PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Oldham Exile said:
Have to say - despite the totally biased commentator trying desperately to steer things - that is the most balanced TV piece I have seen on this

So ahead of its time as well as I assume it was before CAS
Click to expand...
Not quite, as he plainly talks in terms that we are ‘guilty, but so what?’. That’s a position that some more sane opposition fans expect me to take when they raise the subject with me (and it is a widely held view on here) namely that the rules were created to stop us, and so it’s fair game that we try to get round them - however I respond to that there is no meaningful evidence to support that contention and so it’s mere speculation, and if we are in the realms of speculation my guess is that we are likely to be innocent of what we have been charged, save for the non-cooperation.

I’m not saying what Souness said was wrong around the backstory to the rules, but he’s made an assumption that isn’t supported by publicly available probative evidence, so I don’t think you could objectively describe what he said as unequivocally balanced.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
I think the key bit is the PL have 6 years from the date of any evidence coming to light to prove we've done something wrong. So we either have to prove they knew about (probably did) or prove we did nothing out of the ordinary in the first place (probably did this as well). I expect the PL to try and show they only found out about it in the last few years then rely on some emails as evidence. The Fordham situation is a hell of a lot clearer as this was known to the PL/UEFA/Media and literally everyone, so this will be time barred no matter what in my opinion. The Mancini and player stuff from 15 years ago I'm not sure about.
Click to expand...
My comments were in relation to the CAS case where the limitation was implied by a UEFA rule, however the start point to measure that limitation period was not clear. It doesn't bring any significance to the PL case which is implied by UK statutes of limitation.

Your response while correct in parts seemed a little muddled. For clarity
Limitation periods start from the date of the cause of action, the first date at which a claim might be able to be made and usually the date at which there is some evidence of wrongdoing or when that evidence came to light.

It may be that each party will again argue the date from which this period is measured backwards in time and a possibilty that different charges in the list of allegations have different start dates. I'd probably like clarity on that from our more learned friends, it's quite possible there may be precedent case law that definitively states when, in such arbitration cases, the limitation starts from.

If we were to use the date we were charged by the PL 06.02.2023 on the face that statute will import limitations on anything prior up to 05.02.2017.

There are of course exemptions to this, one being "deliberate concealment"(fraud). Which on the face of things the PL must prove to the required standard if the IC is to consider the older allegations.

Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 states that “any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the Defendant” the 6 year period for bringing a claim does not start until the Claimant has discovered the concealment, or could have done so with reasonable diligence.

The term “deliberate” means that the fact has been concealed by a positive act of concealment or omission or withholding of relevant information. This means the Defendant must have known that he acted in breach of duty before he can be accused of deliberate concealment. This is a difficult hurdle to overcome. I suspect City will argue this point unreservedly. I cannot see where the PL can possibly satisfy this requirement in respect of Mancini or Fordham and even if they could, the Leicester finding now put the contemporaneous rules as read as a determining factor, which makes the Mancini allegations moot as no such rules, as made out in the allegations, regarding contractual disclosure, were in place.
 
Paladin said:
There are three bars to limitation. Concealment, fraud and mistake. Regardless, I agree that the Mancini payments would be time barred, unless they can be proven to be part of an even bigger act of fraud.
Click to expand...

You are right, of course. I should have been clearer. However, the point stands: if the club didn't do anything against the rules there could be no deliberate concealment, no fraud and no covering up of a mistake. So, as you say, the Mancini matter will likely be time limited.
 
Oldham Exile said:
Have to say - despite the totally biased commentator trying desperately to steer things - that is the most balanced TV piece I have seen on this

So ahead of its time as well as I assume it was before CAS
Click to expand...
ive since see Sourness saying were guilty not because theres evidence to prove it just the number of charges proves it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.