the leveller

[2touch]

Early verdict. Good, bad or neither? Opinion only if you are reading...

[Mooo block]

Good no question

[rblockjonny]

Good. Stop all these stories coming up.

[2touch]

Good no question

Mooo block, do you have any legal background or is that a stab in the dark?

[BUSHRANGER1982]

As you can't trust the FA as far as we could throw them, there's just no tellin' whether a verdict reached on Thursday is good or not.

[stainrod10]

What early verdict?

[Mooo block]

Mooo block, do you have any legal background or is that a stab in the dark?

Well I've been to court a few times so I guess you could say so, yes

[2touch]

Well I've been to court a few times so I guess you could say so, yes

Haha what's your name? Gianni?

[swanleyhoop]

If the outcome were bad, I think we would be dragging everything out as long as possible and insisting that all the documents were reviewed again, which would be our right.

I just want it to be over -- as I'm sure everyone does.
Want my class's promotion party to be one where I can celebrate rather than grit my teeth and smile through the tears.

[stainrod10]

Who says we won't be dragging it out?

[The Leveller]

Early verdict. Good, bad or neither? Opinion only if you are reading...

Early verdict. Good, bad or neither? Opinion only if you are reading...

I said I would only comment on facts but as others have asked and who is that said opinions are like ****holes, great strap line, I have not seen it for a while. Its so good I use it at work.

Early verdict no, perhaps a leak but not from the legal team as being suggested. Lawyers are as tight as a ducks #### and are not going to risk their reputation and their considerable fees. Leaks are not helpfully and if there are any its from within the club and can I commend the words of Thomas Caryle "Silence is Golden" which I am sure Ian Mills has mentioned and if that is too subtle then in industrial lanuage "shut the **** up" you are not serving the best interests of the club. Getting chummy with journo's is not clever, they are cynical as a breed and serve their own vested interest as they see it.

Not good I would say if they are still at it, then the documenation produced by both sides and the cross examination would lead one to believe that there is a lot being thrown at the club. So much for those that thought that this was open and shut case.

As I have previously that in law when it comes to civil matters, the standard of proof is generally "on the balance of probabilities" or "a preponderance of the evidence", meaning that if it is more likely than not that the fact alleged is true, then the standard has been met. Ian Mills and the team will be attempting to flip this over back to the FA and change the balance.

The legal team would take apart the so called evidence forensically and follow the flow where it went, who it went to and look for flaws and inconsistencies.

Such as the rules document which was produced in May, were the clubs advised in advance that this was about to be launched. How did the FA communicate it, was it direct to the clubs or via the FL. At the time of the Faurlin paperwork what if anything did the FA say to the club given the impending introduction of the new rule, if not why. Was there advice given on whether this is for all future cleared contracts or would this be retrospective. If not why not. I am not saying this is what is being pursued, it is the kind of thought process that takes place. Only the legal team actually know as they have the documentation.

What is of concern is that the club's representative has stated we have not done anything intentional, that is as much as an admission of guilt, that they now accept that there might be a breach of the rules, just that they did not mean to do so. It is this balance of probability that Ian Mill and the team will attempt to change and if they cant fear the worse and what may also follow on an individual basis. If they prove those individual ones, then subject to no appeals on those charges there will be some more to follow.

The other external issue and I can see tonight he has been called a half twit is Mr.Palios. He is not, he is very sharp. His running commentary is not helpful and I ask you to look beyond his words and ask why is his head popping up. This is not a direct attack on the club I believe. I would suggest there is another agenda being played. Unfinished business with the FA or with individuals at the time he left at the clubs expense.

Either way come Saturday its a case of " We are the Rangers Boys stand up and make some noise".

[Park Street Ranger]

I referred to him as a half-wit earlier and I stand by that. Sure, the guy probably has an ulterior agenda (I questioned this even earlier) but his broadcasts of what might happen to us are based on comparisons of non-equivalent cases/circumstances. In the current mood I'm in, he qualifies as a half-wit because he is either directlly or indirectly damaging our cause using misleading/irrelavant information.

[2touch]

I said I would only comment on facts but as others have asked and who is that said opinions are like ****holes, great strap line, I have not seen it for a while. Its so good I use it at work.

Early verdict no, perhaps a leak but not from the legal team as being suggested. Lawyers are as tight as a ducks #### and are not going to risk their reputation and their considerable fees. Leaks are not helpfully and if there are any its from within the club and can I commend the words of Thomas Caryle "Silence is Golden" which I am sure Ian Mills has mentioned and if that is too subtle then in industrial lanuage "shut the **** up" you are not serving the best interests of the club. Getting chummy with journo's is not clever, they are cynical as a breed and serve their own vested interest as they see it.

Not good I would say if they are still at it, then the documenation produced by both sides and the cross examination would lead one to believe that there is a lot being thrown at the club. So much for those that thought that this was open and shut case.

As I have previously that in law when it comes to civil matters, the standard of proof is generally "on the balance of probabilities" or "a preponderance of the evidence", meaning that if it is more likely than not that the fact alleged is true, then the standard has been met. Ian Mills and the team will be attempting to flip this over back to the FA and change the balance.

The legal team would take apart the so called evidence forensically and follow the flow where it went, who it went to and look for flaws and inconsistencies.

Such as the rules document which was produced in May, were the clubs advised in advance that this was about to be launched. How did the FA communicate it, was it direct to the clubs or via the FL. At the time of the Faurlin paperwork what if anything did the FA say to the club given the impending introduction of the new rule, if not why. Was there advice given on whether this is for all future cleared contracts or would this be retrospective. If not why not. I am not saying this is what is being pursued, it is the kind of thought process that takes place. Only the legal team actually know as they have the documentation.

What is of concern is that the club's representative has stated we have not done anything intentional, that is as much as an admission of guilt, that they now accept that there might be a breach of the rules, just that they did not mean to do so. It is this balance of probability that Ian Mill and the team will attempt to change and if they cant fear the worse and what may also follow on an individual basis. If they prove those individual ones, then subject to no appeals on those charges there will be some more to follow.

The other external issue and I can see tonight he has been called a half twit is Mr.Palios. He is not, he is very sharp. His running commentary is not helpful and I ask you to look beyond his words and ask why is his head popping up. This is not a direct attack on the club I believe. I would suggest there is another agenda being played. Unfinished business with the FA or with individuals at the time he left at the clubs expense.

Either way come Saturday its a case of " We are the Rangers Boys stand up and make some noise".

Thanks for your insight. Let's hope this is all over today!

[Nodge70]

Palios.

Is undoubtedly not the sharpest CEO the FA appointed and made many enemies in his very short tenure.