PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
I’ve been thinking for some time that a counter claim would make life very interesting. Under the PL rules, the PL and all clubs must act in good faith to all clubs in the PL.
Right at the beginning of this saga, I suggested that our legal team should ask some pointed questions on how much the PL consulted the redshirts before preferring the charges. (Any emails available?)
Hands up all those who think the redshirts and the PL have acted in good faith towards us.
A failure to show good faith would not only weaken the PL case, but would also open the door to an appeal to the high court and such a finding would make a great introduction to the IC’s ratio when they find us innocent.
You may say that I’m a dreamer…..
Click to expand...
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.
 
pauls said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
KS55 said:
The balance of probabilities, but the evidence will need to be strong to tip the scales against our audited accounts.
Click to expand...
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.
 
KS55 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Mancity1980 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Norman kneejerk said:
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
Click to expand...

I think that was all speculative. At least, it wasn't anything that was put forward at CAS.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.