PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I'm no cynic but... said:
Maybe the charges announced in such a number and coming from the entire EPL was really a sham to get each club's administrators to go back years through their own books to see if some discrepancy could be found which links each one of them to some dealing with City.
Anything found might be harmless and innocent but in knowing that every other club is looking at their finances might lead to closer inspection in the hope that some discrepancy can be found.
One club doing it my lead to something trivial but if all clubs did it then they could try to make out that we were transgressing on an industrial scale.
Click to expand...
I've seen some paranoid nonsense on here but that's right up there :{
 
Dribble said:
Try not to overthink it mate. FFP is as blatantly bent as that. It was created merely to stop City, & any future City's from challenging the European elite.

What illustrates this even more is if I wanted to refurbish my business premises, & send all the staff out for training & take on a plethora of Apprentices, it's perfectly fine to use my rich Gran's money.

However, if I wanted to entice top industry professionals to work for my business, but use my rich Gran's money to do it, that's considered against the industry rules. Why? Because the industry's ruling body doesn't think it fair I should be able to challenge the elite, because I've got a minted Gran. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

In the real world, if I had a rich Gran willing to bankroll me, that just my good fortune, but in European football they want to bring back capital punishment for breaking their private members club rules. \0/
Click to expand...
I hope this rich gran of yours is staying away from Birmingham, I hear Shrek is downing his sorrows a lot post defeat.
 
The Reckless Pen said:
City’s legal team are headed by Lord David Pannick KC of Blackstone Chambers who will work with Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris KC and will be up against Kevin Plumb, the Premier League’s general counsel, and his Blackstone Chambers colleague Adam Lewis KC.

While he is unlikely to be working full-time on City’s case, given the complexity and lengthy timescale, Lord Pannick KC will command huge remuneration when the case is near court. While working on Privatbank litigation court documents showed that he charged £3,000 per hour, along with an £800,000 brief fee.

The hearing is scheduled for Autumn 2024 and the final decision for Summer 2025. City's likely legal cost could be in the region of £50m or more if it's delayed until Autumn 2025, longer if appealed. If City are exonerated, does the PL pay City's legal fees ? Who pays the fees of Murray Rosen KC and the Adjudication Panel ?

If the PL survives the Regulator, can it afford to pay all these legal costs ? A huge gamble.
Click to expand...
£800,000 brief fee! That did make me laugh! £800k!

Sounds about right btw!
 
Dribble said:
Try not to overthink it mate. FFP is as blatantly bent as that. It was created merely to stop City, & any future City's from challenging the European elite.

What illustrates this even more is if I wanted to refurbish my business premises, & send all the staff out for training & take on a plethora of Apprentices, it's perfectly fine to use my rich Gran's money.

However, if I wanted to entice top industry professionals to work for my business, but use my rich Gran's money to do it, that's considered against the industry rules. Why? Because the industry's ruling body doesn't think it fair I should be able to challenge the elite, because I've got a minted Gran. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

In the real world, if I had a rich Gran willing to bankroll me, that just my good fortune, but in European football they want to bring back capital punishment for breaking their private members club rules. \0/
Click to expand...
Gilf ?
 
Dribble said:
[The issue of limitation is] not quite so straightforward. Looking at UK Law, extending the statute of limitations is based on the severity of the case, & judges have discretion over the merits.

. . .
Click to expand...

I wouldn't normally resurrect a post this far back in a thread, but this is a crucial issue in terms of how the allegations against City will be disposed of. It's important to ensure that the thread correctly states the lagal position because most users of this forum won't have first-hand knowledge of the relevant matters and rely on what others with ostensibly greater knowledge have posted. In view of this, I'd be grateful if you could cite a source for your unyielding statement above.

My own view of the situation has always been somewhat different. I believe that the PL's allegations are subject to a six-year limitation period from the cause of action (section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980). However, where a claim is based on matters allegedly entailing fraud or concealment on the part of a defendant, the six-year period runs not from the cause of action but from when the claimant discovers the fraud or concealment.

This is because the PL Rules are expressly stated to be subject to English law and they operate as a contract between each individual member club and the other member clubs as well as between each individual member club and the PL itself. Thus, the nature of the proceedings between the PL and Manchester City is such that they're subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980, the statute that governs prescriptive periods for bringing legal actions across a range of civil-law matters in England and Wales (not the whole UK).

The provisions of the 1980 Act that are relevant to contractual affairs between the PL and MCFC are sections 5 and 32, referred to above. In addition, section 8 of the 1980 Act stipulates a 12-year limitation period for certain contracts but has no relevance to City's case.

