Reply With QuoteThis has to reach a conclusion, so we can out it behind us .
As City fan who recognises its a lot of money we could do with I now feel it was a done deal and should be paid, I'm guessing if we were Nantes fans we'd be screaming for the cash.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
The Telegraph claim to have seen the detailed judgement from FIFA's Player Status Committee ruling in favour of Nantes and against Cardiff in the dispute. They also claim that a 3 window transfer ban will hit the club if it doesn't comply with the ruling:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...n-fail-comply/
If this is accurate it explains more of the reasons for the FIFA decision, although it leaves a load of questions and issues that form the basis of the appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. English and Welsh law vs French law is one of them; another is the Cardiff case that Nantes (through the McKays, one of whom was on their payroll) are responsible for the tragedy and liable for the financial losses that followed.
It doesn't get any less ugly - treating human beings as assets and commodities. It may suggest, though, that Cardiff will have to pay up to Nantes and argue the legal toss after in an attempt to recover the payments.
This has to reach a conclusion, so we can out it behind us .
As City fan who recognises its a lot of money we could do with I now feel it was a done deal and should be paid, I'm guessing if we were Nantes fans we'd be screaming for the cash.
Thing is that the decision isn't necessarily in accordance with English Law, so I would think it's possible to obtain an injunction from the High Court to set it aside pending a Judicial Revue.
However, whether this prevents a transfer ban in the mean time I have no idea, since it is at least arguable that this is a matter of sporting rules solely for the governing body to decide - rather like the offside rule or something.
I’ve always wondered why player insurance hasn’t kicked in to cover the cost.
Is it that we hadn’t insured him, or maybe the insurance won’t pay due to him being in a plane that was being flown by a pilot that was supposedly illegible to fly or is it something else.
I know it’s not exactly the same and people has lost their lives but I imagine it’s like having an accident in an insured car that doesn’t have any mot or tax or being driven whilst under the influence etc.
In these types of circumstances I’m sure your insurance becomes in valid but then again it wasn’t CCFC that put him in the plane....all very messy as it seems no one knows who actually owns the plane and McKay probably wont have an insurance policy of any nature and he hasn’t a pot the pi55 in.
Of course we should pay. Why on earth shouldn’t we?Originally Posted by jon1959
Can’t afford to banned from transfer windows, so just get on with it
If player insurance is like any other insurance it would be in place before the player signed with it automatically going on cover when the signed was completed and he became a City player. I'm guessing :
1. either the insurance wasn't in place.
2. the insurance was in place but the underwriters aren't convinced he was a City player
Normally, I'd tend towards the second of those options, but it seems to me that City are placing an awful lot of reliance on the line that he wasn't our player because the relevant paperwork had not been completed properly and so they are, in essence, arguing that any insurance cover they had on Sala would be invalid.
Probably, lawyers would still argue the toss, but the grounds quoted in the article recognises what, for me, is the decisive aspect of the dispute (on moral grounds anyway) when it says that “The only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself.” - our defence seems to be largely on the argument that the transfer wasn't valid because we cocked up.
The Daily Mail should be ashamed of their headline:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sp...las-death.html
The club response to WalesOnline:
When contacted by WalesOnline, Cardiff said they had nothing further to add other than it will press ahead with lodging its appeal to CAS.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...three-17194610
But if the insurance was in place, then City can now argue that FIFA the overriding governing body, have concluded that the transfer was completed and therefore he was a City player, regardless of whether he was registered with the premier league, as this wasn’t a condition within the contract.
I imagine that the litigation arises only because there is an issue with the insurance cover. Who knows what the details are?
Maybe we have a single policy to cover our first team squad, and that if sala was unable to play, they are arguing that he was not part of the first team squad.
Maybe the definition of those covered is by reference to those registered to play.
Maybe there is a valuation issue here (although seems unlikely), and they are questioning how we can place any value at all on a player who is not registered to play.
Maybe we didn't comply with a term that requires us to take reasonable care of our players in transport
Maybe the insurance company is questioning the legitimacy of the contract given the admin errors made and withholding until it gets categoric proof that he was a Cardiff player (whatever that means for the purposes of the policy).
Maybe, if we managed to cock up the registration, we also cocked up on the paperwork to add sala to the insurance policy, or maybe we intended to have an individual policy for him and we managed to cock up the admin on it.
Maybe the insurance policy only covers a fraction of what we paid for him and the club don't want to pay the difference.
I've no idea, but surely we are either the puppet for the insurance company here; or there was an admin error and we didn't get the insurance in place despite signing the player.
Firstly, what a well worded & clear report.
Secondly, what a waste of time going to CAS. FIFA have dismantled any (paper thin) CCFC case.
Depends when Nantes issued their bank details but I guess it was on the day, so we have 5 days left to pay the €6M + interest. There is no mention of the payment being deferred subject to the appeal.
https://www.insuranceinsider.com/art...aller-for-16mn
This article from January says that we have £16 million of personal accident insurance to cover our players.
It was always going to go this way - our only route out is to sue a bankrupt agent, a dead man, and / or Henderson wherever he is.
Pay up City FFS
Looks like we'll have to sell Madine..
It appears that the FIFA view is only about whether the transfer was completed and not any potential liability on the part of Nantes or others in relation to the flight.
Therefore if Cardiff City wish to pursue compensation in relation to the flight, then it would be considered separately (presumably by law courts) and could in theory, result in money coming back to Cardiff City from either Nantes or others if liability could be proved.
The judgement only covers the first payment because the subsequent two payments are due in January 2020 and January 2021, but the fact that FIFA are saying he was Cardiff’s player very much infers that subsequent payment to Nantes would be expected on the due dates.
An earlier poster mentioned the laws of England (and Wales) being considered. There is no reason why this should be the case, since the sale is probably deemed to have happened in France, but I would expect the contract to state which laws apply, unless there is a FIFA regulation on this.
If one of our players has a car accident is it anything to do with the club or, as is normally the case, the driver’s insurance kicks in? Isn’t it the same with other modes of transport? Doesn’t help with the transfer fee obviously but shouldn’t his next of kin be due a pay out?
That rather misses the point. Of course we have an insurance policy but as is very obvious, it doesn't cover sala's death. The question is, Why?
Insurance companies will always try to avoid liability if they can credibly suggest that someone else is liable and that the money should be recovered from them. In this case there are plenty of candidates.
A 3 window transfer ban would probably benefit us, going by the dross we’ve signed lately!
What legal firm do you work for, and what area of law do you specialise in? Have you ever been involved in a similar case or even read the case law surrounding this issue?
His next of kin are being represented by a top City of London law firm.
Kaardiff need to pay up they are embarrassing themselves.
Who are they going after
Posting Permissions
