From a Cardiff board via dotorg

[The Leveller]

The claim of falsified paperwork are really the most worrying & baffling, as really there's a finite number of items you can be fabricating, ie, contracts, paper trails etc.

The charges allege the falsification of documents was this season which means that whoever filled out these documents knew the authorities were aware of the situation and would analyse them with a fine toothcomb. To deliberately falsify a document under these conditions would be outrageously arrogant & deceitful.

Surely the onus is on the FA to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberately deceitful act rather than an oversight.

I think that is what their investigation team who went in between September and perhaps more towards January found. The documents and or statements do not match up, otherwise there would no basis for a charge.

[EYR]

Is the false doc's charge the one which will likely carry a points deduction?

[Shania]

Is the false doc's charge the one which will likely carry a points deduction?

Yes, I think so!

[Jamie]

I think that is what their investigation team who went in between September and perhaps more towards January found. The documents and or statements do not match up, otherwise there would no basis for a charge.

By that basis though, if for example we had filed a document saying someone was paid £12,705 a week, but had in error transposed a figure and they were earning £17,205, there would be ground to charge with falsifying a document. The prosecutor would then have to prove behind reasonable doubt that the transposition was intentional rather than in error.

[The Leveller]

By that basis though, if for example we had filed a document saying someone was paid £12,705 a week, but had in error transposed a figure and they were earning £17,205, there would be ground to charge with falsifying a document. The prosecutor would then have to prove behind reasonable doubt that the transposition was intentional rather than in error.

That is not the case in the FA. You are applying the test for a criminal court. The FA uses the civil standard based on the balance of probability, it is a lower standard.

[Jamie]

That is not the case in the FA. You are applying the test for a criminal court. The FA uses the civil standard based on the balance of probability, it is a lower standard.

Ok and understood, but even by that standard the FA would need to prove that the likelihood is that whomever set out to intentionally deceive them rather than there being a fair chance of genuine error.

Seems a very difficult thing to do because by that standard with no need to conclusively prove anything, The FA can just flat out say that it is their belief that the likelihood is we deliberately deceived them and we would need to implant a large amount of doubt.

[The Leveller]

Ok and understood, but even by that standard the FA would need to prove that the likelihood is that whomever set out to intentionally deceive them rather than there being a fair chance of genuine error.

Seems a very difficult thing to do because by that standard with no need to conclusively prove anything, The FA can just flat out say that it is their belief that the likelihood is we deliberately deceived them and we would need to implant a large amount of doubt.

To a degree you are right from the man in the Uxbridge Road perspective, however the FA has to have reasonable gounds they cannot say it is their belief and their belief alone. Ian Mill and the legal team would hang them out to dry, but perhaps more important, their legal QC Chairman would not allow the FA/RC to pursue that line.