PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Coatigan]

Well of course it depends what trigger event(s) the PL are relying upon . Many have inferred it relates to the stuff associated with the Der Spiegel articles but that is a conclusion that is not assisted by the lack of meaningful particulars (or evidence) in the public domain relating to the charges.

So based on the current position about lack of particulars it’s pretty much impossible to evaluate when the limitation period begins and ends - and given the reasonable diligence arm of section 32 (notably distinguished from ‘all due diligence’) then there may be further arguments around limitation relating to that, possibly depending on what period the particular charge(s) relates to.

Thanks, and in fairness, I only really am discussing my understanding of the logic of it, rather than specifics and predictions of what will happen here. I.e arguing one or the other makes more sense doesn't mean I expect it to be the case. River's post is at odds with all of the above though, at least with how it is worded, and (to me) seems to change the whole concept.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Thanks, and in fairness, I only really am discussing my understanding of the logic of it, rather than specifics and predictions of what will happen here. I.e arguing one or the other makes more sense doesn't mean I expect it to be the case. River's post is at odds with all of the above though, at least with how it is worded, and (to me) seems to change the whole concept.

I think it’s perfectly plausible that the publishing of the Der Spiegel articles marks the commencement of the limitation period, as that could denote the ‘discovery’ but that is based on supposition around the charges. It’s also perfectly plausible (although much less likely) that there could be another event, although I’m struggling to think what.

This debate is basically rendered moot because of the way that the PL have (consciously) elected to conduct this process, which has been fully exploited by the media who love to talk in broad brush terms about the 115 charges but are unable to properly particularise to what they actually relate.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I suggest that there will be no punishment for City, no relegation, no points deduction, the PL will find MCFC as clean as any Danny Tiatto tackle, but will award each of the other nineteen teams a bonus of 115 points just to feel that they are on the safe side.

 

[Coatigan]

I think it’s perfectly plausible that the publishing of the Der Spiegel articles marks the commencement of the limitation period, as that could denote the ‘discovery’ but that is based on supposition around the charges. It’s also perfectly plausible (although much less likely) that there could be another event, although I’m struggling to think what.

This debate is basically rendered moot because of the way that the PL have (consciously) elected to conduct this process, which has been fully exploited by the media who love to talk in broad brush terms about the 115 charges but are unable to properly particularise to what they actually relate.

Agree with all that. But that was not my point. I'll try again.

River's post said 'It’s possible that that date started the clock for PL to bring a claim on those matters and that then gave the PL 6 years which they were within'.

Which changes the whole concept.
I.e you and I are assuming a statute of limitations period 'back the way'. From any one of those points. So only 6 years can be investigated up to whichever point is taken as the start.

The way his reads, is that the PL have 6 years to investigate, from the point of 'discovery'. But in effect there is no actual limitation on the period that can be investigated. The implication is quite different, and if true, in many ways any statute of limitations in law is completely irrelevant to this case.

 

[Chris in London]

Agree with all that. But that was not my point. I'll try again.

River's post said 'It’s possible that that date started the clock for PL to bring a claim on those matters and that then gave the PL 6 years which they were within'.

Which changes the whole concept.
I.e you and I are assuming a statute of limitations period 'back the way'. From any one of those points. So only 6 years can be investigated up to whichever point is taken as the start.

The way his reads, is that the PL have 6 years to investigate, from the point of 'discovery'. But in effect there is no actual limitation on the period that can be investigated. The implication is quite different, and if true, in many ways any statute of limitations in law is completely irrelevant to this case.

Each charge has its own limitation period. The charges about one thing might be time barred but the charges about another might not.

 

[Coatigan]

Each charge has its own limitation period. The charges about one thing might be time barred but the charges about another might not.

But what is it that is 'limited'? The time something can be investigated prior to the charge, or the time it takes to investigate from discovery?

I had always taken it as the first. River's post, as I read it, says the second.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Agree with all that. But that was not my point. I'll try again.

River's post said 'It’s possible that that date started the clock for PL to bring a claim on those matters and that then gave the PL 6 years which they were within'.

Which changes the whole concept.
I.e you and I are assuming a statute of limitations period 'back the way'. From any one of those points. So only 6 years can be investigated up to whichever point is taken as the start.

The way his reads, is that the PL have 6 years to investigate, from the point of 'discovery'. But in effect there is no actual limitation on the period that can be investigated. The implication is quite different, and if true, in many ways any statute of limitations in law is completely irrelevant to this case.

Firstly limitation is nothing to do with the investigation process it’s a function of when the claim is issued (or such equivalent in these proceedings).

I can’t speak for other posters but the way I read that post is that the publication of the Der Spiegel marked the commencement of the limitation period (as that appears to be the date of discovery) and thereby the charges were brought within six years of that date and are therefore within the prescribed limitation period for fraud.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Each charge has its own limitation period. The charges about one thing might be time barred but the charges about another might not.

I am thinking the question is, if the period starts in 2018 and the club is charged before 2024, then everything is open to judgment. But does that mean they can go back to the club's 1962 accounts, for example, if the press find something to investigate?

Not at all thinking about a club up the road and what they got up to when Ferguson was there ....

 

[Coatigan]

Firstly limitation is nothing to do with the investigation process it’s a function of when the claim is issued (or such equivalent in these proceedings).

I can’t speak for other posters but the way I read that post is that the publication of the Der Spiegel marked the commencement of the limitation period (as that appears to be the date of discovery) and thereby the charges were brought within six years of that date and are therefore within the prescribed limitation period for fraud.

In which case, myself and probably 90% of this thread have been misunderstanding it all along. But thanks for clarifying.

Basically, I think most here have been taking the limitation to be a 'time barring' similar to the uefa case. Rather than just a procedural prescription.

The meaningdul effect is, the PL can indeed look as far back as they see fit for any of the charges.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In which case, myself and probably 90% of this thread have been misunderstanding it all along. But thanks for clarifying.

Basically, I think most here have been taking the limitation to be a 'time barring' similar to the uefa case. Rather than just a procedural prescription.

The meaningdul effect is, the PL can kndeed look as far back as they see fit for any of the charges.

IF the contract breach was deliberately concealed, I think.