PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[burning blue soul]

If the PL start to allow clubs to sue Everton for lost income, PL table position, relegation etc it will turn into a massive shit show. Where do they draw the line on penalties? Everton could feasibly go under from constant litigation and counter claims, potential lost sponsorships etc etc

If Liverpool lose out on chumps qualification by 1 point will they sue the pl and pigmol for the bad decision they had?
Where does it end?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The PL is bound by UK law and therefore statute of limitations

Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that where an action is based upon the fraud of the defendant, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has ‘discovered the fraud…or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’

If City are guilty as alleged, then they have committed fraud. If not in a criminal sense, then certainly in a contractual one.

 

[Indaparkside]

Let’s rebuild Maine road fuck the tourists off and the bald fraud and be everyone’s 2nd favourite team again, what’s Brian Horton up to nowadays

 

[Whether or not]

It's the 'balance of probability ' statement the premier league seem to hide behind that worries me the most. It's their 'we can't prove anything but they must have done it' argument and it's never contested

To be fair, the balance of probability, is the threshold for all civil disputes in the UK, it isn’t an EPL construct. The criminal threshold is beyond all reasonable doubt, the civil threshold is the balance of probability. Given that we are effectively charged with false accounting, which is a criminal offence, it could be argued that the criminal standard should be applied, which they wouldn’t get anywhere near.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I`m also a veteran but you still call me a ****. ;)

Never mate, never :)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

To be fair, the balance of probability, is the threshold for all civil disputes in the UK, it isn’t an EPL construct. The criminal threshold is beyond all reasonable doubt, the civil threshold is the balance of probability. Given that we are effectively charged with false accounting, which is a criminal offence, it could be argued that the criminal standard should be applied, which they wouldn’t get anywhere near.

It’s not a criminal court so the criminal standard of proof (being ‘sure’, beyond reasonable doubt, on the face of it, is obsolete) should absolutely not apply as a matter of law and/or convention.

 

[Bewar3them00n]

I see the hatchets are out, & freshly sharpened regarding the 115. After a lull for a few months, I expect all the regular outlets will be ramping up their “Yes, But City’s 115” argument ad nauseum.
The 10 point deduction for Everton seems incredibly harsh, & it seems to more of a bully boy tactic & setting a precedent for future actions. We all know they’ve been after City for years, this stinks of sending a message, a footballing horses head in the bed.

 

[Ducado]

It’s not a criminal court so the criminal standard of proof (being ‘sure’, beyond reasonable doubt, on the face of it, is obsolete) should absolutely not apply as a matter of law and/or convention.

But even so it’s such a serious accusation I.e false accounting that one would think they would have to be sure, because criminal proceedings would follow? It’s not an accusation to be taken lightly

 

[halfcenturyup]

Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that where an action is based upon the fraud of the defendant, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has ‘discovered the fraud…or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’

If City are guilty as alleged, then they have committed fraud. If not in a criminal sense, then certainly in a contractual one.

What is your view on whether the independent panel is competent to determine criminal activity has taken place? I am beginning to think it would be a huge risk for the panel to decide a fraud has been committed, then to have a criminal prosecution by the relevant authorities thrown out for lack of evidence.

It would be much more sensible to me for the PL, if they think criminal activity has taken place, to refer it to the relevant authorities first, and get an actual conviction, before applying a sporting sanction. Is that a sensible legal position or just an accountant's ramblings?

As you say, if they can't prove "fraud", pretty much all the breaches are time-barred except the remnants of the image rights sale and Etihad, if they are brave (or foolish) enough to open that one up again.

 

[abu13]

Not a cat in hells chance that Everton get relegated, i dont think there was ever any intention of this being a possibility.

Even with the deduction there are 3 worse teams than them, if for some reason they are struggling then i can see the appeal being brought forward and enough points being given back to keep them safe. This is just the PL puffing out their chests.