Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that where an action is based upon the fraud of the defendant, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has ‘discovered the fraud…or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’The PL is bound by UK law and therefore statute of limitations
To be fair, the balance of probability, is the threshold for all civil disputes in the UK, it isn’t an EPL construct. The criminal threshold is beyond all reasonable doubt, the civil threshold is the balance of probability. Given that we are effectively charged with false accounting, which is a criminal offence, it could be argued that the criminal standard should be applied, which they wouldn’t get anywhere near.It's the 'balance of probability ' statement the premier league seem to hide behind that worries me the most. It's their 'we can't prove anything but they must have done it' argument and it's never contested
I`m also a veteran but you still call me a ****. ;)
It’s not a criminal court so the criminal standard of proof (being ‘sure’, beyond reasonable doubt, on the face of it, is obsolete) should absolutely not apply as a matter of law and/or convention.To be fair, the balance of probability, is the threshold for all civil disputes in the UK, it isn’t an EPL construct. The criminal threshold is beyond all reasonable doubt, the civil threshold is the balance of probability. Given that we are effectively charged with false accounting, which is a criminal offence, it could be argued that the criminal standard should be applied, which they wouldn’t get anywhere near.
But even so it’s such a serious accusation I.e false accounting that one would think they would have to be sure, because criminal proceedings would follow? It’s not an accusation to be taken lightlyIt’s not a criminal court so the criminal standard of proof (being ‘sure’, beyond reasonable doubt, on the face of it, is obsolete) should absolutely not apply as a matter of law and/or convention.
Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that where an action is based upon the fraud of the defendant, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has ‘discovered the fraud…or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’
If City are guilty as alleged, then they have committed fraud. If not in a criminal sense, then certainly in a contractual one.
That’s what I was thinking, you can’t go around accusing people of fraud without proper evidence, and if you had it you would be duty bound to report it to the relevant authoritiesWhat is your view on whether the independent panel is competent to determine criminal activity has taken place? I am beginning to think it would be a huge risk for the panel to decide a fraud has been committed, then to have a criminal prosecution by the relevant authorities thrown out for lack of evidence.
It would be much more sensible to me for the PL, if they think criminal activity has taken place, to refer it to the relevant authorities first, and get an actual conviction, before applying a sporting sanction. Is that a sensible legal position or just an accountant's ramblings?
As you say, if they can't prove "fraud", pretty much all the breaches are time-barred except the remnants of the image rights sale and Etihad, if they are brave (or foolish) enough to open that one up again.
Not a cat in hells chance that Everton get relegated, i dont think there was ever any intention of this being a possibility.
Even with the deduction there are 3 worse teams than them, if for some reason they are struggling then i can see the appeal being brought forward and enough points being given back to keep them safe. This is just the PL puffing out their chests.
I see the hatchets are out, & freshly sharpened regarding the 115. After a lull for a few months, I expect all the regular outlets will be ramping up their “Yes, But City’s 115” argument ad nauseum.
The 10 point deduction for Everton seems incredibly harsh, & it seems to more of a bully boy tactic & setting a precedent for future actions. We all know they’ve been after City for years, this stinks of sending a message, a footballing horses head in the bed.
That’s what I was thinking, you can’t go around accusing people of fraud without proper evidence, and if you had it you would be duty bound to report it to the relevant authorities
They aren’t competent to determine criminal activity, but they don’t need to be. They simple have to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the matters alleged (which amount to fraud) have been proven.What is your view on whether the independent panel is competent to determine criminal activity has taken place? I am beginning to think it would be a huge risk for the panel to decide a fraud has been committed, then to have a criminal prosecution by the relevant authorities thrown out for lack of evidence.
I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Taking the image rights issue, this was discussed with UEFA when they became aware of it, who weren't happy with the arrangement but seem to have tacitly agreed that it wasn't actually illegal to do this in the way we did. We'd sold those rights to Fordham, which was a legitimate and recorded transaction.Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that where an action is based upon the fraud of the defendant, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has ‘discovered the fraud…or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’
If City are guilty as alleged, then they have committed fraud. If not in a criminal sense, then certainly in a contractual one.
I couldn’t of put it better all this shit the red brigade scum and media put out there it just makes us stronger CTIDGood we need galvanising to add the club World Cup before defending our treble.
That journo should have been thrown out that day.Another example of what scum headline hunters infest the football media.
Christ! Don't they normally settle for a written apology?If Liverpool lose out on chumps qualification by 1 point will they sue the pl and pigmol for the bad decision they had?
Where does it end?
That entitled shower of thundercunts will sue if you look at them the wrong way. Or spill your pint on their shell suits.If Liverpool lose out on chumps qualification by 1 point will they sue the pl and pigmol for the bad decision they had?
Where does it end?
Dalglish, Ferguson and RummennigeSorry but who are our auditors ?