PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[terraloon]

The allegations already include breaching FFP over a number of assessment periods. My guess is they have adjusted earnings before tax for the effects of each of the alleged breaches and made the allegations on that basis.

Personally, I think the only matter that would push the club into a breach is the alleged disguised equity funding in the Etihad sponsorship, but they don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of proving that, imo.

Based on what was put to UEFA it will be extremely difficult to see how any IC will rule differently and yes we all know how inept the PL are but other than them having more details etc you would imagine on this aspect their won’t be any different outcome

 

[halfcenturyup]

It has no choice but to take into account the limitation act as the tribunal has to operate in accord with English law. My point wasn’t that at all it was what are the exceptions to dealing with time barred
The UEFA rules I believe simply don’t allow them to even be considered wheras the Limitation Act has exceptions

Yes, your point was right but I was replying to someone who suggested the IC wouldn't even consider limitation.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The written agreement between the clubs and the PL will unquestionably have a boilerplate clause stating that the contract is subject to (and therefore enforceable by) the laws of England and Wales.

The Limitation Act 1980 provides that the limitation period (or statute of limitation, as you called it) for a claim for breach of contract (which is what these charges ultimately are) is six years from the date of the breach, unless it is a fraudulent breach, in which case the limitation period commences on the date of discovery of the (fraudulent) breach (or with reasonable diligence, when it would have been discovered).

That boilerplate clause, and the statutory operation of law within this jurisdiction, mean that the foregoing limitation periods cannot be avoided or opted out of within the PL rules.

The limitation periods are therefore a term of the contract (and thereby the PL rules) as much as any other. In fact, arguably more so - as they supervene all other terms therein, irrespective of any prima facie breach thereof.

So there is a time bar for the enforcement of the PL rules contained within the material contract. If the panel ignores that limitation period, then you are correct that the club would need to remedy that through the High Court, but it would be on the basis that the PL had not applied the contact correctly, as a matter of law, not simply because of some extraneous legal doctrine.

Thank God. I thought I was going crazy.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

So who's right. Or which is right, I'm not bothered who is right.

 

[halfcenturyup]

So who's right. Or which is right, I'm not bothered who is right.

Yes.

 

[Paladin]

So who's right. Or which is right, I'm not bothered who is right.

The balance is in favour of limitation of six years from the date charges were brought. Limitation might not apply if the PL successfully prove fraud or concealment, but this isn't thought to be likely.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The balance is in favour of limitation of six years from the date charges were brought. Limitation might not apply if the PL successfully prove fraud or concealment, but this isn't thought to be likely.

CAS applied the principle that the 5 years applied to the date that the case was passed to the Adjudicatory Chamber, which is the date the investigation finished and that the Investigatory Chamber had decided there was a case to answer. They then set that date as Feb 14th 2014, meaning any transactions from the 2013/14 financial year onwards should be in scrutiny.

Applying the same principle to the PL charges, but with a 6 year limitation, implies that the charges were brought on Feb 6th 2023, when the case was passed to the Independent commission, therefore anything in and after the 2016/17 financial year will be in scope, with anything in 2015/16 or earlier time-barred.

That means:

• Etihad may be in scope, but the controversial parts of the Etisalat sponsorship (where ADUG laid out the money prior to being reimbursed) is unlikely to be.
• Mancini will definitely be out of scope.
• Fordham will probably be out of scope (as I think that effectively ended in 2015 and had definitely ended by 2017).

 

[KS55]

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.

A long time ago for me, but iirc, it is verboten by the Arbitration Act to hear an item which is time barred.

 

[give it to gordon]

I'm really confused now with this an owner can buy his own hotel and that's OK but a company can't loan money to another company which than pays off the money owed to the company it owes money to. Than the company that borrowed the money pays back the loan. All companies are happy, happy days.

But this is wrong ! But buying your own hotel to get round ffp is fine

 

[blue b4 the moon]

CAS applied the principle that the 5 years applied to the date that the case was passed to the Adjudicatory Chamber, which is the date the investigation finished and that the Investigatory Chamber had decided there was a case to answer. They then set that date as Feb 14th 2014, meaning any transactions from the 2013/14 financial year onwards should be in scrutiny.

Applying the same principle to the PL charges, but with a 6 year limitation, implies that the charges were brought on Feb 6th 2023, when the case was passed to the Independent commission, therefore anything in and after the 2016/17 financial year will be in scope, with anything in 2015/16 or earlier time-barred.

That means:

• Etihad may be in scope, but the controversial parts of the Etisalat sponsorship (where ADUG laid out the money prior to being reimbursed) is unlikely to be.
• Mancini will definitely be out of scope.
• Fordham will probably be out of scope (as I think that effectively ended in 2015 and had definitely ended by 2017).

The Fordham one is the bit that worries me a little.

We've just read Cheslea being 'cute' as the kids say with a loophole, we'll not be deemed 'cute'in the media and I do hope we've only bent a rule with this.

I think the Bobby thing (nothing to suggest he's even been spoken to) and Etihad (dealt with via UEFA in the main and lost by them) are just padding , hopefully.