PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keith Moon said:
If there’s no deliberate concealment or fraud, the six-year clock runs from when the breach was completed. 2016/17 is a borderline year because it comes down to whether the relevant submissions were made before or after February 2017.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a pain with everybody on this, but I don't think so.
 
Keith Moon said:
The “date of knowledge” only applies if deliberate concealment is proven.
Click to expand...

Or fraud, or a mistake, iirc. I am pretty sure they will be claiming one of those if the allegation is a breach of some rule or other. And if they do claim it, each allegation will have to be investigated to determine if the extended limitation applies or not.

I know we all joke about the PL lawyers, but I doubt they will be putting forward so many allegations that could be thrown out simply by looking at a calendar.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Or fraud, or a mistake, iirc. I am pretty sure they will be claiming one of those if the allegation is a breach of some rule or other. And if they do claim it, each allegation will have to be investigated to determine if the extended limitation applies or not.

I know we all joke about the PL lawyers, but I doubt they will be putting forward so many allegations that could be thrown out simply by looking at a calendar.
Click to expand...
Not every breach is fraud, and not every fraud suspends limitation. Only fraud involving deliberate concealment (or equivalent conduct preventing discovery) does.
 
blueste41 said:
Which part and why?
Click to expand...
all of it as you are legally wrong and it's stated in the Premier League rule book under Rule A.7 "These Rules shall be governed by and shall be construed in accordance with English law. Strictly without prejudice to the arbitration and other dispute resolutionprovisions of these Rules, disputes relating to these Rules shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts."
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
If the tribunal takes the same line on limitation as CAS did, then anything prior to the 2016/17 financial year will be time-barred. That's probably all the second group of charges, about Mancini and Fordham, and most of the years covering the sponsorships/related party issues. And the related party issue is almost certainly a non-starter. So you have to ask, again, why is it taking so long?
Click to expand...
But why should the tribunal take 'the same line on limitation as CAS' ?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
If the tribunal takes the same line on limitation as CAS did, then anything prior to the 2016/17 financial year will be time-barred. That's probably all the second group of charges, about Mancini and Fordham, and most of the years covering the sponsorships/related party issues. And the related party issue is almost certainly a non-starter. So you have to ask, again, why is it taking so long?
Click to expand...
I understood the requirements of the UEFA rules (5 years) and the PL rules (in accordance with the Limitation Act 1980?) to be different, and as such don't see how the tribunal can take the same line, as the legal arguments would most likely be different. I don't have a legal background, so maybe my understanding is wrong. Can you explain why you think they could take a similar line?
 
I was asked to respond to the latest discussion against my self imposed ban on this limitation question. I do so because I have moved from my original position and the position that most lawyers on here seem to agree with. I was wrong, I think, to consider it so simply and think the focus on the overarching English law qualification of the Premier League rules may not offer the whole answer.

On reflection, I think the key here is that this is a disciplinary case under Section W. So whilst it is all governed by English law, disciplinary processes are seen differently from dispute resolution (Section X). That is usually because discipline, as in any industry, is seen as an important public confidence issue and professional wrong doing should not be allowed simply because of the passage of time.

However, this is complicated in the City case because the underlying allegations are, we think, related to matters that would ordinarily be fraud, accounting issues, financial non-compliance etc that is not merely sporting discipline. Those matters are usually non-arbitrable. These matters may fall outside the Premier League's contractual disciplinary jurisdiction entirely. You cannot prosecute fraud through a sports tribunal and avoid limitation by calling it "discipline." If the charges require proving effective criminal dishonesty, they are fraud allegations regardless of the label, and limitation should apply, six years from when the Premier League discovered (or should have discovered) the fraud.

City may have argued that the Premier League lacked jurisdiction to determine fraud allegations at all and that such matters should be in the courts where limitation, proper evidence rules, and processes apply. Whether anyone ran this argument, we do not know - City may have accepted jurisdiction. It seems that if City did accept jurisdiction, limitation is not in play. Very old allegations or weak cases could be dismissed for abuse of process but this requires the accused to show real prejudice, all unlikely here.

