Limitation periods extension in the event of concealed facts exists in Swiss law too. However, CAS is quasi-judicial body so is not bound by legal doctrines. However, as they had discretion to consider the period extended in any event it was truly bizarre they did not elect to (particularly as they punished City for not disclosing documents in any event)
Interesting, that. Thanks for clarifying.
I guess it would have needed CAS to make a finding of fraud (difficult due to the dishonesty element and the "stigma" attached to fraud) or deliberate concealment. Limitation was the easiest option for CAS imo.
Looking at the some of the PL rules quoted in the statement:-
"...required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue"Presumably the very act of City signing up to the PL rules each year meant there was a duty on them to provide accurate and honest financial information. If they deliberately haven't complied with that duty then you could argue it amounts to fraud...
Hopefully limitation doesn't become an issue again!