My view is if, it is against City the panel will want to be 100% sure in their judgement, considering the implications for football and more so as to the status of whom they are accusing. Vice President of the UAE and also besmirching third party companies and casting doubt on the reputation of the auditorsBurden of proof is fundamental to any civil action such as this as it simply describes the standard required by the party that brings the case (in this case the PL) to prove a disputed charge or assertion. While in criminal cases the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', civil cases are decided upon 'the balance of probability' i.e. on balance, and by reference to all relevant evidence, whether the charge is deemed to be proven. Note the onus is on the party that brings the action not the defendant. What I think you're inferring is a scenario whereby, even where the evidence presented by City's legal team is highly persuasive, the panel choose to ignore it and decide against us.
What ?!q
Dunning and kruger appear to be missing their research specimen
I think if the parties had agreed to block the diary of the principal author there would also be a more specific timing.
We do actually know the approximate rates from City v PL
- The Club made two submissions in this regard:
...
ii) the fees that were paid to the arbitrators in this case were "far from derisory": in a case in which the standard rates were applied the chair received £1,500 per day and the wing members £750 per day and in this case the parties agreed that the members each received £450 per hour.
That the panel have to find us guilty it’s not just enough for us to not prove us innocentI don't know what your point is though
What ?
Shame they are all such boring bastards! :-)For a case like this (some civil fraud elements/accounting complexity), I agree. 5x minimum - could easily be 7x and, of course, we are told Pannick is much higher again.
I think you are tying yourself up here. The panel need to find the case proven on a balance of probabilities and the burden is all the PLs to prove its case. There is no element of anyone proving innocence.That the panel have to find us guilty it’s not just enough for us to not prove us innocent
Here's an example of how this shit impinges on normal life. I'm in a walking football club in the Midlands. Supporters of West Ham, villa, Southampton, wolves, Coventry and, of course, united, liverpool, spurs and arse.
A few weeks ago a liverpool supporter posted some shit about us cheating. I ignored it until the pile-on started when I just said "please fuck off with this shit". Well, of course, the scouser was all offended and I got a load of shit for being over sensitive. Anyway, it blows over.
Last night was the Christmas curry. I'm minding my own business talking football, price of replica shirts, admission, the future of football all perfectly amicable. Then an Arsenal fan chimes in, "I'm really enjoying watching City crash and burn". Now what do you say to that ?
As it's the season of goodwill, I was very polite and pointed out that I'd seen us win four in a row, win a treble, score a record number of goals and win a record number of points, seen Aguero, Silva, De Bruyne and Rodri at their peak, I can die happy. He then came out with a comment about cheating at which point I told him to fuck right off and it very nearly came to blows. It cast a cloud over the whole evening.
I should point out that not once did that bloke ever engage me in conversation to say something about the quality of football we were playing in our pomp, nor any word of praise. They are emboldened to think their opinion matters by the relentless negative press coverage.
That exactly what I am saying I just didn’t want to use the phrase balance of probabilities or any other probabilities as I wasn’t sure that was the right one my point was in response to someone who seem to think we had to prove our innocence or even go to court maybe thinking the panel would be our to get us tho they never said this bitI think you are tying yourself up here. The panel need to find the case proven on a balance of probabilities and the burden is all the PLs to prove its case. There is no element of anyone proving innocence.