PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Bozzie]

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.

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!!

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

It was rejected, but it was agreed that the evidence had to be particularly cogent. Which will be the same in the 115 case if I understand properly what I am told.

For anyone who isn't clear what cogent means (and I don't mind admitting I had to look it up the first time I heard it):

"Cogent: convincing, compelling and appeals to reason".

And this: "It is well established that cogent evidence is required to justify a finding of fraud or other discreditable conduct. This is because fraud and dishonesty are both very serious allegations. Most people are not serious wrongdoers and, as such, clearer evidence is required to prove fraud or dishonesty than (for example) negligence or innocence".

 

[Oldham Exile]

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.

I echo these comments - although my sliver of doubt persists and is made worse by my lack of understanding of how the CAS decision was 2-1.

How could 1 of the 3 members find against CITY given the evidence/facts?? smacks of someone 'following orders' and playing to their 'masters'

People talk about the reputational impact of 'being swayed' - well if panel members find against us it will only be CITY fans that are in uproar - whilst the opinion of the remainder of the entire footballing world would be up in arms if the members find for us - much more of a reputational risk perhaps

 

[Stoned Rose]

Its not up to us to prove our innocence- it’s up to the panel (PL) to PROVE -WITHOUT DOUBT -guilt

For
Fucks
Sake

Mods - can we have a sticky that explains in black and white the case is based on balance of probabilities.

The number of blues who don’t know this is staggering.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

I echo these comments - although my sliver of doubt persists and is made worse by my lack of understanding of how the CAS decision was 2-1.

How could 1 of the 3 members find against CITY given the evidence/facts?? smacks of someone 'following orders' and playing to their 'masters'

People talk about the reputational impact of 'being swayed' - well if panel members find against us it will only be CITY fans that in uproar - whilst the opinion of the remainder of the entire footballing world would be up in arms if the members find for us - much more reputational risk perhaps

Whoever is on this panel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to nail City to a door to keep the court of public opinion in check which in the same time results in them accusing a head of state of mass industrial fraud. All hell will break lose which ever way it goes, the premier league has dropped a right bollock here.

 

[Norbiton]

Mrs K asked me if I was watching the game last night or could she watch her programme House of Dragons. I said you watch your series, I'm sitting in the garden having a beer and listening to some tunes.
Really can't be arsed watching alot of football these days

You missed a treat. Coventry v Oxford was a terrific game.

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.

BOP.

Basically it’s more likely the allegation happened than it didn’t.

I would also suggest that even if BOP is satisfied, there may well be significant mitigation as to why a breach happened.

 

[Grassland Blue]

If were not guilty I have heard Walker is arranging a party for all the staff, so both will be on the menu!

Grealish will be working the bar.....

 

[i kne albert davy]

The Mail was a fine upstanding supporter of Hitler in the 30s.

The Daily Worker wasn't over critical either.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

For
Fucks
Sake

Mods - can we have a sticky that explains in black and white the case is based on balance of probabilities.

The number of blues who don’t know this is staggering.

Perhaps he's a step ahead of you.