PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Thanks, and in fairness, I only really am discussing my understanding of the logic of it, rather than specifics and predictions of what will happen here. I.e arguing one or the other makes more sense doesn't mean I expect it to be the case. River's post is at odds with all of the above though, at least with how it is worded, and (to me) seems to change the whole concept.

I think it’s perfectly plausible that the publishing of the Der Spiegel articles marks the commencement of the limitation period, as that could denote the ‘discovery’ but that is based on supposition around the charges. It’s also perfectly plausible (although much less likely) that there could be another event, although I’m struggling to think what.

This debate is basically rendered moot because of the way that the PL have (consciously) elected to conduct this process, which has been fully exploited by the media who love to talk in broad brush terms about the 115 charges but are unable to properly particularise to what they actually relate.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I suggest that there will be no punishment for City, no relegation, no points deduction, the PL will find MCFC as clean as any Danny Tiatto tackle, but will award each of the other nineteen teams a bonus of 115 points just to feel that they are on the safe side.

 

[Coatigan]

I think it’s perfectly plausible that the publishing of the Der Spiegel articles marks the commencement of the limitation period, as that could denote the ‘discovery’ but that is based on supposition around the charges. It’s also perfectly plausible (although much less likely) that there could be another event, although I’m struggling to think what.

This debate is basically rendered moot because of the way that the PL have (consciously) elected to conduct this process, which has been fully exploited by the media who love to talk in broad brush terms about the 115 charges but are unable to properly particularise to what they actually relate.

Agree with all that. But that was not my point. I'll try again.

River's post said 'It’s possible that that date started the clock for PL to bring a claim on those matters and that then gave the PL 6 years which they were within'.

Which changes the whole concept.
I.e you and I are assuming a statute of limitations period 'back the way'. From any one of those points. So only 6 years can be investigated up to whichever point is taken as the start.

The way his reads, is that the PL have 6 years to investigate, from the point of 'discovery'. But in effect there is no actual limitation on the period that can be investigated. The implication is quite different, and if true, in many ways any statute of limitations in law is completely irrelevant to this case.

 

[Chris in London]

Agree with all that. But that was not my point. I'll try again.

River's post said 'It’s possible that that date started the clock for PL to bring a claim on those matters and that then gave the PL 6 years which they were within'.

Which changes the whole concept.
I.e you and I are assuming a statute of limitations period 'back the way'. From any one of those points. So only 6 years can be investigated up to whichever point is taken as the start.

The way his reads, is that the PL have 6 years to investigate, from the point of 'discovery'. But in effect there is no actual limitation on the period that can be investigated. The implication is quite different, and if true, in many ways any statute of limitations in law is completely irrelevant to this case.

Each charge has its own limitation period. The charges about one thing might be time barred but the charges about another might not.

 

[Coatigan]

Each charge has its own limitation period. The charges about one thing might be time barred but the charges about another might not.

But what is it that is 'limited'? The time something can be investigated prior to the charge, or the time it takes to investigate from discovery?

I had always taken it as the first. River's post, as I read it, says the second.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Agree with all that. But that was not my point. I'll try again.

River's post said 'It’s possible that that date started the clock for PL to bring a claim on those matters and that then gave the PL 6 years which they were within'.

Which changes the whole concept.
I.e you and I are assuming a statute of limitations period 'back the way'. From any one of those points. So only 6 years can be investigated up to whichever point is taken as the start.

The way his reads, is that the PL have 6 years to investigate, from the point of 'discovery'. But in effect there is no actual limitation on the period that can be investigated. The implication is quite different, and if true, in many ways any statute of limitations in law is completely irrelevant to this case.

Firstly limitation is nothing to do with the investigation process it’s a function of when the claim is issued (or such equivalent in these proceedings).

I can’t speak for other posters but the way I read that post is that the publication of the Der Spiegel marked the commencement of the limitation period (as that appears to be the date of discovery) and thereby the charges were brought within six years of that date and are therefore within the prescribed limitation period for fraud.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Each charge has its own limitation period. The charges about one thing might be time barred but the charges about another might not.

I am thinking the question is, if the period starts in 2018 and the club is charged before 2024, then everything is open to judgment. But does that mean they can go back to the club's 1962 accounts, for example, if the press find something to investigate?

Not at all thinking about a club up the road and what they got up to when Ferguson was there ....

 

[Coatigan]

Firstly limitation is nothing to do with the investigation process it’s a function of when the claim is issued (or such equivalent in these proceedings).

I can’t speak for other posters but the way I read that post is that the publication of the Der Spiegel marked the commencement of the limitation period (as that appears to be the date of discovery) and thereby the charges were brought within six years of that date and are therefore within the prescribed limitation period for fraud.

In which case, myself and probably 90% of this thread have been misunderstanding it all along. But thanks for clarifying.

Basically, I think most here have been taking the limitation to be a 'time barring' similar to the uefa case. Rather than just a procedural prescription.

The meaningdul effect is, the PL can indeed look as far back as they see fit for any of the charges.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In which case, myself and probably 90% of this thread have been misunderstanding it all along. But thanks for clarifying.

Basically, I think most here have been taking the limitation to be a 'time barring' similar to the uefa case. Rather than just a procedural prescription.

The meaningdul effect is, the PL can kndeed look as far back as they see fit for any of the charges.

IF the contract breach was deliberately concealed, I think.

 

[Coatigan]

IF the contract breach was deliberately concealed, I think.

Don't see how that is relevant myself, but who the fuck knows.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In which case, myself and probably 90% of this thread have been misunderstanding it all along. But thanks for clarifying.

