PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Coatigan said:
Not if the statute of limitations is what you and project river say it is. Rather what I have said I had previously assumed it to be. I don't see how the two together are possible.

I am not being pedantic btw. It is a fundamental principle here that I fully admit to probably having misunderstood up until now. People have been discussing 'statutes of limitations' and possible start dates, without realising different people have been taking it to mean different things.

Either

A) the limitation works back the way, and limits what can be looked at for a specific length (6 years) from a point (e.g discovery or ability of discovery)

or B), the limitation is forward starting with the discovery, and limits how long the PL have to investigate to 6 years. But then it does not limit how far back they can look.

Which is what you and project river seem to be describing.
Click to expand...
It’s B but they are limited to how far back they can look based on discovery (or discovery by reasonable diligence).

And it’s not the ‘statute of limitation‘ which is an American term. It’s limitation period.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s B but they are limited to how far back they can look based on discovery (or discovery by reasonable diligence).

And it’s not the ‘statute of limitation‘ which is an American term. It’s limitation period.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can really have a go at me for using terms used and quoted in this thread. But I accept it is likely a general point for all.

If it is B, then what limits how far back they can go?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Mancini "breach" was in 2011 (I think) so normally that would be the "event" and so the PL would have to charge before 2017 = time barred. If the club "concealed" the event, though, then the six years run from "discovery", so from 2018 to 2024 = not time barred.

The answer to your question about any limit in the length of time between event and discovery: I have no idea. :)
Click to expand...

Only if you equate the limitation period (there you go GAM) to a time barring 'back the way'. Which in fairness I took it to be too, until today. If the limitation is forward, on the investigation time rather than on what can be investigated, as PR amd GAM are arguing, then it is irrelevant. Unless there is another time barring term that applies, but so far not one person has ever mentioned that. The only thing talked about has been this 'statute of limitations' and whatever it means to different people.
 
Last edited:
Centurions said:
I'm awfully tempted to put @ayrshire_blue (the OP) on ignore just so I don't see this thread constantly being bumped by the same people asking the same damned questions over and over ヽ(ಠ_ಠ)ノ
Click to expand...

I haven't been on this thread in ages, and it is not a question I have ever seen someone else ask. I am asking it a number if times today though, as there are conflicting things being claimed, or not fully. Calm down will you, lots of threads get bumped, there is no need to click them all.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Chill. I’m not having a go ffs! :-)

They are limited to when the thing that was charged was discovered.
Click to expand...

Get the first line, cheers.

The second, says/means nothing. Not without then making the 'limitation period' A rather than B in the earlier example.
 
Coatigan said:
In which case domalino's point is right, Der Spiegel articles 'could' be argued as the start of the limitation. As could the start of the PL investigation. But the one thing that doesn't make sense is it being 6 years for them to carry out their investigation, with no limitations of what is actually being investigated.

Unless I have completely misunderstood the act. Or river's post.
Click to expand...
Ffs... I'm losing the will to live, not with your post mate. All this guesswork and supposition shit is too much.
 
ZanteWeatherman said:
Ffs... I'm losing the will to live, not with your post mate. All this guesswork and supposition shit is too much.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, people arguing terms they, in the majority, don't understand.

For thousands of pages, people have been arguing back and forth whether charges before say 2012 can be brought up, based on whether there is or isn't a 'statute of limitations/limitations period', when it might start, if it applies under UK law, or is removed if there is fraud (and whether the allegations include fraud) etc.

All based on the assumption the 'limitation' is in effect a time barring back the way.

Only for someone to claim (and be backed by one more) that the limitation actually means the time the PL have to investigate, from discovery, going forwards.

Which completely changes the whole premise.

I don't think pointing this out is unfair.

I have not engaged in guesses or predictions, just tried to expand my own understanding for when it comes to the final part of it all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.