At CAS, the tradition is that the judges do not vote against the party that selected them. Seems bonkers but the German judge voted in favour of UEFA who selected him from the panel. Afterwards, a junior in that judges law firm wrote an article ‘proving’ we were guilty. They claimed there was no collusion between them. The article appeared in Der Spiegel.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
As much as the red top press would have you believe the football world isnt the world , the fact that other football fans and the press isnt going to pay your bills when your professional reputation is in tattersI 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
It is a civil dispute. The allegations are in the nature of breach of contract, ie the PL rules.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.
I wish some blues would get this into their heads. Balance of probabilities with high requirement for standard of proof ie cogency.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".
Ah, but when their new stadia have been built they will have the best tellys in the league, world class, best in der werld etc. etc.If we Win we should pay for screens at the only two teams in the Premier League who cant afford them.
Surely not all of the A4 one side print out?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!!
Useful post (for me anyway), thanksIt 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".
Moonlighting at a guess.Trafford Council….do they have roofers?