Updated: Trust and media meetings with Mehmet Dalman

[OurManFlint II]

That’s comedy gold considering the many millions his own companies have raked in thanks to his various lottery licenses in various countries.

And the fact that by time the current deal probably ends it'll be illegal anyway

[Nobody's Rep]

No club wishes to be under an embargo however as this is probably the best time.

“Cardiff point out that because of strict Financial Fair Play rules, the majority of Championship clubs will be unable to spend sizeable sums anyway this summer, so they feel they are almost on a level playing field”

There are two bits for me

One from Keith's notes is it says we cannot pay loan or transfer fees which means that we can only go for loans with no fee which I hadn't realised before

The 2nd point is more general and have asked before but no one answered is why do we have to pay the full amount for sala - was that the deal at the time that we would pay 15 million all upfront when we signed him as that would be unusual

So if it was instalments agreed at the time of the transfer were 5 million upfront then 5 million if we symtayed in the prem and 5 million after 100 appearances then surely it should be just the first payment of 5 million rather than the full value?

[Rjk]

There are two bits for me

One from Keith's notes is it says we cannot pay loan or transfer fees which means that we can only go for loans with no fee which I hadn't realised before

The 2nd point is more general and have asked before but no one answered is why do we have to pay the full amount for sala - was that the deal at the time that we would pay 15 million all upfront when we signed him as that would be unusual

So if it was instalments agreed at the time of the transfer were 5 million upfront then 5 million if we symtayed in the prem and 5 million after 100 appearances then surely it should be just the first payment of 5 million rather than the full value?

the original agreement was roughly 5m up front then 5m by jan 2020 and 5m by Jan 2021

[Nobody's Rep]

the original agreement was roughly 5m up front then 5m by jan 2020 and 5m by Jan 2021

Was that the basis of the transfer for sala or the settlement after he died?

Sorry if I am being dull here

[The Lone Gunman]

The 2nd point is more general and have asked before but no one answered is why do we have to pay the full amount for sala - was that the deal at the time that we would pay 15 million all upfront when we signed him as that would be unusual

The deal was £15 million to be paid in three equal instalments, none of which were performance-related.

It’s very common for a fee to be paid in instalments over the period of a player’s contract. Standard practice these days and has been for a long time.

[goats]

What’s the point. Dalman will just feed them his usual bull shit.

Him and the riddler have a lot in common

[Rjk]

The deal was £15 million to be paid in three equal instalments, none of which were performance-related.

It’s very common for a fee to be paid in instalments over the period of a player’s contract. Standard practice these days and has been for a long time.

they weren't exactly equal, but pretty close - not that that's important in any way

[The Lone Gunman]

they weren't exactly equal, but pretty close - not that that's important in any way

No? I thought it was initially three equal instalments, but that had only changed due to interest being added following City’s refusal to pay? I confess I haven’t seen the club’s accounts for a few years, though.

[dml1954]

Did anyone ask why Sala wasnt insured?

As has been reported, this is now the whole crux of the ongoing problem. Its complicated. Sala should have been added to the clubs player policy as soon as he signed on the Friday. The club are now suing the brokers who arranged the policy because they obviously didn't do this. City stated that the brokers informed them he would be added automatically to the policy and City sent confirmation Sala had signed but it all happened over a weekend and in the meantime Sala was killed. The confirmation he had signed arrived at the broker after his death but City maintain they were told he was covered already. The broker is denying liability - basically in my opinion because it would almost certainly bankrupt them if they admitted it. The insurance company and brokers have caused all this because they originally denied liability as they maintained Sala was not City's player when he died but when the courts decided he was, they switched to saying he wasn't covered anyway. This looks like typical insurance company wriggling to me to avoid liability. City obviously believe they have proof that the broker told them he was covered from when they signed him. Hope this helps.

[Rjk]

No? I thought it was initially three equal instalments, but that had only changed due to interest being added following City’s refusal to pay? I confess I haven’t seen the club’s accounts for a few years, though.

it was something like 6 million euros, another 6 and then 5 million totalling 17 million euros, plus a 20% sell on fee clause.

