Pay the Transfer Fee instalment.

[BLUEAWAY]

We wanted Sala, we paraded him as ours, we should have been more diligent caring for him and now not only is our reputation at stake but also our ability to sign new players.

[The Bloop]

Exactly. 9 months in and there's hardly been a day when we've looked good in this whole sorry tale. Our stubbornness in not paying will only make us look worse.

[life on mars]

YEP PAY UP

[ToTaL ITK]

Pay

[B. Oddie]

Yes, have a bit of class and honour.

[the other bob wilson]

We wanted Sala, we paraded him as ours, we should have been more diligent caring for him and now not only is our reputation at stake but also our ability to sign new players.

[Armitage Shanks]

Defiantly we need to show some class

[Vindec]

If only things were that simple. While I agree with the sentiment, unfortunately the insurance company (assuming air accidents are covered by the club's policy) is most probably dictating strategy. If there is a loophole insurance companies inevitably will want to exploit it to the full either in order to avoid paying out or to reduce the extent of their liability.

[trampie09]

Pay up Kaardiff.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

If only things were that simple. While I agree with the sentiment, unfortunately the insurance company (assuming air accidents are covered by the club's policy) is most probably dictating strategy. If there is a loophole insurance companies inevitably will want to exploit it to the full either in order to avoid paying out or to reduce the extent of their liability.

Sadly this is the case. It doesn't make us look good and I agree with everyone saying we need to pay up, but we're probably being hamstrung by the insurers.

[BLUEAWAY]

If only things were that simple. While I agree with the sentiment, unfortunately the insurance company (assuming air accidents are covered by the club's policy) is most probably dictating strategy. If there is a loophole insurance companies inevitably will want to exploit it to the full either in order to avoid paying out or to reduce the extent of their liability.

Whatever. The moral responsibility of the Directors is to say to all parties involved that they have decided to make the payment.
Do you think the “insurance companies” are going to be swayed by the Transfer Ban. They would have an argument for not being so.

[Wales-Bales]

Sadly this is the case. It doesn't make us look good and I agree with everyone saying we need to pay up, but we're probably being hamstrung by the insurers.

If we pay the first installment, does that mean we would be accepting liability? The next of kin have a heavyweight legal team acting on their behalf, so I doubt if things are as simple as some people are making out. I'm pretty sure it's their own barristers who have advised the club not to pay until they are advised to do so.

[Stavross1927]

If we pay the first installment, does that mean we would be accepting liability? The next of kin have a heavyweight legal team acting on their behalf, so I doubt if things are as simple as some people are making out. I'm pretty sure it's their own barristers who have advised the club not to pay until they are advised to do so.

Fifa have only ruled on the initial payment as that is the one that is (over) due now. But you would think that once precedent is set, then we would have to pay the other 2 instalments.

[Trigger]

Whatever. The moral responsibility of the Directors is to say to all parties involved that they have decided to make the payment.
Do you think the “insurance companies” are going to be swayed by the Transfer Ban. They would have an argument for not being so.

So then the club would take the hit in full when it probably doesn't need to and shouldn't. As said above, I don't think it's Tan and Co who will be running this.

I struggled to make a claim on my car a few years ago, can only imagine the complexities involved in this.

I'm sure we all on here want Nantes and previous clubs to receive what they are owed but we aren't the ones having to make the payment.

[Vindec]

Whatever. The moral responsibility of the Directors is to say to all parties involved that they have decided to make the payment.
Do you think the “insurance companies” are going to be swayed by the Transfer Ban. They would have an argument for not being so.

The fiscal responsibility is that of the directors and could be prosecuted for acting in a manner that was financially irresponsible. Unfortunately money talks and morals don't come into Company law. I agree insurance companies don't give a fig for transfer bans but that isn't the point.

[cardiff55]

I think we will have to pay , or face the embargo. I think the club will pay because of this but haven't done so yet as in may be seen as an admission of liability, which the clubs feels it does not have. But if FIFA/UEFA force the club to make the payment I think they will and then have to argue/claim elsewhere after the payments are made.

[mazadona10]

The club have to look after themselves, if the wording of when they have to issue payments hasnt been satisfied then that's the issue with whoever signed it. If the club are in a situation of looking shit but saving themselves 16mill then thats what they have to do.

Football clubs are businesses. The club will end up paying it but only because get bullied into it and not if its legally right.

[Chris Pontprennau Blues]

FIFA are one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet - recent history confirms - World Cup Finals in Qatar - say no more

[BLUEAWAY]

The fiscal responsibility is that of the directors and could be prosecuted for acting in a manner that was financially irresponsible. Unfortunately money talks and morals don't come into Company law. I agree insurance companies don't give a fig for transfer bans but that isn't the point.

The fiscal responsibility is a much wider issue than just this payment.

[B. Oddie]

I can't think of any precedents in football history in which a payment was in question due to these circumstances.

[the other bob wilson]

Can I ask what people on here would prefer to see in January if it was a case of one or the other - City paying the first, and second which is due soon I believe, instalments of the Sala fee or more transfer spending in an attempt to make it into the top six? Leaving morals aside for a second, I'd say the latter option is something to be avoided given the club's record in the transfer department in recent windows - definitely pay what is owed as far as I'm concerned.

[Shute]

Does anybody know how this has an impact on our FFP requirements? Will it be absorbed by an insurance company or have we potentially used up £15m from our allowed expenditure?

I worry that when Neil talked about seeing where the club is in December, he may have been referring to whether we would be funded for a promotion push or a fire sale to cover the Sala fee.

It might seem like we've already budgeted for the transfer with last seasons tv money but now that we don't even have the player as a saleable asset, we can't gamble unless we look nailed on for promotion.

[BINGE THINKING]

I would certainly agree we should pay what we owe. If the Sala tragedy ends up costing the club £15million then obviously that's a major financial hit. However it's worth remembering that during 2018 we paid out around £35million in signing Madine, Murphy, Reid, Cunningham and Smithies (all still technically City players - none of whom featured in our last game). I reckon we would lose more than £15million of that outlay if all five were sold in January.

[jon1959]

Can I ask what people on here would prefer to see in January if it was a case of one or the other - City paying the first, and second which is due soon I believe, instalments of the Sala fee or more transfer spending in an attempt to make it into the top six? Leaving morals aside for a second, I'd say the latter option is something to be avoided given the club's record in the transfer department in recent windows - definitely pay what is owed as far as I'm concerned.

Even if we're leaving morals to one side and the choice is paying Nantes just under £6m or spending £6m on Gary Madine Mark 2m then my vote is for paying Nantes. Like most on here I'm embarrassed by the fee dispute (although legal and insurance technicalities are probably tying the club's hands) and I have little confidence in the recruitment process under this regime (some hits but too many misses). I would rather see the club stick with Bogle, Vassell and Glatzel up front (with Glatzel spending as much time as possible in the gym getting harder to knock over) and bring through u23s into midfield and the full back positions where we need competition.

[B. Oddie]

Does anybody know how this has an impact on our FFP requirements? Will it be absorbed by an insurance company or have we potentially used up £15m from our allowed expenditure?

I worry that when Neil talked about seeing where the club is in December, he may have been referring to whether we would be funded for a promotion push or a fire sale to cover the Sala fee.

It might seem like we've already budgeted for the transfer with last seasons tv money but now that we don't even have the player as a saleable asset, we can't gamble unless we look nailed on for promotion.

Good point.