normannomates wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 7:04 am
Bods are paying FAR too much attention to the in and outs of the bookings he received.
It's IRRELEVANT...
It's all about PROVING HIS LINKS TO SPOT FIXING.
If they do...he's toast
At this moment it doesn't look good for him but innocent until proven guilty. And you're right, the bookings are circumstantial unless the FA can prove his links in an unregulated system. Good luck with that.
What can't happen is a guilty verdict unless the evidence is irrefutable and Paq's legal team will make damn sure that will have to be the case.
After that there'll be an appeal. Could take ages.
Then we'll march to Westminster. I've been on the blower to Sean Bean for advice. Apart from the O2 ads he's doing fuck-all else these days.
normannomates wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 7:04 am
Bods are paying FAR too much attention to the in and outs of the bookings he received.
It's IRRELEVANT...
It's all about PROVING HIS LINKS TO SPOT FIXING.
Yes, it's about proving the links but the actual bookings themselves are the basis of the case against him. At the moment all the wittering on social media about it not looking good or bad for him is just hot air. Until the evidence is heard and the boys in wigs have chewed it over and spat it out no one really has any idea what the "evidence" is. Proof is what's needed and the problem with an FA hearing is that the balance of probability required to "prove" a case is less than it is in a proper court. At the moment the only winners are the aforementioned blokes in wigs.
But you're spot on in that once it's all done and dusted, appeals and all, if he is found guilty he won't ever play again .
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
normannomates wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 7:04 am
Bods are paying FAR too much attention to the in and outs of the bookings he received.
It's IRRELEVANT...
It's all about PROVING HIS LINKS TO SPOT FIXING.
Yes, it's about proving the links but the actual bookings themselves are the basis of the case against him. At the moment all the wittering on social media about it not looking good or bad for him is just hot air. Until the evidence is heard and the boys in wigs have chewed it over and spat it out no one really has any idea what the "evidence" is. Proof is what's needed and the problem with an FA hearing is that the balance of probability required to "prove" a case is less than it is in a proper court. At the moment the only winners are the aforementioned blokes in wigs.
But you're spot on in that once it's all done and dusted, appeals and all, if he is found guilty he won't ever play again .
was listening to Gary last night, he talked about the Paqueta business. He said about the same that basing the accustions on video footage is weak, and some of the footage shown were of games played after the accusation was made.
The charges were brought because Paquetas lawyers insisted that they either charged him or drop the case as they are dragging it on. Sounds like they are confident. So it only left the FA one face saving option.
Personally i dont understand why these things are done so openly. Surely there are better ways to go about it
