt!