Jump to content

THE EFL HEARING THREAD


Recommended Posts

Guest Bulgaria
4 hours ago, TrickyTrev said:

Because apparently football doesn’t exist below the Premier League.

Absolutely.

 

Just finished listening to a podcast ( because I can't sleep,) with that wally Robbie Savage called 606 on five live. With all the issues and talking points going on with football right now and all they have debated for the last hour is whether Man Utd will finish above Liverpool next season with a collection of pubescent callers.

 

606 used to be fantastic with Alan Green, it's now just a show designed for 15 year olds who support a top 6 club.

 

Boils my pisss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sherlyegg said:

Think it's out of the efl's hand now..the panel can't make up their minds....

They need dismiss the case against..the efl obviously can't prove beyond reasonable doubt we did anything wrong...

 

 

Genuine question if you or anyone knows as I don't - where does the burden of proof lie in such matters.

 

I know in criminal court you have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt someone is guilty. In civil courts this shifts and it's all about likelihood of guilt given the evidence.

 

What are the burden of proof rules at play here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bulgaria said:

Absolutely.

 

Just finished listening to a podcast ( because I can't sleep,) with that wally Robbie Savage called 606 on five live. With all the issues and talking points going on with football right now and all they have debated for the last hour is whether Man Utd will finish above Liverpool next season with a collection of pubescent callers.

 

606 used to be fantastic with Alan Green, it's now just a show designed for 15 year olds who support a top 6 club.

 

Boils my pisss.

 

I agree, Talk sport is same, I stopped listening to that a few years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gizowl
5 hours ago, Ever the pessimist said:

Hmmm. Not one for theories of deals between parties that don’t really give a dam either way...  but I am beginning to think there is no way it’s coming before season end. Surely too much hassle for all concerned.

I think it has got to, it's the only way to get closure otherwise the relegated clubs are going to go on and on with lawsuits etc. Proper Mcsue style. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Modfather100 said:

 

Genuine question if you or anyone knows as I don't - where does the burden of proof lie in such matters.

 

I know in criminal court you have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt someone is guilty. In civil courts this shifts and it's all about likelihood of guilt given the evidence.

 

What are the burden of proof rules at play here?

It’s the same burden of proof as in the FF case. Guilty unless proven innocent if the EFL says so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest hirstysfags

If I was to drop a tasty (albeit completely made up) rumour, reckon we can get past 500 pages before full time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl
32 minutes ago, Plonk said:

It’s the same burden of proof as in the FF case. Guilty unless proven innocent if the EFL says so

 

The difference is that there is a lot more at stake with this. This is not just SWFC you are questioning but a whole raft of professional advisors who contributed to this. The accountants, auditors, lawyers and valuers.

 

They will not lie down and have their bellies tickled by the EFL / Panel on the balance of probability. There are professional regulations to follow and threat of disciplinary action if you haven't, I would throw in professional indemnity insurance into the mix as well. 

 

The question of the validity of the date of the stadium sale transaction is key to all this. It is a matter of judgement of the evidence. If it follows the requirements of accounting standards to be in that year, it goes in that year. 

 

Its a bit like locking horns with HMRC. You argue the accounting principles. Incredibly dull but pivotal.

 

I have no idea on this because the key bit of evidence will never be seen. The contract for sale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bulgaria said:

Absolutely.

 

Just finished listening to a podcast ( because I can't sleep,) with that wally Robbie Savage called 606 on five live. With all the issues and talking points going on with football right now and all they have debated for the last hour is whether Man Utd will finish above Liverpool next season with a collection of pubescent callers.

 

606 used to be fantastic with Alan Green, it's now just a show designed for 15 year olds who support a top 6 club.

 

Boils my pisss.

Was even better with Danny Baker and Danny Kelly

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

On that basis I’d guess at a fine only.

If we get a fine then we have been found guilty of something. In which case we will get a points deduction I think. But it will not send us down. We will also get a fine on top of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl
8 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

If we get a fine then we have been found guilty of something. In which case we will get a points deduction I think. But it will not send us down. We will also get a fine on top of that. 

 

The only scenario I can see that happening is that this goes to Alternative Dispute Resolution. Neither side wants to go down the incredibly expensive and time consuming process of litigation. So you basically compromise with no full admission of guilt 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...