I'm back home now so can have a look at this shit in more detail but my understanding is that just because there isn't an explicit limitation, doesn't mean one can't be applied in law. The accepted limit in English law is six years so a court could potentially apply that in this case. That would possibly disqualify anything that happened prior to February 2017 therefore.
In the CAS case, I seem to remember that they looked at the whole of the latest financial year within that six year period, so that would include anything in and after the 2016/17 financial year.
We know who's pulling the PL's strings here. My suspicion about this case has always been that the PL want to escape with their honour satisfied without rocking the boat any more than necessary. That was the case with UEFA, who offered us a soft settlement which we refused.
Ao if this 'independent commission' were to say that all the events were time-barred, then the PL can say they tried and loads of mud sticks without any actual examination of the charges and evidence for and against. We would be forever tainted and that would probably suit our US-owned rivals even more than a six or seven figure fine.
With UEFA, we knew what the charges related to, courtesy of Der Spiegel, and it was easy to see how ridiculous they were. I said at the time that those emails were very selective and very much 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink'', casting aspersions without any real evidence. CAS comprehensively confirmed that view of course.
It's hard to say in this case as the charges seem quite extensive and appear to relate to matters not in the public domain. It could be we have done significant things wrong or it could be that they've picked up little things that are open to interpretation. It could be the difference between the equivalent of a major, deliberate attempt to defraud VAT and a simple misunderstanding about a VAT calculation on mileage claims. We'll find out in time I guess.
Not sure if it's already been pointed out but, unlike UEFA and CAS, there is no arbitration in the PL rules. So this could easily end up in court. We could yet see Pannick in the courts of London again.
The other thing that struck me was that this seems to be a replay of the events of 1904-1906, when the FA were determined to find something wrong at the nouveau riche, upstart club that had upset the Football League aristocracy like Aston Villa by nearly winning a League and FA Cup double in 1904, just ten years into its existence.
Billy Meredith spilled the beans on illegal payments to players and we got absolutely hammered, while other clubs doing exactly the same thing (i.e. pretty well all of them) were unaffected. I'm sure if the PL spent four years going through Liverpool's, united's Arsenal's and particularly Chelsea's books, they'd find something they didn't like. But we know they won't turn that stone over to see what crawls out.
theathletic.com