Author says he is going to change it
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
I agree with this FWIWI'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.
Good, I'm not implying he did it on purpose or anything but just goes to show how the media works and how we'll always struggle unless we're more aggressive.Author says he is going to change it
You then have Barca with their not dodgy at all referee payments coming out straight away saying legal action will be taken against anyone who tries to spoil the clubs image...
You make a good point. The narrative is set if you say things often enough regardless of what the truth is. The CAS judgment remains a trove of positive and negative detail of the case, City's defence and the result. It is very illuminating especially in respect of City's own submissions against the severe allegations made there but people don't seem to take the time to actually read it.Good, I'm not implying he did it on purpose or anything but just goes to show how the media works and how we'll always struggle unless we're more aggressive.
You then have Barca with their not dodgy at all referee payments coming out straight away saying legal action will be taken against anyone who tries to spoil the clubs image...
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
Paddy Power taking the piss again :)
The charges against us are very serious but that is funny. The crouch bit cracked me up. -:)
And for time barring purposes of the panel agrees to treat as fraud , then when did they first have knowledge of it. IE how far back would the 6 years go ?I agree with this FWIW
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 18,384
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
Paddy Power taking the piss again :)
Lol, the dippers will fucking melt when they see that.
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,241
Agree it's most likely nonsense, but I "think" the broadcasters only hear one half of the conversation (presumably the VAR side as they instantly know when checks are started and completed).All of the broadcasting teams have access to the VAR officials and referees, it's why commentators sometimes know what's happening without there being further guidance on screen. I doubt "recordings" are hard to come by, anything we "leaked" would be known to about 100+ pundits, and the referees would have to be idiots to do anything in plain sight.
They would say they first learned of potential "fraud" in 2018. So had until 2024 to charge ie everything is in time.And for time barring purposes of the panel agrees to treat as fraud , then when did they first have knowledge of it. IE how far back would the 6 years go ?