The PL proceedings in my view are very likely to fail (apart from the non cooperation charges) just as substantially the same charges failed before CAS. Criminal prosecutions face a far higher hurdle and are therefore much more likely to fail.I get that we carnt keep going round in circles about appeals and perhaps best to stay away from worst case scenarios but if you don’t mind answering Why would HMRC SFO likely fail ? Don’t have to answer.
Don’t you only need to keep your accounting records for 6 years?
Which is probably why the premier league have gone back further on the hope we no longer have the proof to clear our name.
Which we have from the sounds of it.
Not sure what happens if any business gets investigated over accounting irregularities from 6+ years ago, if they do at all.
How are you supposed to produce documents that you’re no longer required to keep?
Is there not some sort of law with regards this?
Suggest you read 163-166 of CAS ruling that will detail exactly what time barred in this matter comes from and against what CAS judged the matter
ThreethingsOne member of the CAS Panel actually was a native English speaker. But as someone who works abroad and deals every day with non-native speakers using English in a legal context, a few of whom handle international arbitration cases in English before tribunals in various different countries. I can tell you that there are many such people who have excellent English, in some cases better than many posters on here.
Putting the boot on the other foot, I've appeared as an expert witness in two Russian court cases. On each occasion, I'd first been questioned as a witness at length and produced a witness statement. I did that without an interpreter, but asked for an interpreter in the first court case - not because I needed it, but because I thought it would be handy if I needed to disrupt the flow of clever defence lawyers who were trying to discredit me. But in fact it didn't work out like that and I dispensed with the interpreter on the second occasion.
Both times, the court fully understood and was able to evaluate the evidence I gave, and the CAS arbitrators will have had no linguistic problem whatsoever in performing their functions. You've mentioned the language issue more than once and seem to think it has some relevance. I completely disagree.
The PL's Rules, by the way, may not specify a limitation period but nonetheless are subject to the Limitation Act 1980, which specifies a general limitation period of six years. However, under section 32(1) of that Act, where an action is based on fraud or the deliberate concealment of relevant facts, the limitation period runs from the time when the fraud or concealment is discovered.
City will therefore argue that everything outside a six-year period is time-barred. The PL must be relying on concealment here and will no doubt maintain that the period should run from the time of the Der Spiegel leaks, when it first became aware of the matters at hand.
Meanwhile, I've just done a quick search and seen that you've referred seven times to Swiss law in the context of the CAS proceedings. I'm rather puzzled as to why you seem to think it matters at all. The fate of the PL's case ultimately comes down to the quality of the evidence that both parties will adduce.
I have a couple of times but S32 of the act is the issuePresumably you missed the bit in my post that said the contractual arrangement between MCFC and the PL is governed by English law. Suggest you read the Limitation Act 1980.
Can City elect to take PL to High Court in another country like Mr Abromovic did RE his dispute with a fellow Oligarch? Perhaps it needs both parties to agree but I remain dubious that the panel will be fair in its legal assessment especially as it is done in secret.
Then you'll understand why the PL will need to adduce particularly cogent evidence to clear the threshold imposed by the Act, and why, in the event of a failure to establish fraud etc the ordinary 6 year rule will apply.I have a couple of times but S32 of the act is the issue
No, it's a farm in Oxfordshire.Diddley Squat?
Is this another legal term?
Would that be less likely than the balance of probabilities?
There are two issues here. One is the validity of FFP and it seems to me that it is quite clearly not consistent with competition law both in the EU and the UK, so we can appeal to the courts to have it declared unlawful. But the PL investigation alleges that the club is guilty of a quite different offence - that of false accounting and there is no way that this would be justified by arguing that FFP made it necessary. One offence never justifies another! City's defence has to be that we haven't done what we are accused of. If we can show that these charges are part of a much wider vendetta against the club that would certainly be to our advantage, but we MUST show that we have no case to answer on the charges of false acconting.Why can’t we challenge FFP in court? Because we signed up to the premier and Uefa rules?
So those rules can be abused by the authorities to destroy a club and potentially leave us in administration or wound up.
We know Uefa already changed the goal posts to snare us in the past. We also know that Uefa slandered our reputation and tried to ban us on flimsy made up evidence. The premier league are now trying the same approach while the club is lynched in public.
No point of law enabling recourse is perplexing.
Thanks for the blunt response -:)
Isnt that the whole basis of the PL case ?Then you'll understand why the PL will need to adduce particularly cogent evidence to clear the threshold imposed by the Act, and why, in the event of a failure to establish fraud etc the ordinary 6 year rule will apply.