PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

city2 said:
Does the club realise how this is effecting fans who have to put up with derogatory stories about our club also the slagging off on social media all sticking the knife with daily comments we will always be known as cheats and with this dragging on for so long which in itself is absolutely disgraceful this witch-hunt against this great club needs to end soon. It’s also a huge slant on all the great players who have played and still playing for City certainly don’t deserve this black mark on their careers, I hope when it is over the owners stand up for all connected to the club because we have to live with the outcome forever the owners can just sell up and forget while the fans are here forever.
Click to expand...
Is this a cry for help?
 
blueste41 said:
Which part and why?
Click to expand...
OK, I'll play.

"The Limitation Act simply doesn’t apply here"

Yes it does.

"because the Premier League isn’t bringing a civil court claim"

Yes it is.

"— it’s enforcing a private contractual rulebook that has no statute of limitations at all."

Yes it does.

"Every club, including Manchester City, agreed that the League can investigate and charge historical breaches without time restriction,"

No they didn't.

" so there’s nothing for City to “invoke” to strike out older allegations."

Yes there is.

"The concealment provisions in the Limitation Act are irrelevant"

No they aren't.

" because they only matter in court proceedings, not in a regulatory process."

No they don't even if this was a regulatory process, which it isn't. It's a claim for breach of contract.

"The Premier League doesn’t need to prove concealment to justify looking back to 2009 — it only needs to prove the breaches themselves."

They need to show the charges were brought within the limitation period, with all that entails.

You asked "Why"? That's easy. Because I listen to the actual lawyers on here. Unless you tell me you are a lawyer, in which case I may pay more attention, but if you are you must be a bloody awful one.

AI has a lot to answer for these days.
 
halfcenturyup said:
OK, I'll play.

"The Limitation Act simply doesn’t apply here"

Yes it does.

"because the Premier League isn’t bringing a civil court claim"

Yes it is.

"— it’s enforcing a private contractual rulebook that has no statute of limitations at all."

Yes it does.

"Every club, including Manchester City, agreed that the League can investigate and charge historical breaches without time restriction,"

No they didn't.

" so there’s nothing for City to “invoke” to strike out older allegations."

Yes there is.

"The concealment provisions in the Limitation Act are irrelevant"

No they aren't.

" because they only matter in court proceedings, not in a regulatory process."

No they don't even if this was a regulatory process, which it isn't. It's a claim for breach of contract.

"The Premier League doesn’t need to prove concealment to justify looking back to 2009 — it only needs to prove the breaches themselves."

They need to show the charges were brought within the limitation period, with all that entails.

You asked "Why"? That's easy. Because I listen to the actual lawyers on here. Unless you tell me you are a lawyer, in which case I may pay more attention, but if you are you must be a bloody awful one.

AI has a lot to answer for these days.
Click to expand...
The rules are clearly stated to be subject to English law.
 
halfcenturyup said:
OK, I'll play.

"The Limitation Act simply doesn’t apply here"

Yes it does.

"because the Premier League isn’t bringing a civil court claim"

Yes it is.

"— it’s enforcing a private contractual rulebook that has no statute of limitations at all."

Yes it does.

"Every club, including Manchester City, agreed that the League can investigate and charge historical breaches without time restriction,"

No they didn't.

" so there’s nothing for City to “invoke” to strike out older allegations."

Yes there is.

"The concealment provisions in the Limitation Act are irrelevant"

No they aren't.

" because they only matter in court proceedings, not in a regulatory process."

No they don't even if this was a regulatory process, which it isn't. It's a claim for breach of contract.

"The Premier League doesn’t need to prove concealment to justify looking back to 2009 — it only needs to prove the breaches themselves."

They need to show the charges were brought within the limitation period, with all that entails.

You asked "Why"? That's easy. Because I listen to the actual lawyers on here. Unless you tell me you are a lawyer, in which case I may pay more attention, but if you are you must be a bloody awful one.

AI has a lot to answer for these days.
Click to expand...
A gentle bumming.
 
halfcenturyup said:
OK, I'll play.

"The Limitation Act simply doesn’t apply here"

Yes it does.

"because the Premier League isn’t bringing a civil court claim"

Yes it is.

"— it’s enforcing a private contractual rulebook that has no statute of limitations at all."

Yes it does.

"Every club, including Manchester City, agreed that the League can investigate and charge historical breaches without time restriction,"

No they didn't.

" so there’s nothing for City to “invoke” to strike out older allegations."

Yes there is.

"The concealment provisions in the Limitation Act are irrelevant"

No they aren't.

" because they only matter in court proceedings, not in a regulatory process."

No they don't even if this was a regulatory process, which it isn't. It's a claim for breach of contract.

"The Premier League doesn’t need to prove concealment to justify looking back to 2009 — it only needs to prove the breaches themselves."

They need to show the charges were brought within the limitation period, with all that entails.

You asked "Why"? That's easy. Because I listen to the actual lawyers on here. Unless you tell me you are a lawyer, in which case I may pay more attention, but if you are you must be a bloody awful one.

AI has a lot to answer for these days.
Click to expand...
Ok, so in reality the premier league will be examining less years than UEFA then? So for example the Mancini charges simply disappear? Puts a whole new context on why the process is taking so long.
 
panel has to resign due to inability to decide.

new panel to be chosen, and restart the whole hearing.

we will be close to December 2027 when it becomes imminent again.
 
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