Sala himself was due about 1.5 m euros in signing on fees as well, over 4 installments + an appearance bonus if he made 7 appearances in the first season (350k)

[Dorcus]

As has been reported, this is now the whole crux of the ongoing problem. Its complicated. Sala should have been added to the clubs player policy as soon as he signed on the Friday. The club are now suing the brokers who arranged the policy because they obviously didn't do this. City stated that the brokers informed them he would be added automatically to the policy and City sent confirmation Sala had signed but it all happened over a weekend and in the meantime Sala was killed. The confirmation he had signed arrived at the broker after his death but City maintain they were told he was covered already. The broker is denying liability - basically in my opinion because it would almost certainly bankrupt them if they admitted it. The insurance company and brokers have caused all this because they originally denied liability as they maintained Sala was not City's player when he died but when the courts decided he was, they switched to saying he wasn't covered anyway. This looks like typical insurance company wriggling to me to avoid liability. City obviously believe they have proof that the broker told them he was covered from when they signed him. Hope this helps.

If all this is true as you say it is then City need only provide date and time stamped evidence of their confirmation to the broker; ( one hopes City were bright enough to send the confirmation by written electronic means and not just telephone it through). The fact it happened over a weekend is irrelevant; as long as City complied with the agreed procedure the player would have been successfully covered. The fact the Broker is disputing City's claim suggests not everything might have been executed as it should have been.

[PontBlue]

What was the “breach of regulations” that is the EFL’s justification for the embargo as it currently stands?

Here's the regulations the club should have been aware of:

52.6.2 covered by Article 48.1.5 (football creditor claims of full time or former full time employees for arrears of remuneration due up to the date of termination of employment),


for a period of 30 days (whether one default of 30 days, or a number of individual defaults which when taken together amount to 30 days) or more in any 12 month period (1 July to 30 June) (‘Persistent Default’) then that Club shall not be permitted to pay or commit to pay any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee or Loan Fee or any other form of payment (other than a sell on fee) in respect of the registration of any Player during the period:


(a) commencing on the date on which the Persistent Default occurred; and


(b) ending at the end of the next following Season.

[logic]

If all this is true as you say it is then City need only provide date and time stamped evidence of their confirmation to the broker; ( one hopes City were bright enough to send the confirmation by written electronic means and not just telephone it through). The fact it happened over a weekend is irrelevant; as long as City complied with the agreed procedure the player would have been successfully covered. The fact the Broker is disputing City's claim suggests not everything might have been executed as it should have been.

Broker is hardly likely to say "oops" given the financial consequences to them.

Wait for the trial.

[logic]

Here's the regulations the club should have been aware of:

52.6.2 covered by Article 48.1.5 (football creditor claims of full time or former full time employees for arrears of remuneration due up to the date of termination of employment),


for a period of 30 days (whether one default of 30 days, or a number of individual defaults which when taken together amount to 30 days) or more in any 12 month period (1 July to 30 June) (‘Persistent Default’) then that Club shall not be permitted to pay or commit to pay any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee or Loan Fee or any other form of payment (other than a sell on fee) in respect of the registration of any Player during the period:


(a) commencing on the date on which the Persistent Default occurred; and


(b) ending at the end of the next following Season.

And if the legal advice was "If you pay a single installment, it damages our case", for example, then what are the club meant to do? The regulation was never designed to cater for a tragic circumstance like this, where outside legal proceesses are ongoing.

[PontBlue]

And if the legal advice was "If you pay a single installment, it damages our case", for example, then what are the club meant to do? The regulation was never designed to cater for a tragic circumstance like this, where outside legal proceesses are ongoing.

It's possible that there were 30 days or more between the CAS ruling and CCFC paying the first instalment.

[The Lone Gunman]

And if the legal advice was "If you pay a single installment, it damages our case", for example, then what are the club meant to do? The regulation was never designed to cater for a tragic circumstance like this, where outside legal proceesses are ongoing.

The regulation apparently wasn’t applied until the club’s appeal to CAS had failed. I’m guessing the EFL believes the club were allowed ample time to pay after that final judgement, but CCFC still delayed.

