Northern Red Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 11 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: I wouldn't be looking forward to this season or any season in the near future if I were a sag. DC confirmed they had the 17th highest budget in L1 last season and that it'll be lower mid table again this season. He said other owners in the league top up their clubs budgets but Wael doesn't (ie he spends naff all which we've known all along). No infrastructure on the horizon, doesn't know what's happening with training ground. Looked and sounded thoroughly pissed off. Lots of talk of pulling rabbits out of hats and trying to get to the Cship. But certainly more in hope than expectation. I ALMOST felt sorry for him. Much as I think the bloke is a prize tit, he's done a good job there when you take into account what he's had to work with. He must be getting to the point, if he's not there already, where he'll think that he can't do any more with them and will look to move on. I suspect listening to LJ talk about the strides we've made with infrastructure, training methods etc will only add to that feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, downendcity said: Is that the principle the FA apply and applied in Fammy's case? If so, then different to English Law, say in a criminal prosecution. I'm no legal expert so please correct me if my thinking is wrong. It's a tribunal not a criminal prosecution hence the lower standard of evidence required. Personally I think it's a breach of natural justice and would love to see what conclusion a judicial review would reach but the courts do not like intervening in decisions of sporting bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinCider Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 56 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said: And what technology are you using exactly Daryll? Google Cardboard, last years Crufts, and a Fleshlight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 Just now, chinapig said: It's a tribunal not a criminal prosecution hence the lower standard of evidence required. As an example, John Terry was found guilty by the FA of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand and banned accordingly, however he was found not guilty when it went to a criminal court due to the lack of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Northern Red said: As an example, John Terry was found guilty by the FA of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand and banned accordingly, however he was found not guilty when it went to a criminal court due to the lack of evidence. Exactly, thanks, the evidence did not meet the higher standard required by a criminal court as far as the jury was concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 36 minutes ago, downendcity said: Wow - just wow! What ever happened to being innocent until proven guilty and the onus being on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt? Seems to me that the FA work on the principle that you are guilty unless you can prove you didn't do it. Using the FAs basis for charging Fammy, why didn't we produce the signed statements of 10 City players saying they never saw Fammy spit at Davis? Balance of probabilities outside the criminal courts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Balance of probabilities outside the criminal courts Chinapig said the same Bob, but also said that it flies in the face of natural justice - that's what I think makes it so annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, downendcity said: Chinapig said the same Bob, but also said that it flies in the face of natural justice - that's what I think makes it so annoying. I’m not waving a flag for it Im merely pointing out it is the standard of every Non Criminal Court (And employment 5ribunals etc etc) in the country and is in fact regarded as more natural justice Criminal cases are of a higher standard of proof because of the consequences on conviction Be careful if you want beyond reasonable doubt in every matter outside the criminal courts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said: Fewers have had their say on the show... http://gaschat.co.uk/thread/12555/bbc-fans-forum-tonight-7pm?page=1 Not a happy bunch are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedYoshi Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 Re: VR stuff, saw this a while ago... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-44606634/lucy-staniforth-on-using-vr-to-improve-football-skills Assuming it’s similar, if not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 3 hours ago, Fiale said: DC seems a little miffed at his situation, got to feel a little sorry for him..... very little, but a little. Same here. Much as I dislike the guy, can't knock the job he's done up the road without huge investment. Will like him a lot more if he walks and does a good job somewhere else while they crumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 8 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Be careful if you want beyond reasonable doubt in every matter outside the criminal courts With the amount of cameras at games you would have thought they could be aiming towards that, but we know how it can work both ways. With FD no one seems to have found anything and he's been banned on a players word. BW was banned on 'video evidence' even though 99% of people on here saw the incident completely differently . We don't seem to do well from these reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, 1960maaan said: With the amount of cameras at games you would have thought they could be aiming towards that, but we know how it can work both ways. With FD no one seems to have found anything and he's been banned on a players word. BW was banned on 'video evidence' even though 99% of people on here saw the incident completely differently . We don't seem to do well from these reviews. Lee said yesterday, I think in the Sounds of the City programme, that 98.6% of the charges the FA brings are successful and that statistic alone shows you that it's not a fair system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 8 hours ago, Drew Peacock said: Not a happy bunch are they? Reality sinking in for all but the most deluded Their are a few that are claiming that DC , looking and sounding disillusioned and fed up , was playing mind games , and ‘smokes and mirrors’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 11 hours ago, jimmyb said: I can’t believe though that they can ban on this basis with no independent corroboration of the allegation. Otherwise surely it’s open season isn’t it, and anyone can get together with a teammate and accuse anyone of anything knowing they’ll get a ban. Crazy, but I suppose that’s the FA for you! Exactly what I just said. If someone was explaining this to me I would argue that they couldn’t possibly be right as it’s that unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchred Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 11 hours ago, Silvio Dante said: Clarke talking about who his best prospect was - LJ “How much do you want for him” And Luke's dad is a mad keen city fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Not a bad listen but the rugby bits were pretty boring, why not a separate football / rugby