At present there's a chance it go through and a chance it couldn't. Surely there's nothing wrong with saying that? Given I was responding to Roland's comment on which he said he couldn't understand why anyone thinks it will still happen. Is there another way you'd have preferred me to have explained it to him Mr Peterson?
Let's take raining as an example. It either rains or it doesn't rain. Does that mean it's 50% chance of raining tomorrow?
Fair enough. Mine are saying I hope it goes through, but to have caution based on the QCs own words suggesting you can lose arbitration even if you have a strong case.
You are though. Your saying because there are two possible outcomes then it's 50/50 and that is rubbish.
It's not going to rain today. No I said it was a coin flip or more accurately that there's a chance either way. BTW it wasn't me that said it I read what a QC said on the matter. You never answered my question btw
We all know the possible outcomes so no need to further comment on it. In terms of chances you either a) look at the facts and make a choice yay or nay or b) look at the last ten arbitrations involving a football club and an authority body and that will give you the probability. So for example if the football club won 7 times then that is 70% chance. You can only look at experimental probability and not theoretical
Just to be clear I don't think it was necessary for me to answer Roland with all that ****. He said he couldn't understand why anyone thinks it will happen, so in the simplest way I pointed out the fact there's a chance. I understand you're maths teacher but it really is overkill to go any further than what I wrote.
Personally you repeatedly stating all possibilities is overkill. Then claiming it's 50/50 is plain wrong
