With regard to the 4 years and taking so long part I in no way take that as the PL having spent ages getting together a thorough case. Imo up until the June 21 hearing result the PL probably had very little information at all and maybe just the der speigel stuff. The case notes from then indicate their had been little progress at that point.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.
My point is though that fraud is criminal and only the courts can decide if criminal activity has taken place.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?
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.
My point is though that fraud is criminal and only the courts can decide if criminal activity has taken place.
Of course, the best QCs can pick and choose. And they don't like to lose, I imagine. I am imagining a QC online forum with threads like our post-match threads when we lose :)
My point is though that fraud is criminal and only the courts can decide if criminal activity has taken place.
True but doesn't it have to be criminal activity to void the time bar?Nope. Civil fraud is definitely a Thing.
QCs like most people are human and they have a price, nobody likes to lose but its amazing what people will do and what reasoning they will give depending on the money, look at casemiro multiple cl and league winner at real madrid but like the project at the rags and it had nothing at all to do with them tripling his wages, principles are cute but are generally determined by how much money you have or how much money you dont.It seems to me another common fallacy on here is that QCs won't take on cases they may lose because it damages their reputation. On the contrary, I think reputations are made by how well they present their case, especially high profile cases, not by whether they win or not.
Of course, the best QCs can pick and choose. And they don't like to lose, I imagine. I am imagining a QC online forum with threads like our post-match threads when we lose :)
Nope.
Cab rank rule.
If only there were a FAQs thread…