PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ric said:
It's utterly absurd, and unacceptable, that three years on we're still none the wiser as to when we will get a verdict. If there is actually a legitimate reason for the hold-up (say, ill-health of a panel member or something) then they should let people know.
Click to expand...
Even if the delay is due to a panel member’s ill health, there’s no guarantee that this would ever be communicated to the parties. And if anything is said at all, it’s likely to be no more than a brief notice that the process has been delayed, without any explanation.

Ultimately, the length of the process isn’t the real issue — what matters is that the panel delivers a legally robust decision. That said, some so-called experts have been rather naïve about how long this was always going to take. Given the sheer number of charges, this is the biggest and most complex case in football history.
 
Keith Moon said:
Even if the delay is due to a panel member’s ill health, there’s no guarantee that this would ever be communicated to the parties. And if anything is said at all, it’s likely to be no more than a brief notice that the process has been delayed, without any explanation.

Ultimately, the length of the process isn’t the real issue — what matters is that the panel delivers a legally robust decision. That said, some so-called experts have been rather naïve about how long this was always going to take. Given the sheer number of charges, this is the biggest and most complex case in football history.
Click to expand...
Is it?

Condense it down to 5/6 charges and 12/18 months should be enough. Hiding behind complexity and PR brand damage?

It’s a load of crap, that’s why it’s not written up. Prob knew the outcome after the hearing.
 
wolviedinho said:
Is it?

Condense it down to 5/6 charges and 12/18 months should be enough. Hiding behind complexity and PR brand damage?

It’s a load of crap, that’s why it’s not written up. Prob knew the outcome after the hearing.
Click to expand...
The panel cannot simply “condense” 130 charges into a handful to save time. Each charge has to be determined, even where they are thematically related (for example, multiple years involving the same type of reporting breach).

That said, the panel can set out shared reasoning for groups of charges. However, it must still reach a formal determination on each individual charge.
 
I think there are 3 KCs on the panel and there's so much detail and the need to agree on all the elements of the charges that I'm not at all surprised it's taken this long. I have been dealing with a regulatory labelling matter and it's a simple change of text, getting 2 sets of regulatory people to agree on what is valid has taken months and we're still not there
 
I have always thought the charges are very difficult to prove after all this time. The charges were originally brought in February 2023, and the earliest alleged breaches were for 2009/10 season, some 13 years earlier. In the UK there is a statute of limitations of 6 years. If it applies then only alleged breaches after 2017 would apply. However…
  • The 6-Year Default: Under the Limitation Act 1980, civil claims in England typically have a six-year limitation period. Some legal experts argue this could still be invoked by City's legal team as a defense for historic charges.
  • Concealment Exception: The Premier League can bypass the standard six-year limit if they can prove fraud or deliberate concealmentof information. This would allow the commission to hear evidence from as far back as 2009, as long as the alleged breaches were only discoverable within the last few years.
It is my assumption that City’s starting point is to invoke the statute of limitations to reduce the number of charges. The Premier League then has to prove City committed fraud or concealment. Emails were stolen that may prove concealment, but businesses are entitled to keep information about their business dealings confidential. Interestingly stolen documents can be used in court, but it would raise questions about the integrity of the Premier League to rely on stolen documents. Furthermore, if the emails are communications with City’s attorneys they would be attorney privileged and not admissible.

I think this is taking so long because it must be nearly impossible for the Premier League to prove City intentionally concealed evidence. And it must be nearly impossible to prove City breached any rules.
 
Last edited:
BlueMerlin said:
I have always thought the charges are very difficult to prove after all this time. The charges were originally brought in February 2023, and the earliest alleged breaches were for 2009/10 season, some 13 years earlier. In the UK there is a statute of limitations of 6 years. If it applies then only alleged breaches after 2017 would apply. However…
  • The 6-Year Default: Under the Limitation Act 1980, civil claims in England typically have a six-year limitation period. Some legal experts argue this could still be invoked by City's legal team as a defense for historic charges.
  • Concealment Exception: The Premier League can bypass the standard six-year limit if they can prove fraud or deliberate concealmentof information. This would allow the commission to hear evidence from as far back as 2009, as long as the alleged breaches were only discoverable within the last few years.
It is my assumption that City’s starting point is to invoke the statute of limitations to reduce the number of charges. The FA then has to prove City committed fraud or concealment. Emails were stolen that may prove concealment, but businesses are entitled to keep information about their business dealings confidential. Interestingly stolen documents can be used in court, but it would raise questions about the integrity of the FA to rely on stolen documents. Furthermore, if the emails are communications with City’s attorneys they would be attorney privileged and not admissible.

