PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

So, limitation :)

This is the situation I think:

Breach of contract has a six year limitation period. The club was charged in 2023, so anything before 2017 would normally be time-barred.

However, if essential facts were deliberately concealed from the PL, then the 6 year period starts from the date of discovery, which was 2018. We were charged in 2023, so if the panel considers there was deliberate concealment, everything is "on the table".

My question then is how to determine deliberate concealment?

Presumably they would have to come to the conclusion first that there was an actual breach for all breaches prior to 2017 (you can't deliberately hide something if you didn't do it)? So they will have to come to a conclusion on all the pre-2017 charges first before they can determine which, if any, are time-barred? As opposed to CAS, where they could consider time-barring first without considering the merits.

No wonder it will take four years ....

Does that make any sense?
 
halfcenturyup said:
My question then is how to determine deliberate concealment?

Presumably they would have to come to the conclusion first that there was an actual breach for all breaches prior to 2017 (you can't deliberately hide something if you didn't do it)? So they will have to come to a conclusion on all the pre-2017 charges first before they can determine which, if any, are time-barred? As opposed to CAS, where they could consider time-barring first without considering the merits.

No wonder it will take four years ....

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
it is unlikely that there will be a prescribed order that the tribunal would have to determine matters in. They could determine the limitation point at the outset or as part of the overall decision. I expect that will be up to the panel. If it was the former, the tribunal would also need to be satisfied that there was a case to answer which itself could be determined at an early stage following an application from the club (or if its own volition) assuming that hasn’t already been determined.

As to the determination of deliberate concealment, if the tribunal found the accounts were false then it must follow from that (given the size of the organisation and involvement of auditors) that concealment/fraud was intrinsic to that process. It’s difficult to see how it could not be. If it doesn’t find that then (on the face of it) the allegation(s) fall away in any event and the limitation point is rendered moot.

Under the circumstances of the former what would still need to be determined was when discovery occurred, and as I said previously it’s hard to see how it could be any later than the Der Spiegel articles. It would be preposterous for the PL to argue otherwise in the circumstances. That assumes that these allegations are associated with those articles, as we are currently assuming they are, but can’t be sure about given the foregoing public absence of meaningful particulars.

A lot of this is guesswork and supposition, which shows the process up to be utterly flawed, especially given the profile of the claim and the public interest in it. They’ve accused the club of fraud without providing any meaningful context to that, which has fuelled the feeding frenzy in the media and allowed speculation and innuendo to flourish - which was probably the intent.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
So, limitation :)

This is the situation I think:

Breach of contract has a six year limitation period. The club was charged in 2023, so anything before 2017 would normally be time-barred.

However, if essential facts were deliberately concealed from the PL, then the 6 year period starts from the date of discovery, which was 2018. We were charged in 2023, so if the panel considers there was deliberate concealment, everything is "on the table".

My question then is how to determine deliberate concealment?

Presumably they would have to come to the conclusion first that there was an actual breach for all breaches prior to 2017 (you can't deliberately hide something if you didn't do it)? So they will have to come to a conclusion on all the pre-2017 charges first before they can determine which, if any, are time-barred? As opposed to CAS, where they could consider time-barring first without considering the merits.

No wonder it will take four years ....

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from, out of interest?
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Recently united were fined due to ffp. Can anyone here tell me how that compares to Evertons fine and crime? Are they vastly different and fair?
Click to expand...
From what I recall the Rags committed a minor technical breach, or something like that. I don't recall any specifics on what the breach was or the amounts involved. So nothing to see, everything is fine. We can trust that the authorities dealt with it fairly can't we?
 
halfcenturyup said:
So, limitation :)

This is the situation I think:

Breach of contract has a six year limitation period. The club was charged in 2023, so anything before 2017 would normally be time-barred.

However, if essential facts were deliberately concealed from the PL, then the 6 year period starts from the date of discovery, which was 2018. We were charged in 2023, so if the panel considers there was deliberate concealment, everything is "on the table".

My question then is how to determine deliberate concealment?

Presumably they would have to come to the conclusion first that there was an actual breach for all breaches prior to 2017 (you can't deliberately hide something if you didn't do it)? So they will have to come to a conclusion on all the pre-2017 charges first before they can determine which, if any, are time-barred? As opposed to CAS, where they could consider time-barring first without considering the merits.

No wonder it will take four years ....

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
My question was, what cogency of evidence is required to establish any such alleged fraud or concealment and what burden of proof must that evidence satisfy?

Of course the case is civil requiring evidence to satisfy the "on the balance of probability" burden however any alleged "concealment" is essentially "fraud", a criminal offence term, which, under normal circumstances, as made out in the Fraud Act 2006, requires a high level of evidence to establish the mens rea element of "knowingly" to "beyond reasonable doubt" level when making false statements (representations).

Fraud Act 2006 S.2

S.2 Fraud by false representation​

2)2(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

The difficulty lies in that "concealment" suggests fraud by omission or failure to disclose however there must be a "legal" duty to disclose the information which I'm not sure there is for the adherence to PL rules.

Fraud Act 2006 S.3​

S.3 Fraud by failing to disclose information​

3(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and....

#projectriver
I think im correct in these assumptions re proof of fraud however im sure our legal professionals would put me firmly in place if not.

Just to give a sense to the complexity and sometimes strange world of legal application. I was once part of a team trying a case at Crown Court Minshull Street. The case was quite complicated and involved serious mis-statements and omissions with regard to the sale of goods and services. There were clearly elements of fraud at play however discussions in Chambers with counsel for endless hours regarding available evidence through statements and documents etc and counsel was adamant we had insufficient evidence to prove the "knowing" element for any allegation of fraud. This meant the final indictment contained several charges in relation to consumer legislation only. (Max 2 years prison for each).

First day in court the Judge informed all parties he had reviewed the case and it was clearly a case of fraud as he interpreted it and he was changing the indictment to reflect this to contain offences under the Fraud Act 2006.

We all thought well that's kiboshed our case as we can't prove those charges to the required standard. However to cut a long story short the jury found the person guilty.

It was clear our counsel thought that judgement was somewhat lucky in that opposition counsel failed to recognise the weakness in our evidence against those changed charges on the indictment. Never to be stated verbally in the presence of mere mortals of course, just heavily inferred informally over coffee.
 
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.