Unfortunately, the linked article is behind a paywall.
So it’s ok to sell hotels to related parties for tens of millions but it’s suspicious if related parties sponsor a club. The PL look & sound more disorganised & unprofessional each day.
Unfortunately, the linked article is behind a paywall.
Except that is simply untrue. Not how limitation works at all.I disagree. All the premier league needs to get around the 6 years limitation period is a new email or document saying something strange about the contracts they they didnt know about before. They might have that since they have pretty much all our documents. That will give the PL the door to try and prove whatever they are suggesting but proving it to a high bar might not be possible for them anyway. I've got little hope of anything being time barred for this case apart from the Fordham stuff.
Also not correct.They haven't admitted the offshore payments that is a separate matter. They've admitted another accounting error but what that is no-one knows.
It is a nonsense quoteThis is a quote from the “legal expert” referred to in the Ziegler article in today’s Times.
“Manchester City will have hope that the Leicester case shows an independent panel looking at the Premier League rules in forensic detail rather than doing what is expedient.”
Not sure where to start but on what legitimate basis could a so called independent panel do “what is expedient” rather than decide the issue on the basis of the evidence in detail.
It suggests that the EPL consider the panel is there to do its bidding and explains the surprise and disappointment expressed in their statement following the Leicester appeal verdict.
As others have said the governance of the EPL looks more and more flawed.
This would be far more apposite:It is a nonsense quote
“Manchester City willhavehope that theLeicester case shows anindependent panel lookingat the Premier League rules in forensic detailrather than doing what is expedient.”
If they find an email or document suggesting we've co cered something up or paid something we shouldn't have doneOn what grounds will the PL be able to remove the limitation on the Mancini issue?
Yeah similar but differentI recall reading a while ago that Stefan seemed to think that whatever they’ve admitted to is similar to some of the things that we’re alleged to have done so they could be in deep shit even before the offshore payments are considered.
It's exactly how it is written I'm afraid. The law is pretty clear in it's wordingsExcept that is simply untrue. Not how limitation works at all.