D

[D @zibarD117]

@bluemoongramps The sponsors were the ones allegedly disguising the funding so if anyone know what really happened its them.. still cant get over the fact the investigation didn’t even ask to see Etihad’s books not enough discussion about that.

[D @zibarD117]

@Watch_LFC Not to mention the liberal use of the word “proof” that the panel used. Thats mislead a lot of people

[D @zibarD117]

@majorleegsaka @terryflewers I have read them. Separate charges doesn’t mean separate underlying allegations. The same alleged conduct is charged repeatedly across different seasons and rules. 100 charges arising from the same alleged scheme aren’t 100 independent pieces of evidence that the scheme happened.

[D @zibarD117]

@majorleegsaka @terryflewers All but one charge” is misleading when many charges are essentially repetitions of the same alleged conduct across different seasons/rules. They aren’t 114 separate pieces of evidence independently proving guilt.

[D @zibarD117]

@majorleegsaka @terryflewers You’re still confusing the evidence with the standard of proof. However strong you think the evidence is, the panel’s standard was balance of probabilities not beyond reasonable doubt. “Far above” doesn’t create a new standard.

[D @zibarD117]

@majorleegsaka @terryflewers You’re arguing whether you think it’s beyond reasonable doubt. I’m telling you the standard the panel actually had to apply. Those aren’t the same thing.

[D @zibarD117]

@majorleegsaka @terryflewers You asked why they haven’t been punished yet and compared it to a criminal trial. I explained the difference. A Premier League Commission uses a much lower standard of proof than a criminal court. That’s all I was explaining.

[D @zibarD117]

@majorleegsaka @terryflewers I saw you ask a reasonable question I knew the answer to so I answered. 114/115 is a number of charges, not a confidence percentage. You can’t turn that into “99% certain”. Confidence is how certain the panel was on each charge. we don’t know that.

[D @zibarD117]

@majorleegsaka @terryflewers Bro, you asked why and I explained the process. I’m not arguing guilt or innocence. The fact is we don’t know how far beyond the balance of probabilities threshold the panel was satisfied. It could have been marginal or overwhelming. The finding itself doesn’t tell us that.

[D @zibarD117]

@majorleegsaka @terryflewers A criminal is convicted on beyond a reasonable doubt

City guilty on balance of probabilities so it could be 51% chance they did it or it could 99% chance they did it

[D @zibarD117]

@FeedingGoater Other countries generally don’t want to invest billions in you when you publicly accuse their government and companies of lying and cheating.

[D @zibarD117]

@PrimaiLFC @Jonathan1982 @redgrose7 Honestly, I don’t know why they failed to cooperate fully. It could be obstruction, or it could reflect the complexity and scope of what was requested. And neither of us knows everything City does or doesn’t have nobody outside the process does. We must wait till after the appeal

[D @zibarD117]

@PrimaiLFC @Jonathan1982 @redgrose7 You’re conflating investment with subsidy. A shareholder investing equity or lending money to a company expects ownership value or repayment in return. A subsidy is financial support/assistance. Etihad can truthfully say “we received no subsidies” while also receiving investment

[D @zibarD117]

@PrimaiLFC @Jonathan1982 @redgrose7 That wasn’t my argument yesterday. I said Etihad’s records could establish the actual money trail and either support or undermine the Commission’s finding.

[D @zibarD117]

@PrimaiLFC @Jonathan1982 @redgrose7 Its interesting tgat Etihad said the sponsorship came from its own liquidity, while City now reportedly says Abu Dhabi government funding was involved. Those aren’t necessarily incompatible if government funds became Etihad’s liquidity, but City will need to explain that

[D @zibarD117]

@Jonathan1982 @redgrose7 That’s fair, and I think that’s the stronger argument. But Etihad providing specific records now differs from City previously presenting evidence from Etihad. Admissibility is for the appeal board. I’m not arguing City are innocent or guilty, only that this isn’t over yet

[D @zibarD117]

@Jonathan1982 @redgrose7 Close, but City doesn’t control Etihad’s confidential records. It can’t simply demand them. If Etihad now voluntarily provides new evidence, City can seek to admit it on appeal. Whether it’s admissible is then for the appeal board to decide.

[D @zibarD117]

@Jonathan1982 @redgrose7 Nobody said Etihad is a party. They can provide evidence to City without joining the proceedings. Their separate legal action and their evidence are two completely different issues.