PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
I was asked to respond to the latest discussion against my self imposed ban on this limitation question. I do so because I have moved from my original position and the position that most lawyers on here seem to agree with. I was wrong, I think, to consider it so simply and think the focus on the overarching English law qualification of the Premier League rules may not offer the whole answer.

On reflection, I think the key here is that this is a disciplinary case under Section W. So whilst it is all governed by English law, disciplinary processes are seen differently from dispute resolution (Section X). That is usually because discipline, as in any industry, is seen as an important public confidence issue and professional wrong doing should not be allowed simply because of the passage of time.

However, this is complicated in the City case because the underlying allegations are, we think, related to matters that would ordinarily be fraud, accounting issues, financial non-compliance etc that is not merely sporting discipline. Those matters are usually non-arbitrable. These matters may fall outside the Premier League's contractual disciplinary jurisdiction entirely. You cannot prosecute fraud through a sports tribunal and avoid limitation by calling it "discipline." If the charges require proving effective criminal dishonesty, they are fraud allegations regardless of the label, and limitation should apply, six years from when the Premier League discovered (or should have discovered) the fraud.

City may have argued that the Premier League lacked jurisdiction to determine fraud allegations at all and that such matters should be in the courts where limitation, proper evidence rules, and processes apply. Whether anyone ran this argument, we do not know - City may have accepted jurisdiction. It seems that if City did accept jurisdiction, limitation is not in play. Very old allegations or weak cases could be dismissed for abuse of process but this requires the accused to show real prejudice, all unlikely here.

As I have previously said, I always felt it probably irrelevant either way, be it due to:
1) the fact that time barring could only ever, even in court, apply once all the evidence had already been heard anyway (at which point you have either brought the judge/panel with you or they are going the other way) or
2) because if the panel found against City on most of the key charges, they would have to have been deliberately concealed.

So, either way limitation would not be a bar.

Assuming City did not challenge the PLs Section W jurisdiction at this stage (perhaps leaving it for an appeal, though much harder if they never ran the argument at all), then the disciplinary proceedings probably continued treating these as regulatory breaches under Section W where no limitation periods apply. The panel will determine whether City breached the rules and ignore limitation as that question does not arise in their Section W framework.

If City lose and want to argue on appeal that the charges were actually fraud allegations outside the PL's jurisdiction, they face the problem that by participating without protest they may have accepted jurisdiction. An appeal will be reluctant to let parties submit to a process, lose, then challenge jurisdiction afterwards. The time to fight jurisdiction is at the start, not after an adverse decision. If City reserved their position explicitly throughout, an appeal might succeed on jurisdictional grounds, but if they treated it as straightforward regulatory discipline, that ship has likely sailed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information.
I am, frankly, very bored with the whole process, so I have placed it firmly to the back of the brain.

Best wishes to you.
 
slbsn said:
... City may have accepted jurisdiction. It seems that if City did accept jurisdiction, limitation is not in play. Very old allegations or weak cases could be dismissed for abuse of process but this requires the accused to show real prejudice, all unlikely here.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I've missed it in the preceeding 6200 pages, but why would submitting the the private tribunal remove any sort of time bar here?

(That's a different argument than the purported fraud and concealment here would stop the limitations period from running.)

slbsn said:
As I have previously said, I always felt it probably irrelevant either way, be it due to:
1) the fact that time barring could only ever, even in court, apply once all the evidence had already been heard anyway (at which point you have either brought the judge/panel with you or they are going the other way) or
...
Click to expand...
We're not talking about a jury here though. The tribunal here is, I think, much more like a hearing before a judge -- a bench trial for lack of a better term. I would expect that the tribunal, like a judge, would be less swayed by an overarching theme or story and much more likely to apply rules and laws more technically and precisely, and defense like this -- if it is going to resonate at all -- will land better with anyone other than a jury.

(And I know you've taken some unwarranted abuse here and have stepped away from the forum. If you don't respond, understood. Always appreciated your information and opinion here, even if I didn't always agree with it. That's lawyering, right? Reasonable minds differing. ;))
 
slbsn said:
I was asked to respond to the latest discussion against my self imposed ban on this limitation question. I do so because I have moved from my original position and the position that most lawyers on here seem to agree with. I was wrong, I think, to consider it so simply and think the focus on the overarching English law qualification of the Premier League rules may not offer the whole answer.

On reflection, I think the key here is that this is a disciplinary case under Section W. So whilst it is all governed by English law, disciplinary processes are seen differently from dispute resolution (Section X). That is usually because discipline, as in any industry, is seen as an important public confidence issue and professional wrong doing should not be allowed simply because of the passage of time.

