PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gorton_Tubster]

But this is all ideological and the ticket revenue sharing point, whilst well thought out, won't make a material difference.

This brings us to the crux of the matter: it is almost impossible to design financial controls that aren't ultimately damaging to the vast majority of clubs, and very easy to implement measures that are!

The crux of the matter is trying the best to make it level. Nothing works fully but its better than NOT doing anything. Surely?

 

[Bluewonder]

The crux of the matter is trying the best to make it level. Nothing works fully but its better than NOT doing anything. Surely?

Well, the current set of regulations have almost unarguably made things worse?

 

[eyalluvitt]

Good luck with that first sentence. I’m sure he’s related to my extremely argumentative ex-wife…. ;0)

No woman’s leaving you, with that username

 

[Dribble]

Good luck with that first sentence. I’m sure he’s related to my extremely argumentative ex-wife…. ;0)

No woman’s leaving you, with that username

Ha ha ha! :-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Wrong again, it is true that there’s no time bar in the Premier League rules unlike UEFA’s. Thats a fact, I don’t care if you can’t stomach it.

Both are subject to the law of the land in which they’re enforced, like every single contract ever written which is why no one feels the needs to spell it out in every post.

That is what you’re pointing out, but that is something completely different. The panel won’t be making judgements on the statue of limitations, just as CAS would have allowed the earlier evidence into the case if it was looking at the PL’s rule book and the club would have to go to a high court after a verdict to appeal on the grounds of the statute of limitations.

You think the panel will be ignoring time limitation in its judgment and imposing penalties on all matters irrespective of the event dates, and then the club will have to appeal to the High Court to have the Limitation Act applied to the judgment?

 

[terraloon]

You think the panel will be ignoring time limitation in its judgment and imposing penalties on all matters irrespective of the event dates, and then the club will have to appeal to the High Court to have the Limitation Act applied to the judgment?

I had a bit of a dance with someone some months ago on this point.

My point was that if ultimately the IC rules that there was evidence to prove the charges then by definition that will have been because or either. : Fraud , Concealment or a Mistake by virtue of that the charges aren’t time barred.

If the charges aren’t proved then the argument is irrelevant

 

[Txiki Txiki Bang Bang]

No woman’s leaving you, with that username

If that's how it works then I'm changing my username to @MrDoubleFootLong

Also who says his ex was a woman?

 

[terraloon]

But with the overarching implication of breaching FFP/PSR.

Without sight of the PSR/ FFP submissions there may be an implication but would further charges follow ? I very much doubt it indeed in the Everton judgment the IC for me suggests that matters not on the charge sheet can’t be assessed and focusing on double jeopardy the PL couldn’t and shouldn’t return with further charges

 

[halfcenturyup]

I had a bit of a dance with someone some months ago on this point.

My point was that if ultimately the IC rules that there was evidence to prove the charges then by definition that will have been because or either. : Fraud , Concealment or a Mistake by virtue of that the charges aren’t time barred.

If the charges aren’t proved then the argument is irrelevant

It depends which allegations you are talking about, imho. And what the allegations actually are. Proving an allegation doesn't automatically mean "knowing concealment" (proving fraud presumably does). And I am not sure a mistake, or a difference in interpretation on an accounting matter, if you will, is either as, if you believed you were in the right, then there could be no "knowing concealment".

Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point is that I have never heard that a tribunal process, as described by @domalino , won't take into account the limitation periods of the Limitation Act in its judgment. I was asking, really, for his clarification on that and his reasoning. He may be right, the law is an ass, after all. But I very much doubt it.

 

[Centurions]

If that's how it works then I'm changing my username to @MrDoubleFootLong

Also who says his ex was a woman?

Or human?