PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[skillman]

Apologies if already posted - thought Stephen (@twosips) did well here. I couldn't be in a room with a load of fans who have already decided we're guilty (because they want to believe this recent domination on the pitch has been doped by some marketing deals off it?!) and smirking their way into debates with snide digs (specifically that Paul Machin wanting to be everybody's mate while coming across as a snide prick). Carragher included. And especially that Spurs fan who, for some reason, thinks they've been held back by City over the past 15 years when they've challenged for the league once and beaten by fucking Leicester. Bottlejobs.

Fair play to Neville too (I know) who calls out FFP for what it is. A scheme to keep certain clubs at the top of the pile while the rest have to sit and watch playing happy families.

Again, as I said yesterday, it boils down to a man being told he isn't allowed to spend his money how he wants to and because of that supposedly breaking these made-up, self-protective rules to be able to compete. Let that sink in. A load of horseshit.

 

[tommy116]

People need to chill, the only thing thats changed in the last couple of days is that some unregulated body has made accussations against City that City deny. The same creeps who spouted their crap last week are still the same jumping up and down about this today, haters are going to hate. Soon the dust will settle, the press and media will jump on some other story and this will be very much in the back ground. If City were really in trouble our enemies would want us in court now, not some drawn out process that will lose its edge as the weeks and months go by. This will mount to nothing and is just out to stop us now knowing in the long term it will achieve little.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The Burden of Proof in a Court of Law is “ Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Which court would that be?

 

[The perfect fumble]

Does feel that way and in this world where we are bombarded with social media, news etc, thats just magnified hugely. The only good thing that can come out of this now is we are cleared, but even then City as fans, no one cares, we will continue to face the same attitudes, hostility and shite from other people and the media.

The process is the punishment.

 

[terraloon]

Which court would that be?

In the three jurisdictions of the UK (Northern Ireland; England & Wales; and Scotland) there are only two standards of proof in trials. (There are others which are defined in statutes, such as those relating to police powers.)

The criminal standard was formerly described as "beyond reasonable doubt". That standard remains, and the words commonly used, though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be persuaded "so that you are sure".

The civil standard is 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".

 

[The perfect fumble]

Gutted about this.

Still have 59 pages to catch up and have to leave work. Try again tomorrow!!

It'll be 259 by then ;-)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In the three jurisdictions of the UK (Northern Ireland; England & Wales; and Scotland) there are only two standards of proof in trials. (There are others which are defined in statutes, such as those relating to police powers.)

The criminal standard was formerly described as "beyond reasonable doubt". That standard remains, and the words commonly used, though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be persuaded "so that you are sure".

The civil standard is 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".

Why didn’t you say that then?

 

[Metalartin]

The Burden of Proof in a Court of Law is “ Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

I believe at PL/FA hearings its way lower than “On the balance of probability”

This is what I find confusing, if City feel the PL and/or it's chosen arbitrators, haven't governed their own rules in accordance with English law. Then how can they not challenge something the PL think they have proven but they have not(as UEFA were proven to have done by CAS) in the high court?

 

[terraloon]

I read that as we can't appeal to the PL directly, they can't decide if we can take them to the High Court or not as it's not their decision. It's up to the High Court if we can proceed.

It’s referring to any sanction / fine etc

 

[The perfect fumble]

This is what I find confusing, if City feel the PL and/or it's chosen arbitrators, haven't governed their own rules in accordance with English law. Then how can they not challenge something the PL think they have proven but they have not(as UEFA were proven to have done by CAS) in the high court?

I could tell you, but that'll be £5,000 a post ;-)