one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sglosbcfc Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Reality sinking in for all but the most deluded Their are a few that are claiming that DC , looking and sounding disillusioned and fed up , was playing mind games , and ‘smokes and mirrors’ That is beyond belief, for some of them if Wael told hem face to face that they were asset stripping their club and hoping to send it back to non league football, they would see Wael as a master of trickery with some mysterious long term plan for the Gas' good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Turnip Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 11 hours ago, downendcity said: Is that the principle the FA apply and applied in Fammy's case? If so, then different to English Law, say in a criminal prosecution. I'm no legal expert so please correct me if my thinking is wrong. Criminal/statute law judged on beyond reasonable doubt. Common/civil law judged on the balance of probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, Paul Turnip said: Criminal/statute law judged on beyond reasonable doubt. Common/civil law judged on the balance of probability. So he probably did it because 2 people (an opposition player and his colleague in a contested sporting event) said he did. 20,000 plus other people, technology ( video cameras, still cameras, microphones and mobile phones) and professional officials looking for incidents during the match did not. Therefore he is guilty! I’m not questioning you, obviously, but people can’t argue when it’s said the law is an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hantsred Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 11 hours ago, jimmyb said: I can’t believe though that they can ban on this basis with no independent corroboration of the allegation. Otherwise surely it’s open season isn’t it, and anyone can get together with a teammate and accuse anyone of anything knowing they’ll get a ban. Crazy, but I suppose that’s the FA for you! Perhaps Diedhiou could sue the FA for "Defamara"tion of character! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 50 minutes ago, Paul Turnip said: Criminal/statute law judged on beyond reasonable doubt. Common/civil law judged on the balance of probability. Thanks for the clarification Paul. So, this balance of probability thing. Of course, Fammy might have done what is alleged. However, all the match officials, 20 other players on the pitch, all the TV footage and 20,000 fans in the stadium and all the mobile phone footage that many of them would surely have taken, all failed to see anything, but 2 Birmingham players ( opposition players in this instance) say it happened, and that is sufficient for a guilty verdict! Remind me not to get into a civil action. Scales of Justice - my arse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, downendcity said: Thanks for the clarification Paul. So, this balance of probability thing. Of course, Fammy might have done what is alleged. However, all the match officials, 20 other players on the pitch, all the TV footage and 20,000 fans in the stadium and all the mobile phone footage that many of them would surely have taken, all failed to see anything, but 2 Birmingham players ( opposition players in this instance) say it happened, and that is sufficient for a guilty verdict! Remind me not to get into a civil action. Scales of Justice - my arse! it wouldn't get far in a civil court as its our word against theirs, with no evidence to back them up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrightCiderLife Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Paul Turnip said: Criminal/statute law judged on beyond reasonable doubt. Common/civil law judged on the balance of probability. Criminal law is on certainty and civil law is balance of probabilities. Statute law and the common law cover both criminal and civil law. Criminal law has a higher standard of proof as it is the state alleging one of its own citizens is breached society’s rules and will be tried in a court funded by the state - so the higher threshold protects the accused. 57 minutes ago, RedM said: So he probably did it because 2 people (an opposition player and his colleague in a contested sporting event) said he did. 20,000 plus other people, technology ( video cameras, still cameras, microphones and mobile phones) and professional officials looking for incidents during the match did not. Therefore he is guilty! I’m not questioning you, obviously, but people can’t argue when it’s said the law is an ass. I think this and the references to natural justice above miss the point slightly. Our justice system predates CCTV and DNA by centuries and the vast majority of evidence is witness testimony. It is always one person’s word against another’s. Lots of offences take place which aren’t caught on camera. The FA will have considered the two versions of events and determined which was more credible. For all we know, Fam could be saying that there was never an incedent at all, doesn’t know what the two players are on about but knows he would never spit. Or he could be saying that yes he did spit, but not at the player, he was clearing his throat and the wind caught it and it hit one of their players. Or any other story. If the other two witnesses’ accounts corroborated each other and both stood up to scrutiny then it is entirely possible for a panel to conclude that it probably did happen as that account is more believable than Fam’s. The fact is the FA wants to be tough on spitting and rightly so - they’ll discourage people from getting into situations where fans watching may think the player spat at someone even if they didn’t. It’s come this far and the ban has been upheld, there’s a reason for it. Yes it’s a shame for us that Fam is out for so long at the start of the season, it’s annoying and frustrating, but we can’t blame the FA or the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, Monkeh said: it wouldn't get far in a civil court as its our word against theirs, with no evidence to back them up This is what I don't get Monkeh. A few posters have commented that the FA hearing is not operating under English Law i.e. where the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, but similar to a civil court where they work on the balance of probability. If, as you say, it wouldn't get very far in a civil court, due to the lack or absence of evidence, then if the FA is also working o the balance of probability how can they, with the same absence of evidence come up with a guilty verdict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 13 hours ago, Drew Peacock said: Not a happy bunch are they? Things not sounding too good north of the river are they? They need money big time, or wealthy members on a board willing to put their hands in their pockets and pull out their wallets... OR... Maybe they could raise funds for desperately needed training facilities by taking a leaf out of our book?... similar to our 'buy a brick' campaign (for brick read tile ) . The fans chip in to buy a small 'personal stake' in the club. I'm sure the whores of Gasheads (oops sorry 'hordes') could raise £Millions if their club launch a 'Buy A Tent-Peg' scheme. They'd have a training 'camp' in in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.