PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[terraloon]

Which raises the question: how do you know something is time limited if you haven't heard it? Meaning, if you haven't heard it, you can't determine if it was knowingly concealed or not?

Exactly the point I was trying to make months ago

 

[halfcenturyup]

As someone said earlier, how can you determine if there's been a knowing fraud or attempt to deceive, unless you hear the evidence first?

I liked him. He was very incisive :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I liked him. He was very incisive :)

Made a pleasant change to be honest. He's normally a bit of a pub bore.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Made a pleasant change to be honest. He's normally a bit of a pub bore.

That hurt here (points to heart) and here (points to bollocks) :(

 

[KS55]

Which raises the question: how do you know something is time limited if you haven't heard it? Meaning, if you haven't heard it, you can't determine if it was knowingly concealed or not?

Hear = litigate. You can argue about whether an item is admissible without arguing the substantive question. The substantive question would be whether the rules were broken. The admissibility question would be whether there was an intent to deceive irrespective of whether the rules were broken or not. Evidence, evidence.
A very common feature of criminal trials. The jury would be excluded. Currently in the Trump trial playing the Hollywood tape has been excluded but not quotations from it. Not sure I see any distinction.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Hear = litigate. You can argue about whether an item is admissible without arguing the substantive question. The substantive question would be whether the rules were broken.
A very common feature of criminal trials. The jury would be excluded.

Fair enough, still not clear how that would work in the IC environment, though, with the panel being judge and jury ....

Edit: At UEFA it was clear: anything happening before a certain date is time limited, so wasn't litigated. At the PL, what isn't clear is the process: anything happening before a certain date is time limited and so not litigated, unless the event has been knowingly concealed, in which case it is litigated. But to determine if the event has been concealed, it effectively has to be litigated? So every single allegation has to be fully litigated?

 

[Bald fraud]

Oh well the 115 media onslaught might cool down a bit now. Unless we beat Chelsea Saturday of course

 

[KS55]

Fair enough, still not clear how that would work in the IC environment, though, with the panel being judge and jury ....

Quite. It would be up to the chair to keep the panel straight.
PS. I have added to my post above.

 

[Sk@mcfc]

And it has done a lot of good since its introduction, hasn't it?

Not like we have:

Chelsea effectively asset stripped (sale of hotel) to meet arbitrary target;

Everton forced into a sale to 777 Partners and an increased chance of ultimate insolvency;

Clubs at the bottom threatening to sue one another for alleged rule-breaking;

A 6 year investigation into the audited accounts of a leading club and accusations of accounting fraud which appear to have limited evidential credibility; and

Continually changing rules to prevent aspirational clubs competing at the top.

Is there anything else I'm missing?

The grass was to long

 

[wolviedinho]

Let’s just start stripping the club of assets and pay off ffp erm sorry meant pay off the premier league oops sorry did it again! I meant pay off the red clubs…then lodge the profits to dodge next seasons assessment.

Think that’s the new version of P&S that will be passed soon -:)