PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[KS55]

If we are cleared of any substantial wrong doing we should ask the panel to declare that nothing that City did even illicitly made any difference to the outcome in terms of trophies.

 

[Paladin]

It's merely a courtesy to another poster whom I don't know. I'm not defending him, but nor do I have any reason to think he's deliberately on a wind-up. I happen to think it sounds a bit too good to be true, but a bit of politeness costs nothing.

You are @domalino and I claim my £5.

 

[cookster]

You would be surprised mate, the lengths I have seen people go to, in order to achieve a desired outcome.

Coleen Rooney posted fake info/stories on her Instagram account for nearly two years and kept quiet as the Sun ran with them.

No legals, no nothing.

All so she could narrow down the field and find out who had been stabbing her in the back.

I was impressed, admittedly!

You heard anything pal?

 

[Prophet of Doom]

I’m sure these posts about us blackmailing the PL are done in good faith, but it’s playground nonsense.

Please tell me we don’t have to put up with 4 years of these type of fantasy posts.

And for those of us that can remember,, we heard similar crap about what secret info we had on LFC which also turned to be playground crap.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm 50 pages behind so someone might have answered this.

If not:

The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. The regulations that govern our participation within that league are the terms of the contract. One of those terms is that in the event of an alleged breach of the rules the matter is referred to an independent panel, from which an appeal lies to a further panel.

We are said to be in breach of those terms. The fact that the terms themselves do not contain a limitation clause makes no difference, because the Limitation Act says that if you are alleging a breach of contract you must do it within six years.

So, there is a limitation period, and it is six years.

However.

The limitation act also says that if you are bringing a claim based on the fraud of the other party the limitation period does not start to run until you had knowledge of the fraud. So the six year period begins not with the date of the breaches, but the date those breaches became known to the PL - IF they were breaches brought about by fraud.

This means that the allegation of fraud is relevant in two ways. First, given that our accounts have been passed by an auditor, the PL have to allege fraud in order to make their case stick. Secondly, if they can't establish fraud, the limitation act means anything before February 2017 is time-barred.

They have charged us with something extremely serious. The consequences for City if the case succeeds are potentially devastating. The consequences for the PL if the charges fail is also potentially devastating.

Sorry, I wasn't being serious with my previous answer.

Yes, a couple of our legal eagles have made those very points, although I wasn't clear if the fraud angle will be reviewed first to determine whether there is enough evidence to pursue the serious charge. If there isn't, then the alleged breach is time-barred, of course.

Our les also pointed out that the serious nature of the allegation of fraud means that the evidence has to be more cogent than with a normal breach, which is then a more difficult level to achieve.

I think. It's all pretty complicated for a simple accountant like me.

And yes, you do need to catch up to the dirty dossier.

 

[Eds]

I can only imagine if there is a recording it's along the lines of 'how can we ensure City lose this game?'

 

[halfcenturyup]

You are @domalino and I claim my £5.

Slander! Or is it libel?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I can only imagine if there is a recording it's along the lines of 'how can we ensure City lose this game?'

:) Not sure what to make of that.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Slander! Or is it libel?

Either way you're being called a ****.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

To Purchase of Nuclear bomb……..£1,000,000.