PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

They may not use the word fraud,but that is what the allegations imply,however you wish to dress it up.
Bar the non compliance allegation, which of the allegations will not be considered a fraudulent action by the club if they are found to be true ?

You missed the point. Read it again.

 

[ganganvince]

So I am ignoring your first response as it completely missed the point, other than to say:

Research for yourself the requirement to report fraud rather than ask me to justify it. I freely admit I may be wrong about anything, but you think I am wrong, show me why.

Imho, the SFO isn't going to get involved if there is an ongoing civil case which will determine if there has been a fraud or not. Why would they? They can wait until it's finished, review the evidence presented in the report and then decide whether or not to proceed on the basis of a higher level of proof. I doubt they have the time or resources just to open cases based on what is in the press.

And now your second response.

They haven't "chickened" out of using the word fraud. There is no need to. They have followed their procedure and simply referred to the IC a list of rules they allege have been breached.

And the reason it's taking so long? Every legal person in here said it would take 2, 3, 4 years and that is what is happening. Simply put, the PL has brought forward a complicated case.

Also, I never said I thought the PL themselves think they will prove these allegations. My hypothesis is that the club put them in a position where they had to shit or get off the can. And they chose to shit.

This is the bit I can't get my head round if it isn't fraud a good lump of the allegations (not charges) fall on a time bar so surely fraud has to be proved before their case can continue?

 

[GaudinoMotors]

The majority are pinning there hopes on time barred evidence being fraudulent which is just hilarious

Curb your hilarity. Maybe a v small number were were under that misconception once. Nobody is now.
And imo it will be irrelevant anyway.

 

[Chris in London]

you are a legal man - are you telling me that PL would have proceeded the way they have even if they were advised their case wasn’t strong enough ?

Four years to build a case and they went ahead even if advised what they have is not strong enough ?

No, I am telling you that they may have done. it depends on what is motivating them.

It is not unprecedented for a claim to be zealously pursued (or defended) even though the prospects of success are not great.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Actually, if the SFO or others discovered a fraud that the PL clearly knew about but did nothing, the PL would get a public kicking. To protect themselves they should always report a suspected fraud irrespective of the legal duty.

Possibly, but the PL aren't at the stage where they can determine that a fraud has effectively taken place because they haven't been presented with the irrefutable evidence yet. The time to officially report it would be at the end of the process, surely? Or would you have expected the PL to have reported it already? You have a better background in this than I do, I think. Interested in your opinion.

 

[johnny crossan]

Curb your hilarity. Maybe a v small number were were under that misconception once. Nobody is now.
And imo it will be irrelevant anyway.

Cheer up mate.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This is the bit I can't get my head round if it isn't fraud a good lump of the allegations (not charges) fall on a time bar so surely fraud has to be proved before their case can continue?

I never got an understandable answer on that either. It's a bit horse and cart. Time barred if not fraud, so have to look at fraud to check if you have to look at it. I think, and @Chris in London is good at blasting me if I am wrong, that the PL will have to show the club deliberately concealed the events in order for the limitation to start in 2018 and make them active. So maybe a quick review to check each allegation on that basis before looking in detail?

 

[Chris in London]

You missed the point. Read it again.

If only there were a FAQs thread…

 

[mancboy]

No, I am telling you that they may have done. it depends on what is motivating them.

It is not unprecedented for a claim to be zealously pursued (or defended) even though the prospects of success are not great.

Not only is it not unprecedented, it is not even uncommon for regulators to pursue spurious cases, solicitors, qc's etc dont make a fortune by only taking on slam dunk cases.

 

[KS55]

Possibly, but the PL aren't at the stage where they can determine that a fraud has effectively taken place because they haven't been presented with the irrefutable evidence yet. The time to officially report it would be at the end of the process, surely? Or would you have expected the PL to have reported it already? You have a better background in this than I do, I think. Interested in your opinion.

I was talking generally rather than our specific case. Despite the charges implying a fraud by City and others, I don’t think the PL has enough yet to conclude a fraud has taken place, so I don't think they should have alerted the authorities already. The issue is in the public realm and that is enough. The SFO etc will be looking to see what conclusion the panel reach but without any expectation of a criminal case developing.