There is a sliver of doubt in my mind about the IC, but that may be just nervousness. I trust Stefan’s judgement. On the CAS case, I posted numerous times that we would be cleared and, unless the PL have something we don’t know about, the outcome here will be the same.We know about the hateful eight letter, the two latest Times exclusives (leaks allegedly via the Arse) and I'm sure the club have something not in the public domain.This to me is substantial grounds for non co operation as they can't be trusted with confidential information. My only concern is the independence of this tribunal even though projectdriver is confident they will be.
I have just googled this:The balance of probabilities, but the evidence will need to be strong to tip the scales against our audited accounts.
Someone did a long analysis on here a few days ago and made the point that we had our money on deposit with ADUG earning interest and then just called it back when required.There is a sliver of doubt in my mind about the IC, but that may be just nervousness. I trust Stefan’s judgement. On the CAS case, I posted numerous times that we would be cleared and, unless the PL have something we don’t know about, the outcome here will be the same.
Quote from Snr. Teabag: “I hope they catch them this time.” Racist twat.
Well I'm keeping my Prestwich_Blue and Nick Harris personas separate.Why has he junked Projectriver? I think we should be told. He’s up to no good.
It's a civil case, not a criminal one, so the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. At CAS, if I remember correctly, City argued that the seriousness of the charges should mean a standard of proof higher than balance of probability but this was rejected by the panel. As it turned out, it didn't matter as UEFA failed to reach even that standard.I have just googled this:
“Matters requiring proof must be established to the appropriate standard, namely either on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil cases, the appropriate standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (or, in other words, whether the tribunal of fact is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the relevant facts occurred). In criminal cases, the appropriate standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (or, in other words, whether the tribunal of fact can be sure that the relevant facts have been proved).”
So, does anyone know where the standard of proof lies here? To me this sounds like a civil case, criminal sentencing is not on the line here, just the application of internal rules between a ruling body and its members. Of course our owners have clearly said they have irrefutable evidence proving our innocence and I have no reason to disbelieve that hence the answer to the question is immaterial, but it is important to understand.
And they’ve got worse ever sinceThe Mail was a fine upstanding supporter of Hitler in the 30s.
Well I'm keeping my Prestwich_Blue and Nick Harris personas separate.
Someone did a long analysis on here a few days ago and made the point that we had our money on deposit with ADUG earning interest and then just called it back when required.
I thought that seemed quite a plausible explanation and is something most people could follow.
If its correct it does seem to kill the allegations and I'm surprised its taken this long to come out. Would love to know if that's correct
Hopefully it is all a strategy and scruffy Jim is a plant to buy the club and close it downThey do, Ineos have won a couple of big contracts associated with the oil and gas industry in Abu Dhabi in the last few years.
I particularly enjoyed the comment from the Liverpool fan who is sure we’re fucked because UEFA have sent all their ‘evidence’ to the Premier League!!It changes nothing…. They are just piling in because they want to see us punished but they have no understanding whatsoever of the facts. The Daily Mail has been morally (and factually) bankrupt for more than a century - so it ain’t changing soon.