+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
If the Trust had received more notice that the meeting was going to happen and what the format/ agenda was we would have had that chance to ask members for their input. As it was I only received the invite to the Zoom meeting this morning ( I had known there was to be a meeting but no formal invite until then).
There will be a report of the meeting to members shortly and the opportunity to ask questions and get answers as to the details raised and discussed
Keith
Dave
The senior partner from the law firm (Capital Law) acting for the club in the dispute between CCFC and Nantes was at the meeting and said that they were continuing to build up evidence in support of the club’s defence against the Nantes claim for Emiliano Sala transfer fee
Cheers Keith. You'd imagine the club would have enough evidence two years after the event if they actually had a 'defence' which meant they could avoid paying the transfer fee despite announcing to the world they'd bought the player. Still, I guess the lawyers are making a mint out of this saga, so they'll be content.
Whatever happened to Tan's legal battle with Mackay and his alleged war on agents? Can't recall anything actually happening in either of those situations.
So they still reckon they don't have to pay for a transfer that was completed?
They have to win all three of these claims
£15m Sam. Should be easy, but I think the club conceded they owed Sam money so that makes it tricky.
£10m Isaacs. Shares can drop in value as well as rise, but didn't Isaacs' shares get diluted?
£15m Nantes. Not much chance of the club winning that one, morally, ethically or legally.
£40m in court cases, losing £3m a month, still signing players. Christ, I hope there is a plan somewhere.
Sorry to be dim here but the director of football question - is that them saying we're going to get one and you saying WHY because you disagree with it? Or was the question about getting a director of football and they replied with WHY because they say we don't need one?
YAs you say, you knew there was going to be a meeting, but as usual no communication to ask if the opportunity arose what questions do members want raised. An e mail to members would have taken as long as it’s taken to write this response.ie minutes.
The members deserve better.
As I understand it the position on the three claims is as follows
Sam’s claim is that he is owed £15 m because his exit deal gave him the right to a life presidency of the club and the right to rejoin the executive board and take part in decision making. The club say that he was given the life presidency role but it was only a titular role and that the agreement gave no executive powers at all.
Michael Isaac’ claim is based on his assertion that his 2% shareholding in the club is worth £10m and was lost when Vincent Tan took more shares by his debt to equity conversion. If 2% of the club is worth £10m that would make the whole club worth £500m. Really?
The club has always maintained the view that Nantes and the actions of the ( unlicensed)intermediary they used in the deal caused the transfer to be nul and void. FIFA disagreed with this view, hence the full legal case being taken to CAS. The meeting was told that Nantes have asked for various adjournments of the CAS hearing and are yet to provide the paperwork to support their claim.
On the Isaacs case, it is incredible that someone purpotedly from a finance background has got this wrong. Isaacs owned more than 2% of the club before his shares were diluted. His claim is, surely, that his shares were worth £10m at the time that he owned 10% before Tan then diluted them to take control of the club. He isn't claiming the club is worth £500m. He is claiming that his shares were worth £10m before Tan devalued each and every share he owned by bringing out a new share ownership.
On the Sala case, the guy was on a plane ready to come to Wales to play a game within 48 hours. Are the club saying he wouldn't have played that game at the time? And didn't the club say that "once a bluebird, always a bluebird" at the time of huge media attention?
The way the Club is run really leaves much to be desired.
So a, 'meeting,' was deemed needful with the Club's fans. I wonder what prompted this vital transformation in thinking from those in the corridors of power. It couldn't be a WoL article, could it? Secondly, what were the qualifications to deem those invited worthy of admittance to this meeting?
Clearly the worthy are of far more importance in the eyes of the Club than Shareholders of the Club who are ignored. I'd write to the Club but there's no point. I'm still waiting a reply to a letter I sent 5 yrs ago.
StT.
<><