PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Here’s a snippet from the text back.

View attachment 141231
S and M Carpets is wrong and not a key authority in 2024. Also burden is not the same as standard. Burden is who needs to prove the case. Standard is whether it is BoP or higher. In short, use the second para and ignore the Be aware box - it is oversimplifying the way the standard works on fraud. If really interested, although a different standard again (comfortable satisfaction) the City CAS case has some good discussion on the point - City did argue that comfortable satisfaction meant criminal standard. This was dismissed.
1735034426437.png
1735034500895.png
 
I would - and have - used my private email on company business etc - it might be “bad practice” but it’s not uncommon. It’s usually for convenience and under particular circumstances - and does not indicate or imply wrongdoing.
The bigger better the company and the more financial and personal details needed the more it will be considered bad practice. Especially for higher ups. I am sure city are above all this
 
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
Screenshot 2024-12-24 at 10.08.42.png
 
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
Thanks for the input mate
 
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
Have we got a new noodle partner?
 

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.