PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

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.

When is post number 3 due?

I'll clear a date in my diary.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Have I imagined this, as the update seems to be mixed in with the usual ebb and flow of posts on the thread....

Last Sunday Khaldoon, Serrano and Masters had a chit chat. We informed the PL we have everything ready to go to resolve all the PL charges once and for all but requested the PL agree to our appeal for more independence on the PL Judicial Panel ie to remove the only obstacle to start the process.
However Masters replied, "I cant do that as I am not involved any more, I have washed my hands of the matter"

can anyone confirm this pls ? eg @Prestwich_Blue

 

[flb]

No, the asterisk represents how they are going to get through this difficult period.

Shame really, I wanted them to feel the pain of someone else being better than them.

They already do , and have done since Pep rolled up , something quite perverse about our critics , they cream themselves watching the best team that this country has ever seen , then froth at the mouth with rage when they write their articles before bed time - rinse and repeat , you’ve only got to see duck lipped , coke snorting Rio as evidence, jumping up and down like he’s scored a free bag when Vini Junior scored - then openly admitting that Pep texted him pre Madrid , they literally don’t know their arses from their elbows, it’s beautiful to watch.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Nah, they don’t have the funds for the full rebuild that they need, they’ve just had a failed attempt at selling the business and are fighting City, Qatar, Newcastle who can now spend £500m this summer with the CL funds, Arsenal likewise and Chelsea with a competent manager in charge.

Their only chance of getting back into the CL anytime soon is to win the Europa.

Or City aren't in the equation...

 

[searsleftpeg]

I subscribe to the theory of statistics that '73.6% of all statistics are made up..'

Now then, I wonder into which category these statistics from 'The Athletic' fall into.. 'made up' or 'not made up'? I'm really struggling with this one..

A very good bit in Yes Prime Minister where Sir Humpy demonstrated how to get any answer you want, in a questionnaire depending on how the questions are phrased.

 

[Kompany Car]

Yep, the very same. Doesn't take away from his knowledge about tactics.

Im sure Rolf Harris knew a lot about didgeridoos but I wouldnt have paid to read a book written by the him.

 

[citizen_maine]

Or City aren't in the equation...

Shit hitting the fan in 3...2...1

 

[flb]

Im sure Rolf Harris knew a lot about didgeridoos but I wouldnt have paid to read a book written by the him.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

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 if inadmissible or mistimed evidence. Like at CAS, they seem happy for everything to be examined, and are confident in what they are putting forward.

It doesn't but if it's applied it excludes alot of charges as the op pointed, however it will be interesting to see whether it is applied or not, Unless pl rules explicitly mention that statue of limitations does not apply with regards to investigation into club finances, city will have a strong argument and even if it is mentioned question will arise whether pl rules can take precedence over a statue?i don't think it can

i don't agree with your assessment that club wouldn't be satisfied if the outcome is not guilty due to inadmissible or mistimed evidence, city would claim it as a victory and rightly so because when vultures are out to get you then victory is what matters , secondly, it will also prove city's point that this whole fiasco was a witch hunt where weak evidence was used while disregarding the laws of the country etc

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Have I imagined this, as the update seems to be mixed in with the usual ebb and flow of posts on the thread....

Last Sunday Khaldoon, Serrano and Masters had a chit chat. We informed the PL we have everything ready to go to resolve all the PL charges once and for all but requested the PL agree to our appeal for more independence on the PL disciplinary committee - ie to remove the only obstacle to start the process.
However Masters replied, "I cant do that as I am not involved any more, I have washed my hands of the matter"

can anyone confirm this pls ? eg @Prestwich_Blue

I've no idea. If you're referring to tolmie's posts, it seems feasible though. Masters isn't in control of the process now anyway as he's presumably handed it over to Murray Rosen. That doesn't mean he's "washed his hands of it" but more likely it's now in Rosen's hands as the relevant authority.