As I have previously said, I always felt it probably irrelevant either way, be it due to:
1) the fact that time barring could only ever, even in court, apply once all the evidence had already been heard anyway (at which point you have either brought the judge/panel with you or they are going the other way) or
2) because if the panel found against City on most of the key charges, they would have to have been deliberately concealed.

So, either way limitation would not be a bar.

Assuming City did not challenge the PLs Section W jurisdiction at this stage (perhaps leaving it for an appeal, though much harder if they never ran the argument at all), then the disciplinary proceedings probably continued treating these as regulatory breaches under Section W where no limitation periods apply. The panel will determine whether City breached the rules and ignore limitation as that question does not arise in their Section W framework.

If City lose and want to argue on appeal that the charges were actually fraud allegations outside the PL's jurisdiction, they face the problem that by participating without protest they may have accepted jurisdiction. An appeal will be reluctant to let parties submit to a process, lose, then challenge jurisdiction afterwards. The time to fight jurisdiction is at the start, not after an adverse decision. If City reserved their position explicitly throughout, an appeal might succeed on jurisdictional grounds, but if they treated it as straightforward regulatory discipline, that ship has likely sailed.
 
slbsn said:
I was asked to respond to the latest discussion against my self imposed ban on this limitation question. I do so because I have moved from my original position and the position that most lawyers on here seem to agree with. I was wrong, I think, to consider it so simply and think the focus on the overarching English law qualification of the Premier League rules may not offer the whole answer.

On reflection, I think the key here is that this is a disciplinary case under Section W. So whilst it is all governed by English law, disciplinary processes are seen differently from dispute resolution (Section X). That is usually because discipline, as in any industry, is seen as an important public confidence issue and professional wrong doing should not be allowed simply because of the passage of time.

However, this is complicated in the City case because the underlying allegations are, we think, related to matters that would ordinarily be fraud, accounting issues, financial non-compliance etc that is not merely sporting discipline. Those matters are usually non-arbitrable. These matters may fall outside the Premier League's contractual disciplinary jurisdiction entirely. You cannot prosecute fraud through a sports tribunal and avoid limitation by calling it "discipline." If the charges require proving effective criminal dishonesty, they are fraud allegations regardless of the label, and limitation should apply, six years from when the Premier League discovered (or should have discovered) the fraud.

City may have argued that the Premier League lacked jurisdiction to determine fraud allegations at all and that such matters should be in the courts where limitation, proper evidence rules, and processes apply. Whether anyone ran this argument, we do not know - City may have accepted jurisdiction. It seems that if City did accept jurisdiction, limitation is not in play. Very old allegations or weak cases could be dismissed for abuse of process but this requires the accused to show real prejudice, all unlikely here.

As I have previously said, I always felt it probably irrelevant either way, be it due to:
1) the fact that time barring could only ever, even in court, apply once all the evidence had already been heard anyway (at which point you have either brought the judge/panel with you or they are going the other way) or
2) because if the panel found against City on most of the key charges, they would have to have been deliberately concealed.

So, either way limitation would not be a bar.

Assuming City did not challenge the PLs Section W jurisdiction at this stage (perhaps leaving it for an appeal, though much harder if they never ran the argument at all), then the disciplinary proceedings probably continued treating these as regulatory breaches under Section W where no limitation periods apply. The panel will determine whether City breached the rules and ignore limitation as that question does not arise in their Section W framework.

If City lose and want to argue on appeal that the charges were actually fraud allegations outside the PL's jurisdiction, they face the problem that by participating without protest they may have accepted jurisdiction. An appeal will be reluctant to let parties submit to a process, lose, then challenge jurisdiction afterwards. The time to fight jurisdiction is at the start, not after an adverse decision. If City reserved their position explicitly throughout, an appeal might succeed on jurisdictional grounds, but if they treated it as straightforward regulatory discipline, that ship has likely sailed.
Click to expand...
Is this good news or bad news ??
 
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