PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[mac]

I remember us playing away at Burnley towards the end of title battle with the dippers, Aguero bundling in the winner.
Dyche purposely left the grass long, to try stop our passing game and to help klopp and the dips. All this just after them signing the 'ban city' letter.
Don't remember them getting charged for the grass though

Or whas it a dippers game also that snowed. They only cleared the dippers half at half time. Iirc

 

[Oystercatcher28]

When City are found innocent, can we all please sue the PL for damages, deformation etc?

 

[bluemonkey71]

Hopefully that sad **** will be dead by then.

Well his business brain certainly died a long time ago

 

[marco]

When City are found innocent, can we all please sue the PL for damages, deformation etc?

someone posted its not possible,id argue it certainly is via the law courts

 

[eastmanc]

Nice to see the Muen backing City in our battle with the Premier League. Not. With such headlines as, Guardiola faces contract dilemma and Arsenal and Liverpool wait as City face possible title questions. Not a lot of backing there then. They are almost relishing it. Twats. The whole tone of the articles are not in City's favour. Now imagine if it was Liverpool and the Echo. They would at least back them up.

 

[LesBleuMiserable]

Or whas it a dippers game also that snowed. They only cleared the dippers half at half time. Iirc

It was the Leicester game. Liverpool left their half covered in snow and cleared the attacking half that was Leicester side. It didn’t work though and game was draw from what I recall.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

It’s not an easy read, ref below, but exceptions to the six year rule are quite specific and imho none appear applicable to us. Would welcome a legal opinion. If limitation applies it looks like the case collapses. The super heated boiled piss would need intervention by the CAA, UK flights grounded for 24 hours.

Limitation Act 1980

An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

The limitation is from when the charges are raised. So that's six years before February 2023, so they can charge us for any breaches after February 2017. This doesn't change depending on when the case is heard.

They have charged us much further back than 2017 though, which means the PL thinks it isn't subject to limitation. This will be because the PL rules do not mention limitation, whereas UEFA's own rules impose a five year limitation period on themselves.

The PL rules are made under English law though, so City will argue that a six year limitation should apply under the terms of The Limitation Act 1980. If the commission accepts this argument, all charges before 2017 will need to be dropped, and we will forever be accused of getting off on a technicality.

Is the period when they can go back from February 2020 which is when the investigation was opened up or when the charges were laid out three years later?

 

[marco]

maybe at somepoint a whistleblower from within the PL will come out and spill the beans, knowledge from within must be widespread were being stitched up

 

[LesBleuMiserable]

She’s a right monster.

He’s worse.

Why does he not get a real job rather than talking repetitive garbage on airwaves to an audience that does not have a Scooby on what he is talking about