PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

They don't need a terribly high standard of evidence. They need enough circumstantial evidence (not proof) to tip the balance of probability. It's akin to 'given the evidence, would the average person believe City or the PL?'. Evidence in this case is the presentation of material that could be interpreted in ways that suggest City's guilt (or not). No smoking gun is necessary.
All of that said, it's not 51 vs 49. The evidence should be reasonably convincing.
I don't think the PL need or expect to win every argument, just enough to demonstrate City broke enough rules (deliberately) to be made an example of and appease a number of other PL members whilst being seen to be keeping their house in order.
If you will remember, the announcement of the 125 charges came in the face of the government turning its gaze on the effectiveness of the PL and the PL needed to demonstrate it could regulate itself... swiftly followed by similar action towards a few other clubs too.

The case is riddled with sporting and political agenda.
Stop posting you silly fool.
 
They don't need a terribly high standard of evidence. They need enough circumstantial evidence (not proof) to tip the balance of probability. It's akin to 'given the evidence, would the average person believe City or the PL?'. Evidence in this case is the presentation of material that could be interpreted in ways that suggest City's guilt (or not). No smoking gun is necessary.
All of that said, it's not 51 vs 49. The evidence should be reasonably convincing.
I don't think the PL need or expect to win every argument, just enough to demonstrate City broke enough rules (deliberately) to be made an example of and appease a number of other PL members whilst being seen to be keeping their house in order.
If you will remember, the announcement of the 125 charges came in the face of the government turning its gaze on the effectiveness of the PL and the PL needed to demonstrate it could regulate itself... swiftly followed by similar action towards a few other clubs too.

The case is riddled with sporting and political agenda.
Why do people post in a topic on which they clearly don't know or understand what they are talking about .
 
Last edited:
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
is it safe.gif
 
Serious question, do you have any expertise or experience on this topic because almost every sentence in the first paragraph is wrong. If you don’t have any domain expertise why reply and mislead the reader?

I disagree with most of the rest but that’s more opinion.
Probably due to the fact Leicester had to appeal the decision against them, so many worry it’s a stitch up and the PL are just going through the motions, much like when a company has already decided someone is being fired before due process as set out by ACAS for example.
 

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.