PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[dadnlad]

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

ive since see Sourness saying were guilty not because theres evidence to prove it just the number of charges proves it

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I'm surprised that we can't accept the principle that the rules mean exactly what the red cartel want them to mean, whatever the words say.

 

[KS55]

I'm surprised that we can't accept the principle that the rules mean exactly what the red cartel want them to mean, whatever the words say.

Disappointing, isn’t it?

 

[BerkshireBlue]

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.

which is pretty much what I wrote except you've got the dates and working of it wrong. It's nothing to do with the charge date you need to forget about this. Its the date the evidence appeared to them that matters. So say I concealed some money away from my accounts in 1980 but evidence came to light that I did this in 2020 then they have 6 years from 2020 to charge me with something. So it's a forward facing statue of limitations not a backwards looking one. This is why the media mention there is no time barring in the PL's case and they are right in certain aspects. The deliberate term is what the whole PL case is based on as they're trying to say we cooked the books with player and manager external contracts. The PL have to prove that and also prove they knew nothing about it before 6 years of the charge. Fordham is separate, something they already knew about when it first appeared and since 6 years have passed since they found out about it it will be time barred.

 

[Stoned Rose]

And her being tubbed or is that just me!

Tubbed?

 

[oakiecokie]

Bring on the day when the PL will face its very own version of NFFP charges - NOT Fit for Purpose.

Amended as currently its ,,,

 

[oakiecokie]

Who is this sperm collector you speak of?

Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa not heard that before but I`m nicking it Kippax. Wonderful.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Stefan..”A lot will depend on the quality of the Independent commission” when talking about 115.

 

[waspish]

Premier have given the ok on Chelsea hotels sales

 

[Damanino]

In the meanwhile PL fully cleared the Chelsea hotel sales, 76m pounds will count toward their PSR numbers, without that they certainly fail the 105m limit. its all above board and passed fair market test.