I didn't say that. And neither did you.
You said the Limitation Act doesn't apply to this process. I said it most definitely does, based on a careful consideration of what every lawyer on here has said consistently and what I can make of the Act myself.
Don't do what argumentative losers do when they are wrong and change the discussion half way through.
Re Mancini, my understanding is that the panel will have to determine if the allegations were referred to the panel in the limitation period or not. So they will have to decide the date of the alleged breach (which is reasonably easy) and the date on which the breach could reasonably have been discovered (not so easy, especially for us in here who know nothing of the details). And then they have to decide if the alleged breach is proven or not. Or they could look at the alleged breach first, come to the conclusion it wasn't proven to be a breach (most likely imho as there were no rules about declaring secondary manager contracts at the time, anyway) before they toss about with time limitation periods. Or they may decide the allegation isn't proven but consider that the contract should have been declared/ included in the accounts as a matter of good faith but then they are up against accounting principles, and I doubt they will be going against the club's auditors on that. And the Leicester decision suggests to me that wording of the rules is more important than the good/bad faith application of them.
If you want a discussion about why it's taking so long, that is a completely different kettle of fish. And nothing to do with limitation periods, imho.
