Let me try.
(Again.)
The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. One of the terms of that contract is that any disputes will be referred to an independent panel for determination. One of the other provisions is that we will provide accurate accounts.
The claim against City is that we have breached this contract. The way in which we are said to have breached it is serious, and is an allegation of criminal conduct. But the forum in which this dispute will be resolved is that provided for in the contract, and the contract is expressly subject to English law.
This has certain consequence.
One is that English law applies to questions of limitation. Note that an allegation of criminality does not change the limitation period, because, to repeat, the dispute between City and the PL is at its heart a claim of breach of contract. So the rules that say serious charges (like murder or fraud) have no limitation period is inapplicable because this is a civil case (albeit one that includes allegations of fraud.) To put the same point another way, the allegation of criminality does not lift this dispute out of the realms of civil claims.
So, as Petrushka has (repeatedly) argued (correctly) the general 6 year limitation period applies, with the proviso that the fraudulent concealment of the breach would mean that the six year period would only begin once the fraud is discovered.
Maybe this particular groundhog can now be laid to rest.
We would probably be well served to do a big FAQ page with answers checked over by the legally qualified posters.
Then everyone who isn’t a lawyer can refer back to it as and when necessary.
Maybe even a few of the lurking journalists could use it before they publish their next story on the case…