That would require me to read the constant bollocks though. I skip most and just make sure there's no new detail popped up. Perhaps I'll leave the thread for 18 months, I can see the actual experts on here (who have to keep on explaining the same thing over and over) doing the same shortly, but perhaps they've got more patience than me ;)Probably a projection my overwhelming guilt at hijacking 2 or so pages with multiple posts about one item. And the timing of a post claiming something of the sort immediately after.
Get the first line, cheers.
The second, says/means nothing. Not without then making the 'limitation period' A rather than B in the earlier example.
I know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!I may be completely wrong, but I would anticipate that the PL can go back as far as they need to based on what they've discovered. They had 6 years from the discovery period to bring charges which they've done. And from what they've discovered there are concerns over accounts back to 2009 so they're within their rights to bring charges back to that time period.
We were shit then though and didn’t pose a threat to the Red c*nt cartel . Being owned by “Arabs” sort of boiled the Red c*nt cartel,s piss didn’t it and the racist slug in Spain . So we are now here …….I know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!
It was all ignored when we were a "comedy club" and no threat to the "established elite".I know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!
Now that makes more sense to us laymen. Cheers mate.Firstly limitation is nothing to do with the investigation process it’s a function of when the claim is issued (or such equivalent in these proceedings).
I can’t speak for other posters but the way I read that post is that the publication of the Der Spiegel marked the commencement of the limitation period (as that appears to be the date of discovery) and thereby the charges were brought within six years of that date and are therefore within the prescribed limitation period for fraud.
Unfortunately it has become rather repetitive. ;)I'm awfully tempted to put @ayrshire_blue (the OP) on ignore just so I don't see this thread constantly being bumped by the same people asking the same damned questions over and over ヽ(ಠ_ಠ)ノ
It`ll all end in tears. Hopefully for the PL and the Redtops.Ffs... I'm losing the will to live, not with your post mate. All this guesswork and supposition shit is too much.
How very dare you !! Mr. Swales had no skeletons in his closet. ;)I hope nobody looks too closely at the Swales years. (Two for you, one for me.)
We could all be going to York away. Again.So are we relegated yet or what? Need to find my chelsea shirt
I know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!
I was more pissed off at him for not putting any filling in that shite Thai food before his first home game.Unfortunately the PL hadn't brought in the P&S rules then, so we were free to be run by that nutter!
Even the Cali Cartel under the Orejuela brothers wasn’t as dodgy as that!I know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!
With diligence, the PL could have started investigating when Der Spiegel first published their allegations in November 2018. But they were only allegations. There still hasn't been any "discovery of fraud". The failure of the PL to investigate in 2018 surely must count against them.It is defined in some way, namely under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which states that the period of limitation shall not begin to run until discovery of the fraud [by the PL], or [when the PL] could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. If the charges are based on the alleged conduct around the Der Spiegel articles then the printing of the article has to constitute discovery by the PL, or at the very least activates the reasonable diligence arm. It would be preposterous of them to argue otherwise.With diligence, the PL could have started investigating when Der Spiegel first published their allegations in November 2018. But they were only allegations. There still hasn't been any "discovery of fraud". The failure of the PL to investigate in 2018 surely must count against them.
I wouldn't be surprised of they did nothing as they planned to pile on after the Cas verdict which they were told by Gill and Parry would be guilty. I seem to remember Tebas tweeting something about their rules having no time barring, this is all you need to know about the collaborating behind the scenes to nail us.Hopefully we confirm we are the Best Club in all the Land and all the World off the field as well.With diligence, the PL could have started investigating when Der Spiegel first published their allegations in November 2018. But they were only allegations. There still hasn't been any "discovery of fraud". The failure of the PL to investigate in 2018 surely must count against them.
He was right when he said he had very rich friends thoughI know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!
Wasn't 1962 when the rags were done for payments made under the table to players? And fined £5 000 ( when they'd just bought Dennis Law for £115 000?) I don't think that was a "minor", "technical" breach of the rules!I am thinking the question is, if the period starts in 2018 and the club is charged before 2024, then everything is open to judgment. But does that mean they can go back to the club's 1962 accounts, for example, if the press find something to investigate?
Not at all thinking about a club up the road and what they got up to when Ferguson was there ....