[the other bob wilson]

Here's the regulations the club should have been aware of:

52.6.2 covered by Article 48.1.5 (football creditor claims of full time or former full time employees for arrears of remuneration due up to the date of termination of employment),


for a period of 30 days (whether one default of 30 days, or a number of individual defaults which when taken together amount to 30 days) or more in any 12 month period (1 July to 30 June) (‘Persistent Default’) then that Club shall not be permitted to pay or commit to pay any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee or Loan Fee or any other form of payment (other than a sell on fee) in respect of the registration of any Player during the period:


(a) commencing on the date on which the Persistent Default occurred; and


(b) ending at the end of the next following Season.

Thanks for that

[Father Dougal]

The regulation apparently wasn’t applied until the club’s appeal to CAS had failed. I’m guessing the EFL believes the club were allowed ample time to pay after that final judgement, but CCFC still delayed.

This seems to be the key point. We've had this debate hundreds of times and normally both sides miss the point. Many say the club should have paid immediately. Others said the club were right to challenge and not pay.

However the point is the club aren't being punished for not paying immediately or even for spending years challenging. After all we paid money as recently as last August more than 3 and a half years after sala died. That's fairly lenient of them.

The punishment is surely for ignoring and disregarding even the final CAS verdict. A fact likely accepted by the club as the 1st instalment was then actually finally paid.

[The Lone Gunman]

This seems to be the key point. We've had this debate hundreds of times and normally both sides miss the point. Many say the club should have paid immediately. Others said the club were right to challenge and not pay.

However the point is the club aren't being punished for not paying immediately or even for spending years challenging. After all we paid money as recently as last August more than 3 and a half years after sala died. That's fairly lenient of them.

The punishment is surely for ignoring and disregarding even the final CAS verdict. A fact likely accepted by the club as the 1st instalment was then actually finally paid.

Think you’re mixing up your dates, but maybe a typo? The CAS verdict was delivered in August. The club finally paid the first instalment (plus interest) in January, after publicly declaring in August they wouldn’t pay it.

That payment was good enough to lift the FIFA embargo, but apparently far too late to comply with the EFL regulations.

[Father Dougal]

Think you’re mixing up your dates, but maybe a typo? The CAS verdict was delivered in August. The club finally paid the first instalment (plus interest) in January, after publicly declaring in August they wouldn’t pay it.

That payment was good enough to lift the FIFA embargo, but apparently far too late to comply with the EFL regulations.

I meant we paid money for a player (callum robinson) in August. 3 and a half years later.

And yes over a 4 month gap between CAS and us paying any Transfer money for sala?

Ie the punishment now isn't for what happened between January 2019 and August 2022 but what happened (or didn't happen) between Aug 22 and Jan 23?

[The Lone Gunman]

I meant we paid money for a player (callum robinson) in August. 3 and a half years later.

And yes over a 4 month gap between CAS and us paying any Transfer money?

Got it. Yes, the date the CAS ruling was made public was 26/08/22. The reports that the club had finally paid the first instalment appeared on 10/01/23.

[logic]

The regulation apparently wasn’t applied until the club’s appeal to CAS had failed. I’m guessing the EFL believes the club were allowed ample time to pay after that final judgement, but CCFC still delayed.

We're appealing to the Swiss courts, who sit above CAS, aren't we?

[The Lone Gunman]

We're appealing to the Swiss courts, who sit above CAS, aren't we?

I’m almost certain that the CAS decision is final as far as sporting matters are concerned, isn’t it? And City have paid an instalment of the fee (plus interest), haven’t they?

[Rjk]

I’m almost certain that the CAS decision is final as far as sporting matters are concerned, isn’t it? And City have paid an instalment of the fee (plus interest), haven’t they?

the CAS rules that they weren't the proper court to rule on Cardiff's counterclaim that Nantes negligence caused the death and they should be accountable to Cardiff for the full value of the money owing to them (or legalese something along those lines), so Cardiff's next step would be to find a court that is able to make a judgement on that claim

[logic]

the CAS rules that they weren't the proper court to rule on Cardiff's counterclaim that Nantes negligence caused the death and they should be accountable to Cardiff for the full value of the money owing to them (or legalese something along those lines), so Cardiff's next step would be to find a court that is able to make a judgement on that claim

That's how I remember it too.