PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gundoggin]

With the little bit of information coming to light yesterday about MCFC refusing to settle out of court raises the the question where is the the substantial amount of money coming from to pay for the PL legal bill ? This case which the PL brought against MCFC pushed by the red cartel will be the most expensive in PL history and probably ever . So again where is the money coming from ? Who is paying the PL legal bill ………….

 

[Joe Donachie]

I “woodn’t” have disagreed with the judge…

Furthermore jobs are protected for jurors. Employers cannot dismiss you for being on a jury.

Well some people were on there case for so long that there employees couldn’t keep there job open for them, I think they were paid out some kind of compensation off the courts,

But this is about 15 years ago now, but some of the people on the case were really fed up, it was a fascinating insight, how the system works sometime,

I know one thing and that is I think the system of a jury is quite suspect, I certainly felt bullied into my decision in the deliberation room off a certain jury member who was a lot older than me at the time,

 

[Keeper!]

I thought that too. Misleading headline.

Sadly the whole world is clickbait crazy, on all matters not just this case.

 

[Ducado]

With the little bit of information coming to light yesterday about MCFC refusing to settle out of court raises the the question where is the the substantial amount of money coming from to pay for the PL legal bill ? This case which the PL brought against MCFC pushed by the red cartel will be the most expensive in PL history and probably ever . So again where is the money coming from ? Who is paying the PL legal bill ………….

That's a pretty easy one to answer, the clubs that make up the PL own the PL including City

 

[Kippaxpete]

I did jury service about 15 years ago now, It was actually a murder case I was on, and despite more than half of my fellow jury members believing there was a good chance the suspect was guilty we just did not have enough clear evidence to find them guilty,

Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,

Apparently fraud cases are the worse ones for coming to a conclusion as there is usually so many people involved, money trails, different accounts, different countries, various forms of communication, that in the end quite a few of the cases end up collapsing or the people involved being given a not guilty verdict

I always remember the judge and his closing speech to us jury members before we left for the deliberation room, he said ( you must be 100% in your decision, if there is any shed of doubt then you must return a not guilty verdict)

I wonder if this independent panel will work to the same remit, if not 100% in us being guilty then they have to drop all the charges against us,

I actually think that if we get cleared on the main 3 charges then the rest will collapse,

While I understand the sentiment, it's a false comparison to draw parallels with a criminal case. Any ruling made in the case against us will be by way of the civil standard of proof. In essence, this means 'on the balance of probability' as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Where the latter is applied, there's a higher burden of proof on the part of the party 'prosecuting' to prove their case. I'd always say that one isn't necessarily better than the other as it's a bit of a double-edged sword in legal terms. In the case brought against us though, all the PL's legal representatives have to do is persuade the arbiter that, by reference to all the evidence presented, it is more likely than not that the respondent (i.e. us) is liable.

 

[eversince 76]

Everyone is kinda guessing what is happening. That’s what makes it a talking point on here, in the media, in the street, among most opposing fans. Guilty, not guilty, partly guilty, legal bills, punishments, and so on.
In the end some will be right guessing. Up until the first verdict at least.

What I state is as obvious as a bear shitting in a forest. And tbf watching the bear beats it imho.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Beyond reasonable doubt isn’t strictly the test anymore, it’s being ‘sure’, although it basically amounts to the same thing tbf.

A wise man once wrote balance of probabilities is 51%, beyond a reasonable doubt is 90-95% and balance of probabilities with particularly cogent evidence is in the middle, say around 65-75%.

What % wise he was is anybody's guess .....

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Perhaps we can all catch up for a beer.
Sheep Shearers Arms ? 6.30 ?

Let's all set off driving at six o'clock Monday morning - we should be there in time for last orders on Wednesday.

 

[give it to gordon]

If that 6 point deduction offer is true I’m amazed City didn’t take it. If we have say a 30% chance of relegation, given that even the most slam dunk of cases has only around a 70% chance of winning, why take the chance?

Perhaps you are innocent

 

[Gundoggin]

That's a pretty easy one to answer, the clubs that make up the PL own the PL including City

The substantial legal costs of the PL to be paid by the 20 member clubs of the PL . The costs are staggering, so if the PL lose it and Masters become untenable. The PL are in a hopeless position MCFC know it and are going for the jugular.