However, this is complicated in the City case because the underlying allegations are, we think, related to matters that would ordinarily be fraud, accounting issues, financial non-compliance etc that is not merely sporting discipline. Those matters are usually non-arbitrable. These matters may fall outside the Premier League's contractual disciplinary jurisdiction entirely. You cannot prosecute fraud through a sports tribunal and avoid limitation by calling it "discipline." If the charges require proving effective criminal dishonesty, they are fraud allegations regardless of the label, and limitation should apply, six years from when the Premier League discovered (or should have discovered) the fraud.

City may have argued that the Premier League lacked jurisdiction to determine fraud allegations at all and that such matters should be in the courts where limitation, proper evidence rules, and processes apply. Whether anyone ran this argument, we do not know - City may have accepted jurisdiction. It seems that if City did accept jurisdiction, limitation is not in play. Very old allegations or weak cases could be dismissed for abuse of process but this requires the accused to show real prejudice, all unlikely here.

As I have previously said, I always felt it probably irrelevant either way, be it due to:
1) the fact that time barring could only ever, even in court, apply once all the evidence had already been heard anyway (at which point you have either brought the judge/panel with you or they are going the other way) or
2) because if the panel found against City on most of the key charges, they would have to have been deliberately concealed.

So, either way limitation would not be a bar.

Assuming City did not challenge the PLs Section W jurisdiction at this stage (perhaps leaving it for an appeal, though much harder if they never ran the argument at all), then the disciplinary proceedings probably continued treating these as regulatory breaches under Section W where no limitation periods apply. The panel will determine whether City breached the rules and ignore limitation as that question does not arise in their Section W framework.

If City lose and want to argue on appeal that the charges were actually fraud allegations outside the PL's jurisdiction, they face the problem that by participating without protest they may have accepted jurisdiction. An appeal will be reluctant to let parties submit to a process, lose, then challenge jurisdiction afterwards. The time to fight jurisdiction is at the start, not after an adverse decision. If City reserved their position explicitly throughout, an appeal might succeed on jurisdictional grounds, but if they treated it as straightforward regulatory discipline, that ship has likely sailed.
Click to expand...
Good to have ju back maestro.

Isn’t it generally accepted that, under English law, arbitral and disciplinary bodies can determine civil allegations involving dishonesty — even where they are fraud-like — so long as they are not determining criminal liability or imposing criminal sanctions?

If so, that would suggest the Premier League panel, acting under Section W, is determining regulatory breaches rather than criminal fraud — and can therefore make findings on dishonesty or concealment without stepping outside its jurisdiction.
 
Blue Mist said:
I dont want to sound like an itk but I've just been told that the delay in releasing the verdict is down to fonts.

The PL are insisting on Sans Serif but we have argued that puts us in a bad light. We want Script but at a push would accept Serif.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Surprised Masters didn't insist on Comic sans
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
The Leicester case is boiling piss!
The BBC's story of it in the" have your say".
Every comment:
What about Cheaty?
So only the smaller clubs get punished?
And meanwhile nothing happens to City?
What about City and the 115?
etc etc etc. It's marvelous.
Click to expand...
I thought we were a smaller club? The size changes to suit.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
The Leicester case is boiling piss!
The BBC's story of it in the" have your say".
Every comment:
What about Cheaty?
So only the smaller clubs get punished?
And meanwhile nothing happens to City?
What about City and the 115?
etc etc etc. It's marvelous.
Click to expand...
You have to be a sad **** to post a comment like that when a quick glance shows a 1000 clueless obsessed bellends have already posted it
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
The Leicester case is boiling piss!
The BBC's story of it in the" have your say".
Every comment:
What about Cheaty?
So only the smaller clubs get punished?
And meanwhile nothing happens to City?
What about City and the 115?
etc etc etc. It's marvelous.
Click to expand...
Love it. When leicester/forest/everton are getting pasted.....we're a big club.
When Pep signs a player for £20 million right under the noses of the cartel, he's a chequebook fraud, when there's a story about Pep leaving, they can't wait and well be stuffed without him.
So many contradictory opinions expressed by the same fuckin idiots. I can't wait to push some over the edge when/if the verdict is ever announced. Their heads will fall off.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
The Leicester case is boiling piss!
The BBC's story of it in the" have your say".
Every comment:
What about Cheaty?
So only the smaller clubs get punished?
And meanwhile nothing happens to City?
What about City and the 115?
etc etc etc. It's marvelous.
Click to expand...
Yet no mention of Chelsea who admitted numerous charges sold hotels and ladies teams - bizarre
 
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