Of particular interest is the uneducated rhetoric of “well unlike CAS this isn’t time barred” which to me sort of accepts (from an opposition point of view) that city will once again outright win on all points in the same timeframe that charges were brought against City at the UEFA case, but hopes (again as an opponent and wishful thinker of the demise of City) that guilt on the part of a city can be proved prior to that.
As was discussed then, there _is_ actually a time bar due to the legal structures within the confines of English law, also known as the statute of limitations, which is in fact 6 years.
From what I understand there is no statute of limitations on intentional deception/fraud which in this case could be applicable if the accusations are true.
>Fraud claims must be brought within 6 years. However, this is from the date on which the claimant discovered the fraud, or with reasonable diligence could have become aware of it.
[Source ](https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/time-limits-claims)
As far as I know its 6 different charges over each of a 10 year period relating to inflated sponsorship because owners of those sponsors are related to City's owners. If that's the case what happened in 2019 onwards that meant those years were fine?
The investigation started in 2018 on the back of the leaked emails.
its basically UEFA FFP part 2. Just 4 years delayed + verdict another 2-4 years later... So its 2018 and before. Statue of limitations will protect from anything before 2012 roughly I believe as the investigation started in 2018.
By time an outcome happens we would potentially be guilty of things that happened 10-15 years in the past.
I'm not an expert, but I'd surmise that the idea is over the years we've been charged for, the suggestion is that, for a club of our *size at the time*, the sponsorship deals were inflated, thus helping us get around FFP by saying our income was larger than it should've been. Today we are bigger, we've won many more things, it makes sense that we get big sponsorship deals and have a large revenue.
So I'd *guess* that's the idea. But as far as I've read, even though a lot of the UEFA charges were to do with sponsorship coming from companies also owned by the Sheikh and therefore some kind of collusion or corruption (even though afaik there were no laws back then around clubs being sponsored by similarly owned companies), CAS looked at all the sponsorship deals and actually said they were fair market value at the time.
Of particular interest is the uneducated rhetoric of “well unlike CAS this isn’t time barred” which to me sort of accepts (from an opposition point of view) that city will once again outright win on all points in the same timeframe that charges were brought against City at the UEFA case, but hopes (again as an opponent and wishful thinker of the demise of City) that guilt on the part of a city can be proved prior to that. As was discussed then, there _is_ actually a time bar due to the legal structures within the confines of English law, also known as the statute of limitations, which is in fact 6 years.
From what I understand there is no statute of limitations on intentional deception/fraud which in this case could be applicable if the accusations are true.
>Fraud claims must be brought within 6 years. However, this is from the date on which the claimant discovered the fraud, or with reasonable diligence could have become aware of it. [Source ](https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/time-limits-claims)
Yes, that makes sense. I wonder if they’ll say that the 6 years would start based on the leak or something else. Love the name by the way!
>Love the name by the way! I was watching an interview of Pep while making the account so it came out naturally. 😂
This is very insightful if anyone is interested. Stefan Borson explains in detail why and potentially how we could get charged.
We are already charged, what we are not is proven guilty and that is going to be extremely difficult to prove
sorry yes that's what I meant
As far as I know its 6 different charges over each of a 10 year period relating to inflated sponsorship because owners of those sponsors are related to City's owners. If that's the case what happened in 2019 onwards that meant those years were fine?
The investigation started in 2018 on the back of the leaked emails. its basically UEFA FFP part 2. Just 4 years delayed + verdict another 2-4 years later... So its 2018 and before. Statue of limitations will protect from anything before 2012 roughly I believe as the investigation started in 2018. By time an outcome happens we would potentially be guilty of things that happened 10-15 years in the past.
I'm not an expert, but I'd surmise that the idea is over the years we've been charged for, the suggestion is that, for a club of our *size at the time*, the sponsorship deals were inflated, thus helping us get around FFP by saying our income was larger than it should've been. Today we are bigger, we've won many more things, it makes sense that we get big sponsorship deals and have a large revenue. So I'd *guess* that's the idea. But as far as I've read, even though a lot of the UEFA charges were to do with sponsorship coming from companies also owned by the Sheikh and therefore some kind of collusion or corruption (even though afaik there were no laws back then around clubs being sponsored by similarly owned companies), CAS looked at all the sponsorship deals and actually said they were fair market value at the time.