PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The Reckless Pen said:
2. The Limitations Act 1980

I understand that, but discrepancies between Rules and Laws undermines the PL's case and our lawyers will start with that. The Limitations Act 1980 destroys a lot of the PL's evidence if it's applicable.

Para 174 of the CAS Arbitration Award found that the LImitation Period ended with the Referral Decision on 15th May 2019, so the Limitation Period for the charges brought in the Referral Decision started to run on 15th May 2014 (5 year limitation) Breaches committed as from 15th May 2014 therefore fell within the Limitation Period and may be prosecuted, while prosecution of breaches committed prior to such date is barred by application of Article 37 CFCB Procedural Rules.

Using the same logic, the PL would only be able to investigate any alleged breaches going back to 15th May 2013 (6 year limitation) or when they discovered the alleged fraud, concealment or mistake.

Hacked Emails 14th April 2010, 6th September 2012, 7th December 2012 would still be inadmissible and time barred but emails 29th August 2013 and 11th December 2013 and “undated” email and “total cash” sheet could be prosecuted if proven to be breaches. That's half the PL's evidence time barred and dismissed.

Another thought, if the PL's FFP didn't start until 2014, then all the hacked emails could be inadmissible.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt this has anything to do with how admissible or not the hacked emails are, or how relevant (as evidence) to it all they even are.

That has not been the PL's nor the Club's approach. The PL are citing the club accounts and books in their investigation, there has been no mention of the hacked emails. The club have at no point challenged the validity or the timing of the information the PL have.

They have claimed they have been completely open and transparent with the PL and given all the books and documents for scrutiny. Up until a point, aftet the 2018 books, when they unilaterally decided the investigation can't go on indefinitely, and with CAS concluding as they did they decided the PL had enough to conclude their own investigation. Which is what the non-cooperation charge refers to.


I also doubt the club would be satisfied with an outcome that concludes they are not guilty because of inadmissible or mistimed evidence. Like at CAS, they seem happy for everything to be examined, and are confident in what they are putting forward.
 
Last edited:
HelloCity said:
If anyone on here has still got a subscription to this rag then that’s just weird at this point.
Click to expand...
Great content for several other sports I follow and also some very good articles on City by the likes of Michael Cox etc around tactics and so on. Much better than any of the other news streams.
 
I'm Blue said:
Over 50% understand what City are charged with?
That’s clearly bollocks.
Question any of them and once you’ve picked holes in everything they’ve said, they’ll finish with “you’re still cheats”
Been there done that.
Click to expand...

Hard to imagine anyone believing City are cheats who will then admit they haven't a clue what we're charged with.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.