It's pretty clear. This is a civil case. The panel doesn't have to conclude that there was any criminal conduct. They just have to decide whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the club breached its contract with the PL to provide accounts that give a true and fair view of the club's activities. There is no doubt the panel has competence to do that.
Where are I agree with you, though, is in two areas: firstly, if there is a decision that upholds the PL's position on the balance of probabilities, then there is the inference of criminality, but this is dealt with by the need for higher levels of cogency to come to that conclusion and, even then, it would not be, in any way, a criminal conviction; secondly, to determine if any of the alleged breaches are time-barred, the panel will have to directly address the question of fraud or concealment. If they are not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was fraud or concealment, then the majority of the charges are time-barred. If they are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was fraud or concealment regarding any of the alleged breaches, then those breaches are not time-barred even if older than 6 years. If I was on the panel, I would be pushing to not consider the time-barred aspect unless any of the alleged breaches are actually found in favour of the PL, effectively kicking that particular can of worms down the road, as it were. This would suit the club, I think, because they would much rather the panel finds against the PL on each charge, than have the majority of the charges time-barred again, I imagine.
I have no idea how the PL intends to prove fraud and concealment, though, which is why almost everyone (who knows what they are talking about) thinks they have over-reached, and once the club presents its third party evidence on each of the alleged breaches, in my opinion, after a great deal of expensive umming and arring, that will be that, especially given the profile of the case, the need for cogency and the risks to a large number of reputations on all sides of coming to an unfortunate conclusion.
I have presented a scenario to explain all this (the PL apparently over-reaching, the PL complaining about the club's lack of cooperation and bad faith, the club insisting it has cooperated etc..) which I think makes sense, but we will have to wait and see. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the club's position is just fine.
