PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Mancini will be time limited. I don't see how you can knowingly conceal something if you weren't doing anything wrong.

All imho of course.

Edit: But you have to go through all your defences to show that you weren't doing anything wrong, so that you couldn't have knowingly concealed it before the issue of time limitation can be settled. Different to CAS where time-barring was settled on everything up front because it was a strict time barring of 5 years in all cases.

I think :)
Click to expand...

Yes the argument was from what point that "time barring" was taken from. UEFA took one position, City another in the end neither was agreed upon and CAS instituted when it was to be taken from.
 
BamberBridgeBlue said:
I’ve always said racism is the preserve of the elite classes. These are the same people insisting on bending the knee. It’s a pantomime and once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Black v White, left v right, Gay v straight, men v women, Christian v Muslim, generation v generation all highlighted and stoked by the media whilst the truth is most people are decent and just trying to get by. Football is the most watched sport in the world. The Premier League is by far the most watched domestic league. There’s billions of pounds and dollars at stake. This is why we have corruption. It’s as bent as fuck. This is why I love what Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoun have done. They have more professionalism in their toe nail clippings than your average Corporate westerner. It’s no surprise they’ve run rings around The Premier League buffoons.
Click to expand...

My man.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Mancini Charges
A very interesting thread on @slbsn X feed, basically given the PL rules circa 2009 and the LCFC ruling yesterday the PL's chances of landing the Mancini charges are highly unlikely. However, once again, I'll ask if anyone can explain why are the Mancini charges not time barred. There was absolutely NOTHING criminal about the contracts I.e. to stop them being time barred. Is it possible they have already been resolved and thrown out. I know they could be classed as minor charges but if they were fasely raised against us it needs calling out. It adds weight to our arguments about vexatious litigation by commercial rivals.
Click to expand...

PL “acting in good faith” again.

The more we unpick things the more cuntish they look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ufo
I really dont think its the PL up to all this nonsense I think theyre being severely peer pressured by the heads of the cartel to stop us. Because they cant on the pitch
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
Yes the argument was from what point that "time barring" was taken from. UEFA took one position, City another in the end neither was agreed upon and CAS instituted when it was to be taken from.
Click to expand...
I think the key bit is the PL have 6 years from the date of any evidence coming to light to prove we've done something wrong. So we either have to prove they knew about (probably did) or prove we did nothing out of the ordinary in the first place (probably did this as well). I expect the PL to try and show they only found out about it in the last few years then rely on some emails as evidence. The Fordham situation is a hell of a lot clearer as this was known to the PL/UEFA/Media and literally everyone, so this will be time barred no matter what in my opinion. The Mancini and player stuff from 15 years ago I'm not sure about.
 
Mancini’s Pastilles said:
I really dont think its the PL up to all this nonsense I think theyre being severely peer pressured by the heads of the cartel to stop us. Because they cant on the pitch
Click to expand...

But the PL has the responsibility to protect the interests of all of its members, not just the redshirt cabal .

The PL clearly have got behind the clubs who can't compete on the pitch, and their actions against City , which is a corrupt action which needs to be stopped, and exposed for what it is.
 
Last edited:
mancboy said:
Leicester - Thai Owners
Everton - iranian Owners
Nottingham forest - Greek owners
Us - Abu dhabi owners

Four clubs charged and not a single american owner among them despite 50% of the league being under yank ownership.

So PL tell me you're racist without telling me you're racist.
Click to expand...
But, but, but Newcastle haven't been charged and don't forget they wholeheartedly support the Kick it Out campaign
 
halfcenturyup said:
Mancini will be time limited. I don't see how you can knowingly conceal something if you weren't doing anything wrong.

All imho of course.

Edit: But you have to go through all your defences to show that you weren't doing anything wrong, so that you couldn't have knowingly concealed it before the issue of time limitation can be settled. Different to CAS where time-barring was settled on everything up front because it was a strict time barring of 5 years in all cases.

I think :)
Click to expand...
There are three bars to limitation. Concealment, fraud and mistake. Regardless, I agree that the Mancini payments would be time barred, unless they can be proven to be part of an even bigger act of fraud.
 
mancboy said:
Leicester - Thai Owners
Everton - iranian Owners
Nottingham forest - Greek owners
Us - Abu dhabi owners

Four clubs charged and not a single american owner among them despite 50% of the league being under yank ownership.

So PL tell me you're racist without telling me you're racist.
Click to expand...

Tbf there is no better group of people when it comes to bending rules and finding loopholes than American billionaires.

The Prem will let it slide because they desperately want that American audience ploughing money into tickets, travel packages and merch.
 
Oldham Exile said:
Have to say - despite the totally biased commentator trying desperately to steer things - that is the most balanced TV piece I have seen on this

So ahead of its time as well as I assume it was before CAS
Click to expand...
Not quite, as he plainly talks in terms that we are ‘guilty, but so what?’. That’s a position that some more sane opposition fans expect me to take when they raise the subject with me (and it is a widely held view on here) namely that the rules were created to stop us, and so it’s fair game that we try to get round them - however I respond to that there is no meaningful evidence to support that contention and so it’s mere speculation, and if we are in the realms of speculation my guess is that we are likely to be innocent of what we have been charged, save for the non-cooperation.

I’m not saying what Souness said was wrong around the backstory to the rules, but he’s made an assumption that isn’t supported by publicly available probative evidence, so I don’t think you could objectively describe what he said as unequivocally balanced.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
I think the key bit is the PL have 6 years from the date of any evidence coming to light to prove we've done something wrong. So we either have to prove they knew about (probably did) or prove we did nothing out of the ordinary in the first place (probably did this as well). I expect the PL to try and show they only found out about it in the last few years then rely on some emails as evidence. The Fordham situation is a hell of a lot clearer as this was known to the PL/UEFA/Media and literally everyone, so this will be time barred no matter what in my opinion. The Mancini and player stuff from 15 years ago I'm not sure about.
Click to expand...
My comments were in relation to the CAS case where the limitation was implied by a UEFA rule, however the start point to measure that limitation period was not clear. It doesn't bring any significance to the PL case which is implied by UK statutes of limitation.

Your response while correct in parts seemed a little muddled. For clarity
Limitation periods start from the date of the cause of action, the first date at which a claim might be able to be made and usually the date at which there is some evidence of wrongdoing or when that evidence came to light.

It may be that each party will again argue the date from which this period is measured backwards in time and a possibilty that different charges in the list of allegations have different start dates. I'd probably like clarity on that from our more learned friends, it's quite possible there may be precedent case law that definitively states when, in such arbitration cases, the limitation starts from.

If we were to use the date we were charged by the PL 06.02.2023 on the face that statute will import limitations on anything prior up to 05.02.2017.

There are of course exemptions to this, one being "deliberate concealment"(fraud). Which on the face of things the PL must prove to the required standard if the IC is to consider the older allegations.

Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 states that “any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the Defendant” the 6 year period for bringing a claim does not start until the Claimant has discovered the concealment, or could have done so with reasonable diligence.

The term “deliberate” means that the fact has been concealed by a positive act of concealment or omission or withholding of relevant information. This means the Defendant must have known that he acted in breach of duty before he can be accused of deliberate concealment. This is a difficult hurdle to overcome. I suspect City will argue this point unreservedly. I cannot see where the PL can possibly satisfy this requirement in respect of Mancini or Fordham and even if they could, the Leicester finding now put the contemporaneous rules as read as a determining factor, which makes the Mancini allegations moot as no such rules, as made out in the allegations, regarding contractual disclosure, were in place.
 
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