Instead of us. Here's the reality:
The appeal hearing is like a civil court whereby the burden of proof is on the claimant (WA), who must prove that on the balance of probabilities, our case is true. This means that the hearing must be satisfied that on the evidence, the occurrence of an 'event' was more likely than not. Ie. unlike a criminal court 'beyond reasonable doubt'
Important to note: we had 2 barristers appearing for us, each being specialist in their area of law.
As per Zakys post yesterday; Kira King is a renowned specialist in international - civil fraud - insolvency - asset tracing laws.
Also, there was an independent auditor appointed to 'research' the 'events' pre sale agreement and provide evidence to the hearing.
So that tells you which road we're going down... On par with my previous 'conclusion' that IEC docs show the sale was a sham and that Au Yeung was a stooge and whatever happened between them 'at the end' - the club are innocent victims and the management had no control. This a fact!
If this is accepted then a 'Force Majeure event' has occurred. I believe on the burden of proof (evidence) criteria, we cannot fail and will have the points deduction revoked.
For Clarity: The EFL Rules section 3 - 'Sporting Sanctions' state:
12.3.11 For the purposes of this Regulation 12.3, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.
My conclusion is also based upon all my research over 18 months which I have spent circa 70 hours and also confidential communications with QC and administrator etc prior to the hearing.
I've bet the ranch on Barnsley going down.
Last point. I've tried to be objective with my opinion. No offence but I realy don't want to enter into arguments with folks who haven't checked the available data and info or ask me to prove owt or go off at a tangent. Neither will I get involved in doting my 'i's' nor semantics or spelling mistakes or miy arwful gramar. This is a fans forum not the Oxford nob heads debating society.. Please try not to bugger up this thread... U know who u r.
The appeal hearing is like a civil court whereby the burden of proof is on the claimant (WA), who must prove that on the balance of probabilities, our case is true. This means that the hearing must be satisfied that on the evidence, the occurrence of an 'event' was more likely than not. Ie. unlike a criminal court 'beyond reasonable doubt'
Important to note: we had 2 barristers appearing for us, each being specialist in their area of law.
As per Zakys post yesterday; Kira King is a renowned specialist in international - civil fraud - insolvency - asset tracing laws.
Also, there was an independent auditor appointed to 'research' the 'events' pre sale agreement and provide evidence to the hearing.
So that tells you which road we're going down... On par with my previous 'conclusion' that IEC docs show the sale was a sham and that Au Yeung was a stooge and whatever happened between them 'at the end' - the club are innocent victims and the management had no control. This a fact!
If this is accepted then a 'Force Majeure event' has occurred. I believe on the burden of proof (evidence) criteria, we cannot fail and will have the points deduction revoked.
For Clarity: The EFL Rules section 3 - 'Sporting Sanctions' state:
12.3.11 For the purposes of this Regulation 12.3, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.
My conclusion is also based upon all my research over 18 months which I have spent circa 70 hours and also confidential communications with QC and administrator etc prior to the hearing.
I've bet the ranch on Barnsley going down.
Last point. I've tried to be objective with my opinion. No offence but I realy don't want to enter into arguments with folks who haven't checked the available data and info or ask me to prove owt or go off at a tangent. Neither will I get involved in doting my 'i's' nor semantics or spelling mistakes or miy arwful gramar. This is a fans forum not the Oxford nob heads debating society.. Please try not to bugger up this thread... U know who u r.