The 1980 Act and other pieces of legislation do provide that a court has the right to disapply the limitation period in specific categories of cases. Examples are cases involving personal injury and defamation (both by virtue of specific provisions of the 1980 Act itself), claims against public authorities based on human rights considerations (by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998) and equal pay or discrimination-based claims (by virtue of the Equalities Act 2010). There are various others, too.

I'm aware of - and can find - nothing, however, that creates such a discretion in a case such as City's. If I'm missing something obvious, please enlighten me.
 
petrusha said:
I wouldn't normally resurrect a post this far back in a thread, but this is a crucial issue in terms of how the allegations against City will be disposed of. It's important to ensure that the thread correctly states the lagal position because most users of this forum won't have first-hand knowledge of the relevant matters and rely on what others with ostensibly greater knowledge have posted. In view of this, I'd be grateful if you could cite a source for your unyielding statement above.

My own view of the situation has always been somewhat different. I believe that the PL's allegations are subject to a six-year limitation period from the cause of action (section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980). However, where a claim is based on matters allegedly entailing fraud or concealment on the part of a defendant, the six-year period runs not from the cause of action but from when the claimant discovers the fraud or concealment.

This is because the PL Rules are expressly stated to be subject to English law and they operate as a contract between each individual member club and the other member clubs as well as between each individual member club and the PL itself. Thus, the nature of the proceedings between the PL and Manchester City is such that they're subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980, the statute that governs prescriptive periods for bringing legal actions across a range of civil-law matters in England and Wales (not the whole UK).

The provisions of the 1980 Act that are relevant to contractual affairs between the PL and MCFC are sections 5 and 32, referred to above. In addition, section 8 of the 1980 Act stipulates a 12-year limitation period for certain contracts but has no relevance to City's case.

The 1980 Act and other pieces of legislation do provide that a court has the right to disapply the limitation period in specific categories of cases. Examples are cases involving personal injury and defamation (both by virtue of specific provisions of the 1980 Act itself), claims against public authorities based on human rights considerations (by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998) and equal pay or discrimination-based claims (by virtue of the Equalities Act 2010). There are various others, too.

I'm aware of - and can find - nothing, however, that creates such a discretion in a case such as City's. If I'm missing something obvious, please enlighten me.
Click to expand...
You've just answered your own question. What I read of the Statute of limitations, it isn't specific to a particular crime, but to the severity of it. EG: You knowingly claimed benefits you weren't entitled to, or you pulled off a Bernie Madoff level Pyramid scam.

If you wrong claimed a few hundred quid 20 years ago, I doubt the courts would bother. But if it were a Madoff level charge, going back 30 years, judges have the discretion to set aside the limitations Act.

Essentially, what City are accused of isn't even illegal in UK Law, only in the PL's rules which they state are governed by UK Law.

So by definition, if the criminal statute of limitations of 6 months was applied to our charge, we'd have no case to answer.

If the Civil statute of limitations was applied, the PL's got 6 years.

The only way any of extending either any further is if a court deemed the charges to be serious enough to warrant a hearing at the crown court, where there isn't a statute of limitations because of the deemed severity of the crime or civil case.

I read a few detailed pieces on the Government's website & various scholarly legal publications which I'll post later. I'm just getting sorted for the match, so hipefully this is OK for now.

Screenshot_20231230_141902_Chrome.jpg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#:~:text=Unlike%20many%20countries%2C%20the%20United,the%20Magistrates'%20Courts%20Act%201980.
 
Last edited:
Dribble said:
You've just answered your own question. What I read of the Statute of limitations, it isn't specific to a particular crime, but to the severity of it. EG: You knowingly claimed benefits you weren't entitled to, or you pulled off a Bernie Madoff level Pyramid scam.

If you wrong claimed a few hundred quid 20 years ago, I doubt the courts would bother. But if it were a Madoff level charge, going back 30 years, judges have the discretion to set aside the limitations Act.

Essentially, what City are accused of isn't even illegal in UK Law, only in the PL's rules which they state are governed by UK Law.

So by definition, if the criminal statute of limitations of 6 months was applied to our charge, we'd have no case to answer.

If the Civil statute of limitations was applied, the PL's got 6 years.

The only way any of extending either any further is if a court deemed the charges to be serious enough to warrant a hearing at the crown court, where there isn't a statute of limitations because of the deemed severity of the crime or civil case.

I read a few detailed pieces on the Government's website & various scholarly legal publications which I'll post later. I'm just getting sorted for the match, so hipefully this is OK for now.

View attachment 102774

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#:~:text=Unlike%20many%20countries%2C%20the%20United,the%20Magistrates'%20Courts%20Act%201980.
Click to expand...

I keep repeating myself but city are accused of overstating revenue which is accounting fraud and is illegal in all countries including the UK for good reasons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top