PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

paulchapo said:
I didn't make the bloody thing, typical City fans always ready to criticise, it's short for because I'd guess, try fitting everything onto a banner. Do one your fucking self.
Click to expand...
Its been a stressful week, hasn't it? Everyone on edge. We need a football match to watch, then we can all pull the team and the manager to bits instead of ourselves :)
 
The aim of any sport is you can rise to the top.The red cartel do not want this just imagine what Brian Clough did with Derby and Forest came along today they would be horrified they have managed to stop this.You dont get Burnley for example saying we used to be succsesful we cant have new upstarts coming along.Fuck knows what the cartel will do when if Wednesday,Leeds,Sunderland and West Ham are taken over by the right people.I say bring it on the more clubs that can win believe it or not is good for any sport.The red cartel do not want this they want a closed shop.Im a City fan first and football 2nd but would love a return to the 60s and 70s when more than a couple of teams would be in contention rather than a German,France and Italian league where the same team wins every year.
 
These smells too much like a coup wanting to topple City from it's lofty position. City have been the undisputed top club in England for the past decade and small clubs like Spuds are ganging up with former gang leaders Rags and Dippers to take us down. Whatever happens will eventually have to make a choice whether to stay in the PL sewer or go all in with the European pond scum. I go with the latter.
 
melrose40yarder said:
The aim of any sport is you can rise to the top.The red cartel do not want this just imagine what Brian Clough did with Derby and Forest came along today they would be horrified they have managed to stop this.You dont get Burnley for example saying we used to be succsesful we cant have new upstarts coming along.Fuck knows what the cartel will do when if Wednesday,Leeds,Sunderland and West Ham are taken over by the right people.I say bring it on the more clubs that can win believe it or not is good for any sport.The red cartel do not want this they want a closed shop.Im a City fan first and football 2nd but would love a return to the 60s and 70s when more than a couple of teams would be in contention rather than a German,France and Italian league where the same team wins every year.
Click to expand...
Burnley not a great example, they were one of the hateful nine, inbred cunts
 
Blueboy73 said:
No need to apologise mate, it can get quite complex and confusing.
I'm basing what I know on experience as a former union rep and corporate trainer which included training managers on company disciplinary procedures and processes.

They have to notify you what they are charging you with and they would need to be specific so that you can prepare a defence (preparation).
For example, they couldn't accuse you of robbery and then spring a charge of assault at the hearing with evidence relating to this.
With regard to evidence, they can produce this at the hearing (presentation stage) just as we could do likewise providing it is relevant to the charge they have alleged during the notification stage.
This works both ways as I suspect they don't know what our "irrefutable evidence" is and we have every right not to divulge this to our accusers until the hearing just as they have every right not to divulge anything they have or think they have.
It would be up to the judge or judges (in this case arbitration panel) to look at the evidence presented from both sides and draw a conclusion. In this case, the panel would be akin to a jury in a standard court case.
If the case is on the basis of Civil Law (which I believe this is) then the judgement is based on the "balance of probability", in other words they must reach an outcome or conclusion based on what a reasonable person would think most likely happened.
In Criminal Law the judgement is "beyond reasonable doubt" and the accuser has to prove their case using a higher threshold in other words, the burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove their allegation rather than what likely happened.
The best example I can think of is to explain is OJ Simpson who was found not guilty in a criminal trial but found guilty in a civil trial after the family of the victims pursued this.
Every process has to have some kind of appeals process at the end of it if either party are unhappy with the outcome.

Hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...
Although essentially correct even in the civil arena and balance of probabilities there are differing standards. One of which is based upon burden of proof. The burden of proof is entirely on the PL to prove their case. Further because they have alleged dishonesty and essentially fraud, although not beyond a reasonable doubt standard, it is still much more than a simple balance of probabilities.
The best way to illustrate it is percentages. Balance of probabilities is basically whoever proves their case as being 51% most likely wins. Beyond a reasonable doubt is often described as 90-95% depending on who you are talking to. The higher standard expected when alleging fraud or dishonesty in the civil arena is more like 70-30.
These are of course simplistic figures and based on a representation. However I hope they illustrate how difficult the case that the PL has taken on will be for them to prove. If the panel accepts the same weight of witness and fact evidence that was presented to CAS as true then the PL CANNOT win on their main charge.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Something nagging?

If the Premier League have us bang to rights, why do they even need an independent commission to seal the deal?

Why extend us that courtesy, is it the chain of rule book procedure?

I don't understand why the Premier League would want to run the risk of their own findings being dismissed out of hand?

Especially so, when City are the ones who have been pushing for four years for our name to be cleared by an independent panel?

Something doesn't smell right, I had the same sense prior to CAS that a piecemeal arrangement had already been weighted in our favour?
Click to expand...
It just feels extremely political to me. The writing appears on the wall for the PL in the light of the likely white paper mandating an independent regulator. Either result in this case massively discredits the PL. If they lose then their entire investigation and use of resources was a colossal waste of time. If they win, they have allowed one of their major contributors to get away with financial dishonesty for a decade to the detriment of the entire faith in the competition. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but if this was all a long game invented by City to put to bed the overhanging allegations from CAS, then it could be exceptionally well played.
One of the things that bugs me the most is the fact that the entirety of the proceedings will be under seal. I just can’t decide who that helps the most.
I am Fairly sure however that the PL can only raise allegations of charges and an independent commission is required to find them as fact. Otherwise the PL is prosecution, Judge and jury which is not something that would ever have been agreed when the competition was formulated.
Just my thoughts in any event.
 
Last edited:
Shads said:
Although essentially correct even in the civil arena and balance of probabilities there are differing standards. One of which is based upon burden of proof. The burden of proof is entirely on the PL to prove their case. Further because they have alleged dishonesty and essentially fraud, although not beyond a reasonable doubt standard, it is still much more than a simple balance of probabilities.
The best way to illustrate it is percentages. Balance of probabilities is basically whoever proves their case as being 51% most likely wins. Beyond a reasonable doubt is often described as 90-95% depending on who you are talking to. The higher standard expected when alleging fraud or dishonesty in the civil arena is more like 70-30.
These are of course simplistic figures and based on a representation. However I hope they illustrate how difficult the case that the PL has taken on will be for them to prove. If the panel accepts the same weight of witness and fact evidence that was presented to CAS as true then the PL CANNOT win on their main charge.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
I know from experience that It's difficult to explain something in simplistic terms when so many cases are so complicated and although you can use past cases as an example, each one has a unique set of circumstances.
My own view is that this is a witch hunt designed to cause as much reputational damage as possible.
They've already succeeded in this regard as we've been hung, drawn and quartered already in the court of public opinion.
I'm with you in regard to them having difficulty proving their allegations but to use another analogy, they've thrown 100 pieces of shit at us in the hope that some of it will stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bez
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
✖
  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.