Reply With QuoteThat’s the main thing. It’s pretty grim how it’s all being played out in public. No winners at all here and it’s shameful that Cardiff and Nantes haven’t been able to come to a sensible agreement behind closed doors over the last 9 months.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49904028
Not sure if this is the right thing to do. The longer it goes on the more pain it causes for the family. Nobody can imagine what this has been like for them to go through.
That’s the main thing. It’s pretty grim how it’s all being played out in public. No winners at all here and it’s shameful that Cardiff and Nantes haven’t been able to come to a sensible agreement behind closed doors over the last 9 months.
Aren’t our hands tied by insurers etc?Originally Posted by SunderlandBluebird
I don't think there could ever have been any sort of compromise outcome to this, not if insurance cover is involved.
Insurance companies will either accept liability or not - they won't get into any 50:50 share the cost agreement - and it comes down entirely to whether contractually Emiliano Sala had become a Cardiff player when he died or his contract was still legally held by Nantes.
The whole dispute is ugly, disrespectful to Sala's memory and distressing to his family. The club's reputation will be damaged (with perception trumping facts as usual). However, from what we think we know about the contract situation in the days after Sala was photographed with Ken Choo and Neil Warnock, I don't think the club have much choice but to fully test the legal position and their financial liability. The club response today deals directly with the ambiguity and confusion of the FIFA statement and in my mind is both right and inevitable. Hopefully, whatever the final decision, there is a full explanation for why it was reached.
Does anyone know why the case was decided by FIFA rather than a court of law?
I think FIFA just said that they were going to decide, if the club's couldn't reach an agreement
I imagine the club would be keen to do something for the family financially but to do so at any stage of this process prior to resolution of this issue might be deemed to be an admission of liability.
That doesn't really answer my question though. FIFA are not necessarily above the law.
I posted something along similar lines yesterday ; if insurance/underwriters are involved it wouldn't be FIFA's ruling they'd apply, more likely contract law lawyers..
David Conn in The Guardian has given more detail (or a clearer summary of what was already public) about the international transfer process. It covers the Nantes case pretty well but skates over the main points of contention from Cardiff. If I have understood correctly, the contract signed by Sala on 19 January had to be redrafted to reflect the final agreement between the clubs and the stance of the EFL (with Nantes allegedly trying to insert clauses at the last minute and the EFL rejecting them) - with Nantes insisting this was done by 22 January. Emiliano Sala died on 21 January before he could sign an amended contract.
https://www.theguardian.com/football...nsfer-fee-fifa
When it comes to the contract I am no clearer on who is in the right, where fault or liability lies (a lot of things to do with the deal between the clubs and the personal terms seemed to be moving around at the last minute) or the status of any insurance cover. I am sure that most casual observers will side with Nantes and accuse Cardiff of bad faith. The sooner this episode is over the better.
Interesting (if maybe not entirely honest) comment from the Nantes President on the dispute that I missed at the time (from May):
http://www.dai-sport.com/neil-warnoc...m-sala-appeal/
Nantes president Waldemar Kita told L’Equipe in May he did not want to receive money for Sala.
“The truth is, I don’t even want that money, and I may never get it,” he said.
“I don’t want to make money on someone who died tragically. I’m not interested in that.”
When asked why he had therefore not brought the issue to a halt, Kita replied: “I am not involved at all in the case. The lawyers are in charge of it.”
What does it have to do with Sala's family? It's a dispute between two football clubs. About money. Did anyone think that this wouldn't happen?
Much mention is made on this thread about insurance. However, if the club is insisting that Sala was not our player then it is likely that no insurance is in place. If there is insurance in place then all legal actions will be at the requirement of the insurance company.
The fact that you even have to ask that question is both worrying, and alarming.
So because it's a 'forgone' conclusion that this would happen, it has nothing to do with his family?
Heard someth8ng that the insurers are saying he wasn’t signed for us due to the contractual issue so won’t pay out, therefore he can only still be a Nantes player, unless you can be inbetween? Don’t think that’s possible though.....messy hey
Reading between the lines my best guess is he was our player- ie we had bought him from Nantes- but he wasn’t yet registered to play for us.
They are different things. I’m sure Leicester bought a player late in the transfer window who they couldn’t play.
It's to do with that fact that what is already an incredibly raw and painful situation is being made worse by the fact that their loved one is being discussed as purely a monetary commodity and not as the human being they loved. Also the fact that this is still an ongoing thing and is reported in the news makes the grieving process longer because they keep seeing reminders of it. The fact that you can't see that is pretty cold, even for you
It really doesn't. There's not even a reason they should even know about it. It's a contract dispute between two football clubs. It doesn't really have anything to do with the player or his family. But what if it did? Do you think the family would shy away from any monetary gain "out of respect"?
The FIFA ruling is being reported in the Argentinian media.
The world is all rosy and each and every poster on here is perfect and have an unquestionably brilliant moral code.
Nobody ever so much as thinks a nasty thing zzzzz
I cannot believe the sheer ignorance. What has it got to do with taking a moral high ground? To think having that point of view is anything to do with trying to be seen as an all mighty, morally sound bloke to everybody on a message board is lunacy!
The scenario is unfortunately a young man near enough my age has sadly lost his life on the way to start his first training session at CCFC. To not even have a shred of empathy for the lads family who have to deal with this being brought back up in the media again and again is ignorant. This should not have played out like this and should have been resolved in private.
The legal process does not take personal feelings into account. It is the duty of a lawyer to apply the rule of law on behalf of their client. As mentioned above this dispute has nothing to do with the family, it is a contract law case between two football clubs.
The tragedy is the young man's death. It's not like a foreseeable contract dispute can make it any worse. It's possible to empathize with the man's family without all the faux outrage about two football clubs squabbling about money.
He's not saying '**** 'em' he's saying that sala's family will have no influence on any legal proceedings and their feelings will not be accounted for. The whole process wont have anything to do with them.
There is no privacy involved in a public interest case like this. You are even commenting on it yourself in a public forum that is read by thousands.
Posting Permissions