PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Leech said:
Thanks, really interesting article.

Although does the below segment within your article not actually support my notion that the Premier League's burden of proof will practically be higher than "balance of probabilities"?-

"In English law, the general starting point in cases of this type is that people do not usually act dishonestly. It is well established that cogent evidence is required to justify a finding of discreditable conduct, reflecting that it is considered generally unlikely that people and organisations will engage in such conduct. This inherent improbability means that, even on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities), the evidence needed to prove it must be all the stronger. The Independent Commission will also need to be mindful of the seriousness of the allegations made by the Premier League against the many individuals implicated as well as the seriousness of the consequences, or potential consequences, of the proof of the allegation for those individuals because of the improbability that a person would risk such consequences.

Broadly, the Independent Commission will adhere to the way CAS considered the point – it said in its judgment: “considering the particularly severe nature of the allegations in the present proceedings, the evidence supporting such allegation must be particularly cogent.”"
Click to expand...
It’s regularly debated and articulated in various ways. But it’s still BoP.
 
I get that it is complicated. I get that there is a plethora of documentation to be reviewed. I get that the panel want to get it right and be thorough. What I don’t get, is how this can all be done without even giving the key stakeholders (Premier League and City) a view on when this will come to a conclusion.

Back in the day when I was an IT Project Manager I never dreamt of estimating project timelines and duration on a ’it will be done when it's done and it will cost you what I bill you basis.’ If only that had been an option.
 
Champions again in 2012 said:
I get that it is complicated. I get that there is a plethora of documentation to be reviewed. I get that the panel want to get it right and be thorough. What I don’t get, is how this can all be done without even giving the key stakeholders (Premier League and City) a view on when this will come to a conclusion.

Back in the day when I was an IT Project Manager I never dreamt of estimating project timelines and duration on a ’it will be done when it's done and it will cost you what I bill you basis.’ If only that had been an option.
Click to expand...
This isn't a project, its a judicial process.

When you appoint an independent commission, don't be surprised if they're independent.
 
Chris in London said:
This isn't a project, its a judicial process.

When you appoint an independent commission, don't be surprised if they're independent.
Click to expand...
My point is the real world doesn’t work like that but the legal profession does. In virtually any other profession it would be deemed unacceptable and I see no reason why the legal profession is exempt from criticism just because that's the way it has always been done. So would it be acceptable if we are all sat here in 6 or 12 months time still living in an information vacuum (hopefully extreme example)
 
mad4city said:
I put this very question to a friend of mine recently. She's a retired barrister, herself (albeit, she worked on criminal cases and and very quick to point out this sort of case wasn't her thing).
Her take on it was that the length of time taken in deliberation wasn't indicative of any particular outcome being more likely.

"They're not paid those sort of sums to be expedient, they're paid to be thorough".

Rather than considering either side being embarrassed by timings of announcememts, the learned minds involved would be far more concerned about they themselves being embarrassed by not having done their job correctly.
Her reckoning was the best we can take from the length of their deliberations is a comfort in knowing that - whether we like what they have to say or not - nothing in the final ruling will have been arrived at lightly.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. No point stating that time is somehow an indication of a damming outcome for either party.

It probably took 3 months to organise the material. The deliberations and clarity needed in legal arguments can get wordy with technical hoodwinking -:)

Irritating.

Irrefutable evidence v slam dunk. Both sound stupid and in the middle somewhere is a scenario that both parties will argue over but find an agreement.

The words written will need to leave no element of doubt as to guilt or exoneration. Can that even be done? I don’t think so, instead we will get a lengthy judgement that can be interpreted both positively and negatively.

How long can this get buried? If not out this year we may have to wait another year. Slip it out when people have genuinely forgotten and can’t be bothered to react angrily but instead shrug.

Nothing is what it seems here. Football doesn’t play by the rules. We have witnessed this time and time over the years. Chelsea most recently.
 
Champions again in 2012 said:
I get that it is complicated. I get that there is a plethora of documentation to be reviewed. I get that the panel want to get it right and be thorough. What I don’t get, is how this can all be done without even giving the key stakeholders (Premier League and City) a view on when this will come to a conclusion.

Back in the day when I was an IT Project Manager I never dreamt of estimating project timelines and duration on a ’it will be done when it's done and it will cost you what I bill you basis.’ If only that had been an option.
Click to expand...
Surely there is some sort of cost management process to protect the parties. There must at least be a broad informal timeline. This is not a criminal case.
 
halfcenturyup said:
While you are here, surely those in the legal profession must have a pretty good idea of who the panel members are? There are only twelve to choose from, probably only six when the "lightweights" are taken out, and it can't be that difficult to match hearings and other dates with other workload of the likely suspects?

I may be way off the mark, I frequently am, but surely there must be a pretty good idea of who is on the panel by now, so the possibility of an unknown panel member with a long-term illness must be pretty remote?
Click to expand...
From memory I seem to recall that the IC that dealt with Everton first charge included one member who had a financial background as opposed to law as it were.
The head of the judiciary at the PL has the right to to appoint ad hoc members and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if only two of the commission were panel members the third being a financial expert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top