PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[WRicko]

A very qualified PL Panel found Leicester City guilty of FFP breaches

What’s your point

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Here's an example of how this shit impinges on normal life. I'm in a walking football club in the Midlands. Supporters of West Ham, villa, Southampton, wolves, Coventry and, of course, united, liverpool, spurs and arse.

A few weeks ago a liverpool supporter posted some shit about us cheating. I ignored it until the pile-on started when I just said "please fuck off with this shit". Well, of course, the scouser was all offended and I got a load of shit for being over sensitive. Anyway, it blows over.

Last night was the Christmas curry. I'm minding my own business talking football, price of replica shirts, admission, the future of football all perfectly amicable. Then an Arsenal fan chimes in, "I'm really enjoying watching City crash and burn". Now what do you say to that ?

As it's the season of goodwill, I was very polite and pointed out that I'd seen us win four in a row, win a treble, score a record number of goals and win a record number of points, seen Aguero, Silva, De Bruyne and Rodri at their peak, I can die happy. He then came out with a comment about cheating at which point I told him to fuck right off and it very nearly came to blows. It cast a cloud over the whole evening.

I should point out that not once did that bloke ever engage me in conversation to say something about the quality of football we were playing in our pomp, nor any word of praise. They are emboldened to think their opinion matters by the relentless negative press coverage.

Wouldn't you do the same? It's (media triggered) banter. Ignore it, tell them to stop crying about it.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Despite all of the sensationalism in the media,.are we still in the same position that unless they can prove we have committed mass fraud along with some of our sponsors, then there is very little (relatively speaking) we can be punished with?

pretty much. The only caveat is the player renumeration stuff, I've no idea what the details about this are. If it's Fordham then we'll be fine, if it's something else then we could be knackered. the rest of it will be time barred, not in the written rules at the time or already proved innocent through a proper court in CAS. It also leaves the non co-operation stuff which is obviously thrown to find us guilty of something. I very much doubt the IC will go against CAS for the sponsorship stuff as it will open up a load of legal problems plus its a very strong argument for City to say this element has already been tried in a court and proved to be legit. We could even call the CAS judges in to explain their reasoning to the IC. It's just all very unlikely stuff. It wouldn't surprise me if this bit took the least amount of time in the IC.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

What’s your point

his point is they got it legally completely wrong and had to change their mind

 

[salfordbluetrue]

What’s your point

That while City have put a huge amount of pressure on the panel to only accept proof, much like they did with CAS, the panel is not bound to follow the burden of proof, but a court of Law does.
So what reason does the cartel have to end this now, when it can get another 5 years of defamation in, it is not as though they are going to pay for it, as they will spread the cost right down to school football.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It’s a civil case and balance of probabilities.

You can read more here. https://stefanborson.substack.com/p/conspiracy-theories-and-innuendo

There are many practice notes if you are really interested https://www.edwincoe.com/civil-fraud-claims-misjudging-the-scales/

Proving Fraud in the English Courts – a higher standard? | White & Case LLP

The Court of Appeal has confirmed in Bank St Petersburg PJSC v Vitaly Arkhangelsky that the correct standard of proof where issues of dishonesty arise is not a ‘heightened’ civil standard, but the balance of probabilities.

www.whitecase.com

The sub stack is an excellent read and clearly lays out the difficulties in proving these allegations.
One question does spring to mind though. Assuming there’s no ‘smoking gun’ for want of a better phrase, why would the PL lawyers have allowed it to go this far and, presumably, should the PL fail whilst blowing an enormous amount of cash, they will be looking for new representation?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

That while City have put a huge amount of pressure on the panel to only accept proof, much like they did with CAS, the panel is not bound to follow the burden of proof, but a court of Law does.
So what reason does the cartel have to end this now, when it can get another 5 years of defamation in, it is not as though they are going to pay for it, as they will spread the cost right down to school football.

I'm afraid of that too. Can they stretch this out as long as they want? I don't know, but that's the way they have worked so far. It's so obviously a trial by media that they want playing out.

One way of doing that would be to throw the book at us and force it to go to court, whilst at the same time painting a media picture of City being the cause.

But I know nothing except how dirty and hard the PL are playing this.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Here's an example of how this shit impinges on normal life. I'm in a walking football club in the Midlands. Supporters of West Ham, villa, Southampton, wolves, Coventry and, of course, united, liverpool, spurs and arse.

A few weeks ago a liverpool supporter posted some shit about us cheating. I ignored it until the pile-on started when I just said "please fuck off with this shit". Well, of course, the scouser was all offended and I got a load of shit for being over sensitive. Anyway, it blows over.

Last night was the Christmas curry. I'm minding my own business talking football, price of replica shirts, admission, the future of football all perfectly amicable. Then an Arsenal fan chimes in, "I'm really enjoying watching City crash and burn". Now what do you say to that ?

As it's the season of goodwill, I was very polite and pointed out that I'd seen us win four in a row, win a treble, score a record number of goals and win a record number of points, seen Aguero, Silva, De Bruyne and Rodri at their peak, I can die happy. He then came out with a comment about cheating at which point I told him to fuck right off and it very nearly came to blows. It cast a cloud over the whole evening.

I should point out that not once did that bloke ever engage me in conversation to say something about the quality of football we were playing in our pomp, nor any word of praise. They are emboldened to think their opinion matters by the relentless negative press coverage.

Similar thing happened to me the other week. I usually respond in a similar way to how you did but was feeling a bit under the weather so just said:
“I know and I’m almost certain we’re going to get away with it”.
Worked a treat..

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Get it all the time with so called friends when it comes to City.
The hatred and bile shown towards us is somewhat baffling. We arent just talking rags,scousers etc we are talking fucking Burnley fans etc.

Do not underestimate the power of the media. I choose not to let the media shills and hacks bother me but trust me the clubs name is tarnished win or lose.

Our club needs to make a stance but we wont.

 

[Kippaxpete]

That while City have put a huge amount of pressure on the panel to only accept proof, much like they did with CAS, the panel is not bound to follow the burden of proof, but a court of Law does.
So what reason does the cartel have to end this now, when it can get another 5 years of defamation in, it is not as though they are going to pay for it, as they will spread the cost right down to school football.

Burden of proof is fundamental to any civil action such as this as it simply describes the standard required by the party that brings the case (in this case the PL) to prove a disputed charge or assertion. While in criminal cases the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', civil cases are decided upon 'the balance of probability' i.e. on balance, and by reference to all relevant evidence, whether the charge is deemed to be proven. Note the onus is on the party that brings the action not the defendant. What I think you're inferring is a scenario whereby, even where the evidence presented by City's legal team is highly persuasive, the panel choose to ignore it and decide against us.