Basically, I think most here have been taking the limitation to be a 'time barring' similar to the uefa case. Rather than just a procedural prescription.

The meaningdul effect is, the PL can kndeed look as far back as they see fit for any of the charges.

No and I’m not sure where you’ve concluded that from what I’ve posted. They can’t look back as far as they see fit; it depends when the discovery was and when the charges were laid (or equivalent).

i think the UEFA limitation was a fixed period from the event, rather than the discovery though, so there is a distinction.

 

[cheekybids]

I am thinking the question is, if the period starts in 2018 and the club is charged before 2024, then everything is open to judgment. But does that mean they can go back to the club's 1962 accounts, for example, if the press find something to investigate?

Not at all thinking about a club up the road and what they got up to when Ferguson was there ....

How dare you, everything up the road was grown organically, the right way with their own success…….

 

[M18CTID]

No and I’m not sure where you’ve concluded that from what I’ve posted. They can’t look back as far as they see fit; it depends when the discovery was and when the charges were laid (or equivalent).

i think the UEFA limitation was a fixed period from the event, rather than the discovery though, so there is a distinction.

Could it not be argued that Pinto "discovered" it somewhat earlier than when Der Spiegel published it? Which makes the lines more blurred?

Either way, the whole discussion around the limitation period could well be moot if the PL are relying on no more than the very same Der Spiegel articles that did for UEFA at CAS

 

[halfcenturyup]

How dare you, everything up the road was grown organically, the right way with their own success…….

You only say that because that is what that have told you and they have deliberately concealed the real reasons for their success from you. 99 charges anyone? :)

 

[Coatigan]

No and I’m not sure where you’ve concluded that from what I’ve posted. They can’t look back as far as they see fit; it depends when the discovery was and when the charges were laid (or equivalent).

i think the UEFA limitation was a fixed period from the event, rather than the discovery though, so there is a distinction.

Not if the statute of limitations is what you and project river say it is. Rather what I have said I had previously assumed it to be. I don't see how the two together are possible.

I am not being pedantic btw. It is a fundamental principle here that I fully admit to probably having misunderstood up until now. People have been discussing 'statutes of limitations' and possible start dates, without realising different people have been taking it to mean different things.

Either

A) the limitation works back the way, and limits what can be looked at for a specific length (6 years) from a point (e.g discovery or ability of discovery)

or B), the limitation is forward starting with the discovery, and limits how long the PL have to investigate to 6 years. But then it does not limit how far back they can look.

Which is what you and project river seem to be describing.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Could it not be argued that Pinto "discovered" it somewhat earlier than when Der Spiegel published it? Which makes the lines more blurred?

Either way, the whole discussion around the limitation period could well be moot if the PL are relying on no more than the very same Der Spiegel articles that did for UEFA at CAS

Section 32 speaks of discovery by ‘the plaintiff’ in this case the PL, so discovery by a third party is extraneous to that, unless the discovery by the third party could also have been achieved earlier by the plaintiff using reasonable diligence.

I think it is the Der Spiegel articles, most likely, which means we would appear to have no case to answer.

 

[SilverFox2]

I think it’s perfectly plausible that the publishing of the Der Spiegel articles marks the commencement of the limitation period, as that could denote the ‘discovery’ but that is based on supposition around the charges. It’s also perfectly plausible (although much less likely) that there could be another event, although I’m struggling to think what.

This debate is basically rendered moot because of the way that the PL have (consciously) elected to conduct this process, which has been fully exploited by the media who love to talk in broad brush terms about the 115 charges but are unable to properly particularise to what they actually relate.

Thanks for that G.
Is it possible the PL would prefer the older start so we would get off on that technicality?
That way the probably non existent evidence is not needed to be presented?
As you say the damage is done and suspicions can continue.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Could it not be argued that Pinto "discovered" it somewhat earlier than when Der Spiegel published it? Which makes the lines more blurred?

Either way, the whole discussion around the limitation period could well be moot if the PL are relying on no more than the very same Der Spiegel articles that did for UEFA at CAS

If that’s what they are relying on, the emails don’t mean diddly squat without the relevant transactions to back them up as actually happening. All they have is opinion and not hard evidence, this goes back to the limitations period if there has been serious fraud here they need to prove it with hard evidence they can’t do that with opinion. Probably why the Premier league will come unstuck with their approach to the execution of this investigation.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Don't see how that is relevant myself, but who the fuck knows.

Mancini "breach" was in 2011 (I think) so normally that would be the "event" and so the PL would have to charge before 2017 = time barred. If the club "concealed" the event, though, then the six years run from "discovery", so from 2018 to 2024 = not time barred.

The answer to your question about any limit in the length of time between event and discovery: I have no idea. :)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not if the statute of limitations is what you and project river say it is. Rather what I have said I had previously assumed it to be. I don't see how the two together are possible.

I am not being pedantic btw. It is a fundamental principle here that I fully admit to probably having misunderstood up until now. People have been discussing 'statutes of limitations' and possible start dates, without realising different people have been taking it to mean different things.

Either

A) the limitation works back the way, and limits what can be looked at for a specific length (6 years) from a point (e.g discovery or ability of discovery)

or B), the limitation is forward starting with the discovery, and limits how long the PL have to investigate to 6 years. But then it does not limit how far back they can look.

Which is what you and project river seem to be describing.

It’s B but they are limited to how far back they can look based on discovery (or discovery by reasonable diligence).

And it’s not the ‘statute of limitation‘ which is an American term. It’s limitation period.