PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s B but they are limited to how far back they can look based on discovery (or discovery by reasonable diligence).

And it’s not the ‘statute of limitation‘ which is an American term. It’s limitation period.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can really have a go at me for using terms used and quoted in this thread. But I accept it is likely a general point for all.

If it is B, then what limits how far back they can go?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Mancini "breach" was in 2011 (I think) so normally that would be the "event" and so the PL would have to charge before 2017 = time barred. If the club "concealed" the event, though, then the six years run from "discovery", so from 2018 to 2024 = not time barred.

The answer to your question about any limit in the length of time between event and discovery: I have no idea. :)
Click to expand...

Only if you equate the limitation period (there you go GAM) to a time barring 'back the way'. Which in fairness I took it to be too, until today. If the limitation is forward, on the investigation time rather than on what can be investigated, as PR amd GAM are arguing, then it is irrelevant. Unless there is another time barring term that applies, but so far not one person has ever mentioned that. The only thing talked about has been this 'statute of limitations' and whatever it means to different people.
 
Last edited:
Centurions said:
I'm awfully tempted to put @ayrshire_blue (the OP) on ignore just so I don't see this thread constantly being bumped by the same people asking the same damned questions over and over ヽ(ಠ_ಠ)ノ
Click to expand...

I haven't been on this thread in ages, and it is not a question I have ever seen someone else ask. I am asking it a number if times today though, as there are conflicting things being claimed, or not fully. Calm down will you, lots of threads get bumped, there is no need to click them all.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Chill. I’m not having a go ffs! :-)

They are limited to when the thing that was charged was discovered.
Click to expand...

Get the first line, cheers.

The second, says/means nothing. Not without then making the 'limitation period' A rather than B in the earlier example.
 
Coatigan said:
In which case domalino's point is right, Der Spiegel articles 'could' be argued as the start of the limitation. As could the start of the PL investigation. But the one thing that doesn't make sense is it being 6 years for them to carry out their investigation, with no limitations of what is actually being investigated.

Unless I have completely misunderstood the act. Or river's post.
Click to expand...
Ffs... I'm losing the will to live, not with your post mate. All this guesswork and supposition shit is too much.
 
ZanteWeatherman said:
Ffs... I'm losing the will to live, not with your post mate. All this guesswork and supposition shit is too much.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, people arguing terms they, in the majority, don't understand.

For thousands of pages, people have been arguing back and forth whether charges before say 2012 can be brought up, based on whether there is or isn't a 'statute of limitations/limitations period', when it might start, if it applies under UK law, or is removed if there is fraud (and whether the allegations include fraud) etc.

All based on the assumption the 'limitation' is in effect a time barring back the way.

Only for someone to claim (and be backed by one more) that the limitation actually means the time the PL have to investigate, from discovery, going forwards.

Which completely changes the whole premise.

I don't think pointing this out is unfair.

I have not engaged in guesses or predictions, just tried to expand my own understanding for when it comes to the final part of it all.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Section 32 speaks of discovery by ‘the plaintiff’ in this case the PL, so discovery by a third party is extraneous to that, unless the discovery by the third party could also have been achieved earlier by the plaintiff using reasonable diligence.

I think it is the Der Spiegel articles, most likely, which means we would appear to have no case to answer.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying mate. Would be funny if it turns out that Pinto approached the PL with the e-mails - and they did nothing about them - before he went to Der Spiegel!
 
I don’t understand all the fuss about the back and forth discussion in the thread. Is that not the whole point?

If you want facts and facts only. Don’t come in here, instead read the official premier league charges and city’s official response. Any news on this topic will hit the media first.

If this thread is anything to go by, it gives you a glimpse as to why the actual case will take years. The back and forth arguing on key terms and their implications will be long and arduous.

I am just waiting patiently for the case to collapse in a heap of red shit.
 
From the 'toontastic' transfer forum...

"Hopefully Man City's FFP is settled out of court sooner rather than later and allows us to blow a massive hole in the FFP rules"

They also seem reasonably keen on trying to sign Kalvin...
 
Coatigan said:
I haven't been on this thread in ages, and it is not a question I have ever seen someone else ask. I am asking it a number if times today though, as there are conflicting things being claimed, or not fully. Calm down will you, lots of threads get bumped, there is no need to click them all.
Click to expand...
Where the fuck did I quote or mention you? You seem determined to find something personally insulting today for some unknown reason.
 
Centurions said:
Where the fuck did I quote or mention you? You seem determined to find something personally insulting today for some unknown reason.
Click to expand...

Probably a projection my overwhelming guilt at hijacking 2 or so pages with multiple posts about one item. And the timing of a post claiming something of the sort immediately after.
 
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