I think this is taking so long because it must be nearly impossible for the FA to prove City intentionally concealed evidence. And it must be nearly impossible to prove City breached any rules.
Click to expand...
The Limitation Act simply doesn’t apply here because the Premier League isn’t bringing a civil court claim — it’s enforcing a private contractual rulebook that has no statute of limitations at all. Every club, including Manchester City, agreed that the League can investigate and charge historical breaches without time restriction, so there’s nothing for City to “invoke” to strike out older allegations. The concealment provisions in the Limitation Act are irrelevant because they only matter in court proceedings, not in a regulatory process. The Premier League doesn’t need to prove concealment to justify looking back to 2009 — it only needs to prove the breaches themselves.

Legal Privilege is narrow, specific, and purpose‑based. It protects legal advice — not everything a client ever says to or around a lawyer.

P.S the FA aren't trying to prove anything-it has nothing to do with them. This is a matter between City and the premier League.
 
jollylescott said:
Pegasus is the most sophisticated spyware ever created (by an Israeli company)and can be installed remotely on mobile phones.

So either they've got something on us or we've got something on them!
Click to expand...
NSO were sold to an American investment fund late last year, which Mubadala is a major shareholder in.
 
Last edited:
blueste41 said:
The Limitation Act simply doesn’t apply here because the Premier League isn’t bringing a civil court claim — it’s enforcing a private contractual rulebook that has no statute of limitations at all. Every club, including Manchester City, agreed that the League can investigate and charge historical breaches without time restriction, so there’s nothing for City to “invoke” to strike out older allegations. The concealment provisions in the Limitation Act are irrelevant because they only matter in court proceedings, not in a regulatory process. The Premier League doesn’t need to prove concealment to justify looking back to 2009 — it only needs to prove the breaches themselves.
Click to expand...

This is just wrong.

The premier league rules specifically incorporate English law, including the Limitation Act. That provides that any breach of contract is statute barred if not brought within 6 years, unless it falls within the concealment exception.
 
blueste41 said:
The Limitation Act simply doesn’t apply here because the Premier League isn’t bringing a civil court claim — it’s enforcing a private contractual rulebook that has no statute of limitations at all. Every club, including Manchester City, agreed that the League can investigate and charge historical breaches without time restriction, so there’s nothing for City to “invoke” to strike out older allegations. The concealment provisions in the Limitation Act are irrelevant because they only matter in court proceedings, not in a regulatory process. The Premier League doesn’t need to prove concealment to justify looking back to 2009 — it only needs to prove the breaches themselves.

Legal Privilege is narrow, specific, and purpose‑based. It protects legal advice — not everything a client ever says to or around a lawyer.

P.S the FA aren't trying to prove anything-it has nothing to do with them. This is a matter between City and the premier League.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I changed FA to Premier League. You probably know more about English Law than me (most certainly do, lol), but this seems to be a contractual dispute so English Law is probably the umbrella over the dispute.
 
Darren Bent was sailing close to wind last night’s get with his comment last night. He basically said Rodri can’t talk about cheating while they have 115 charges hanging over their heads
 
blueste41 said:
The Limitation Act simply doesn’t apply here because the Premier League isn’t bringing a civil court claim — it’s enforcing a private contractual rulebook that has no statute of limitations at all. Every club, including Manchester City, agreed that the League can investigate and charge historical breaches without time restriction, so there’s nothing for City to “invoke” to strike out older allegations. The concealment provisions in the Limitation Act are irrelevant because they only matter in court proceedings, not in a regulatory process. The Premier League doesn’t need to prove concealment to justify looking back to 2009 — it only needs to prove the breaches themselves.

Legal Privilege is narrow, specific, and purpose‑based. It protects legal advice — not everything a client ever says to or around a lawyer.

P.S the FA aren't trying to prove anything-it has nothing to do with them. This is a matter between City and the premier League.
Click to expand...
wow I take it you haven't read any of the posts in here before
 
Chris in London said:
This is just wrong.

The premier league rules specifically incorporate English law, including the Limitation Act. That provides that any breach of contract is statute barred if not brought within 6 years, unless it falls within the concealment exception.
Click to expand...

I can't believe we are going through all this again after your wonderful FAQ thread.

And for the other poster, isn't it six years from date of knowledge in this case, so six years from 2018, if the PL didn't know about it earlier? Of course, we don't know the circumstances of any of this ....
 
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