PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Mr Fraser]

Like I said in a earlier post, asked them why haven't they been relegated and say they was in the bottom 2, asked if any money was handed over in brown bags

Ask them about "The Arsenal" of Highbury previously know as Woolwich Arsenal of Woolwich, elected to the 1st Div early 1900s despite being 5th in 2nd Div

 

[slbsn]

There are two legal teams who have spent months debating the nuances. Despite Stefan's expertise it isn't the only view in town.

City hold one belief, others for a variety of reasons hold a different belief.
The point about the 6 year limitation was because some folks have just assumed their own 6 year starting point and deemed anything beyond the last years to be out of the equation. However that 6 year period is open to interpretation regarding the starting point.

At least one the legal teams involved will lose 50% or more of their arguments. Experts each.

Ok. I'll bite even though this is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

You are welcome to other views but you shouldn't portray them as founded on a legal understanding. You started with a point that I agreed with in generality - "Sports organisations have exemptions that allow them to have members agree on different rules that CAN conflict with statute" and an inference that the PL did this in its rules.

I replied that the key here is that the PL rules have not sought to put in place rules that conflict with statute in respect of the statute of limitations. In fact, the PL state expressly they are to be construed in accordance with English law (obviously save where there is an agreement to exclude certain clauses (eg in Rule X appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996 - you can't appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act (X.37)). So the starting point is English law which context dependent is the Limitation Act 1980 and the Arbitration Act 1996 with the relevant authorities sitting above those. It is all well trodden.

You then replied with various things including that "the 6 year limit for arbitration only applies to awards / judgments but does not apply to evidence." and "I think it's slightly wishful thinking to believe a time bar will prevail on most of the charges."

Both were not things I'd suggested and nor is the 6 year limit only applicable to awards or judgments (whatever that means).

I pointed out that I'd never suggested evidence was time barred - on the contrary, I have explained numerous times what a SoL means. In fact, I think one of the reasons the PL launched the case in Feb 2023 was because of this article https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ster-city-ffp-image-right-deals-a7621641.html and the fact that it could have meant the Fordham was time barred in March 2023 on any basis.

I can't find your re-reply (seems deleted or I'm blocked from seeing) with more false information about what English law even means (it means all of English law as relevant to the particular matter), something about the Arbitration Act and something else wrong about when a limitation applies. Hence my reply.

As to your further reply, I've no idea how it fits with your earlier points. Of course, 2 sides will debate whether matters are time barred or not - but the problem with this point is that it contradicts your other points that SoL doesn't apply to the PL rules.

You've also suggested that something about City doing what everyone else was doing and the case will turn on whether they can show every other club was doing it. This is also wrong.

 

[Damocles]

Ok. I'll bite even though this is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

You are welcome to other views but you shouldn't portray them as founded on a legal understanding. You started with a point that I agreed with in generality - "Sports organisations have exemptions that allow them to have members agree on different rules that CAN conflict with statute."

I replied that the key here is that the PL rules have not sought to put in place rules that conflict with statute in respect of the statute of limitations. In fact, the PL state expressly they are to be construed in accordance with English law (obviously save where there is an agreement to exclude certain clauses (eg in Rule X appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996 - you can't appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act (X.37)). So the starting point is English law which context dependent is the Limitation Act 1980 and the Arbitration Act 1996 with the relevant authorities sitting above those. It is all well trodden.

You then replied with various things including that "the 6 year limit for arbitration only applies to awards / judgments but does not apply to evidence." and "I think it's slightly wishful thinking to believe a time bar will prevail on most of the charges."

Both were not things I'd suggested and nor is the 6 year limit only applicable to awards or judgments (whatever that means).

I pointed out that I'd never suggested evidence was time barred - on the contrary, I have explained numerous times what a SoL means. In fact, I think one of the reasons the PL launched the case in Feb 2023 was because of this article https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ster-city-ffp-image-right-deals-a7621641.html and the fact that it could have meant the Fordham was time barred in March 2023 on any basis.

I can't find your re-reply (seems deleted or I'm blocked from seeing) with more false information about what English law even means (it means all of English law as relevant to the particular matter), something about the Arbitration Act and something else wrong about when a limitation applies. Hence my reply.

As to your further reply, I've no idea how it fits with your earlier points. Of course, 2 sides will debate whether matters are time barred or not - but the problem with this point is that it contradicts your other points that SoL doesn't apply to the PL rules.

You've also suggested that something about City doing what everyone else was doing and the case will turn on whether they can show every other club was doing it. This is also wrong.

Fucking love this forum me

 

[slbsn]

Stopped reading at “blue cartel”.

it is also not right. I don't think Rosen was the Chair of the 115 case - certainly is not public domain

 

[Ric]

 

[Damocles]

In fairness, Pep also believes Kyle Walker is a functional right back

 

[Inter Me Nan]

In fairness, Pep also believes Kyle Walker is a functional right back

 

[Manchester_lalala]

In fairness, Pep also believes Kyle Walker is a functional top shagger

 

[wolviedinho]

In fairness, Pep also believes Kyle Walker is a functional right back

Bit harsh.

If pep had other options Walker would not be playing.

Let’s hope the outcome is due soon.

Then we can all deep dive into our success.

 

[chris85mcfc]

That's if he can keep Lord Pannick fit until then.