PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

That’s not quite correct.

if fraud or concealment is proved, the limitation period still applies (6 years) but the period starts to run from the point at which the fraud was discovered, which the PL would say was the publication of the Der Spiegel articles

In other words, if there is fraud, we are within the limitation period, but if there is no fraud there is no case to answer in any event

Couldn't it be argued that the Der Spiegel article was merely a rehash of the charges we faced in 2014? Doesn't this fall under double jeopardy?

 

[KS55]

Couldn't it be argued that the Der Spiegel article was merely a rehash of the charges we faced in 2014? Doesn't this fall under double jeopardy?

Double jeopardy is a criminal law concept. This is arbitration.

 

[Dribble]

Double jeopardy is a criminal law concept. This is arbitration.

I don't see why there'd be a difference. It's still holding a hearing regarding several breaches we've previously been investigated for.

Does this mean if the Fail published an article showing leaked City documents over the same issues, the PL will investigate & charge us again?

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Couldn't it be argued that the Der Spiegel article was merely a rehash of the charges we faced in 2014? Doesn't this fall under double jeopardy?

Doesn’t even exist in English law anymore since the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.

 

[KS55]

I don't see why there'd be a difference. It's still holding a hearing regarding several breaches we've previously been investigated for.

Does this mean if the Fail published an article showing leaked City documents over the same issues, the PL will investigate & charge us again?

I’m sure our lawyers will make the point. Suing someone a second time for the same breach would result in failure so no one does it. Sometimes, there are multiple causes of action for a single breach, eg in defamation you can sue the media, all different sellers of the media etc.
In the current case the PL are charging us for breaching their rules on clubs obeying UEFA regs. I thing they are on a sticky wicket in making this distinction since CAS ruled that we did not breach UEFA regs. Do they have additional evidence?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Doesn’t even exist in English law anymore.

It does for most offences.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Doesn't matter the government will stop any new super league

Until the Saudis throw cash at them aswell

 

[TinFoilHat]

I imagine the PL are praying for a very "bad news day" indeed.

I'd settle for the rags being relegated and the PL sending out a press release clearing us whilst the WhatsApp wankers are in mourning.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’m sure our lawyers will make the point. Suing someone a second time for the same breach would result in failure so no one does it. Sometimes, there are multiple causes of action for a single breach, eg in defamation you can sue the media, all different sellers of the media etc.
In the current case the PL are charging us for breaching their rules on clubs obeying UEFA regs. I thing they are on a sticky wicket in making this distinction since CAS ruled that we did not breach UEFA regs. Do they have additional evidence?

I think they must have included each year for each of the alleged breaches whereas UEFA just considered the years the emails related to. Etihad for all years 2008-18, for example, rather than UEFA just 2012-2014 (was it)?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Couldn't it be argued that the Der Spiegel article was merely a rehash of the charges we faced in 2014? Doesn't this fall under double jeopardy?

You mean 2014 or 2020?