My point is they have to hear the evidence to establish the facts and rule on what’s in front of themConfused by your point.
It is the breach that is time-barred, not the giving of evidence, isn't it?. So, if the panel doesn't find one of your three exceptions in the alleged breach, there can be no punishment for any breach if it occurred more than six years ago.
That's the situation, isn't it?
Balance of probabilities means there is a 51% chance you’ve committed the alleged act.one thing that does concern me is this “balance of probability“ finding us guilty of something when there isn’t conclusive proof. A bit like i suddenly have a million pounds and a million pounds was stolen from my local bank a few weeks ago. There is nothing to link me with the robbery, I have no criminal record or criminal associates, but I won’t answer questions about how I came into possession of such a large amount of untraceable notes. Can I get banged up or have the money confiscated on balance of probability?
On what basis ?Can we not ban this chav?
We can certainly block him, he's bored me enough now.Can we not ban this chav?
This is basically my concern, i am guessing the chances the EPL can prove City committed fraud for a decade seems almost zero, in fact it is zero. However, they can throw that much shit that the panel may be swayed, so they find City guilty of serious charges because they probably are guilty. The subjective element.Balance of probabilities means there is a 51% chance you’ve committed the alleged act.
It’s a pretty low burden of proof.
I don't know what the last bit means. I suspect City doubted their own standard of proof point - it was a try on because the law looks settled on that point.The point I was trying to make is that at both the two stages of UEFAs process the respective panels ruled they had reached the standard of proof required. So ok delete the smoking gun phrase and replace it with evidence to reach the level of comfortable satisfaction.
They , UEFA, were convinced the evidence of their view just as City probably were when they tried unsuccessfully to argue the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt. CAS did say that the evidence needed to be cogent ( clear , logical and convincing)
Its a fact that this matter can’t land up on the books of CAS.
UEFA’s ‘evidence’ was based on doctored hacked emails.The point I was trying to make is that at both the two stages of UEFAs process the respective panels ruled they had reached the standard of proof required. So ok delete the smoking gun phrase and replace it with evidence to reach the level of comfortable satisfaction.
They , UEFA, were convinced the evidence of their view just as City probably were when they tried unsuccessfully to argue the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt. CAS did say that the evidence needed to be cogent ( clear , logical and convincing)
Its a fact that this matter can’t land up on the books of CAS.
Aren't we?City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth,
Good to have clarification, so thank you.…even if the ‘should’ doesn’t exactly ease my ever engaged sense of angst!All the PL rules are under English law so the same principles *should* apply here as they would in a court on matters of this type. Either way there is bound to be a subjective element as there would be in court. All litigation has a high level of risk.
Ultimately, the appeal process is limited as discussed previously.
He should’ve been fucked off ages ago.There comes a time when someone who is starting to dominate a thread and obviously wind people up needs some action.
City fans need this thread so that we can try to understand what is actually happening and rely heavily on many well informed posters to update in layman’s terms and not see someone winding people up.
If you look at many sports journalists that report on football there are many you could do a search for each one and rarely find any positive article on city. I’m talking about some fairly well known names such as rob harris, miguel Delaney, Hugh mcilvaney, Alyson Rudd, Barney ronay, david conn, Jamie Jackson in particular rarely write anything positive about the club / team. Try it , look at each one and see the articles, the balance or lack of. Of course there are some slightly more balanced journos and even some that regularly write positive and well balance articles on city such as Martin samuel and errrr jack gaughan and that’s about it. Even our chief city reporter who was largely ok regards city for the last 20 years was a bloody rag!I understand why and how a City fan could and would feel like that.
If you look at most teams forum you will see that they think the media “ has it in for them”Look no further that Untold Arsenal referenced by MC18 a few days ago.
I am not naive enough to believe that clubs don’t get in the ears of the PLs CEO but the story about the charges is for me a little too far fetched in terms of how it happened and what was said during that meeting and the subsequent actions.
These charges revolve around some very complicated matters their Is a view that in the UEFA case the set themselves deadlines that ultimately worked against UEFAs ability to complete their own investigations.
I will miss your comments and observations as they have been superb. I assume you work as a professional journalist and earn appropriate financial recompenseOk that’s me done on this thread till ( and yes it will be a while) the PL rule on the matter.
Yipee no doubt say the majority and yep I understand that but very of you can even contemplate that there are counter views and counter arguments to the narrative that you understandably want to believe.
So in the words of the two Ronnies it’s goodnight from him
Seriously why don’t you leave us now. You are seriously just spanning a forum for City fans.On what basis ?
I think they will but there are never guarantees even in the High Court. Judges don’t always see things the same way and find ways round seemingly clear points.Good to have clarification, so thank you.…even if the ‘should’ doesn’t exactly ease my ever engaged sense of angst!
Can only applaud this postI'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes
I suggest You review the CAS judgment for an understanding of how unreliable the DS leaked emails are…If and of a course a big if the leaked documents are genuine it would seem
1) The heads of agreements for both contracts were signed on the same day19/12/2009 ( contracts were indeed signed on different dates )
2) There was considerable involvement in both contracts from very senior employees at City.
3) The invoices from Mancinis company were sent to Man City direct and payment of those invoices we’re actually routed via a Man City Bank account