THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

Maybe something in the resonance of your post..

---

That's a notion inferred by the individual reader which simply isn't there in the writer's feelings in actuality. I don't even have a long standing dislike of Tan - I've been very fair to him in years gone by. I certainly have no issue with the perusal of causes/legal routes on behalf of the club which have any ounce of good sound reasoning behind them. This, the non payment of the transfer fee for a player which we had announced was ours, was not one. Should have paid it and then taken up matters against who we believed was guilty of causing his death afterwards. This has our name smeared with shit in the opinion of most onlooking, for the rest of their days.

And I don't hate any person for it per se - I dislike, am annoyed at, disgusted by their actions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

You wouldn't it's easy to say it but you wouldn't.

If you bought your first house for £200K and the estate agent acting for the previous owner accidently burnt it down ten minutes before you moved in you wouldn't say to the previous owners, don't worry I'll pay I said I would so I will, it doesn't matter if the paperwork was incomplete I'll just pay the mortgage for the rest on my life and not have the house!

You'd fight it to the end, like Tan and everyone else would!

---

It's a decent analogy but in the real world if contracts had been exchanged you would pay them. Just as City should pay Nantes.

However......what you would then do is either claim back the costs on insurance or if your insurance wasn't in place or didn't cover that eventuality - you would sue the fire starter.

Whether or not you think you'd get your money back by suing them doesn't change the fact that you should pay the original sum agreed in the contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

You wouldn't it's easy to say it but you wouldn't.

If you bought your first house for £200K and the estate agent acting for the previous owner accidently burnt it down ten minutes before you moved in you wouldn't say to the previous owners, don't worry I'll pay I said I would so I will, it doesn't matter if the paperwork was incomplete I'll just pay the mortgage for the rest on my life and not have the house!

You'd fight it to the end, like Tan and everyone else would!

---

No. I wouldn't.

Edit: sorry, I need to be clear I'm only referring to the CCFC situation not the crazy analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Just counter sue this could go on indefinitely through the courts .. by then we will be champions of Europe and this will be small change ..

Or we could crowd fund it ??

---

We are the f*cking crowd! Nobody else would lift a finger for us now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhyllisStant

It's a decent analogy but in the real world if contracts had been exchanged you would pay them. Just as City should pay Nantes.

However......what you would then do is either claim back the costs on insurance or if your insurance wasn't in place or didn't cover that eventuality - you would sue the fire starter.

Whether or not you think you'd get your money back by suing them doesn't change the fact that you should pay the original sum agreed in the contract.

---

OK you were to pay the bill the following day from a cheque from the inheritance of your deceased Dad who always wanted you to use it to buy your first house? Everyone would say look I din't get the house sort it out with your agent or insurer, I'm really sorry about it, but I am not at all responsibe for this loss it's you and your agents cock up!

To your mates you'd say thank God there was a glitch in the paperwork that needs investigating.

One thing's for certain anyway - it's more good news for the lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

No. I wouldn't.

Edit: sorry, I need to be clear I'm only referring to the CCFC situation not the crazy analogy.

---

OK so if it was you invloved with your house you wouldn't pay, see it's easy with other peoples money :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

OK so if it was you invloved with your house you wouldn't pay, see it's easy with other peoples money :hehe:

---

It's a stupid analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

You wouldn't it's easy to say it but you wouldn't.

If you bought your first house for £200K and the estate agent acting for the previous owner accidently burnt it down ten minutes before you moved in you wouldn't say to the previous owners, don't worry I'll pay I said I would so I will, it doesn't matter if the paperwork was incomplete I'll just pay the mortgage for the rest on my life and not have the house!

You'd fight it to the end, like Tan and everyone else would!

---

Signed the contracts, taken the keys, rocked up to it with full walk of the house, covered it in bunting saying "I've just taken receipt of the house!", but were just on the way to go about setting up and registering your utilities when another party carelessly sets it on fire .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt

Signed the contracts, taken the keys, covered the house in bunting saying "I've just taken receipt of the house!", but were just on the way to go about setting up and registering your utilities when some another party carelessly sets it on fire .

---

I know. It's like I said, sh*t happens. Sometimes life's unfair. Most of us don't have the money or legal aid to fight these things. Only the superrich and our titled betters.

So, does Cardiffs insurance pay Nantes…then sue the agent. Or do the club pay Nantes…. and sue the agent ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G rangetown Blue

So, does Cardiffs insurance pay Nantes…then sue the agent. Or do the club pay Nantes…. and sue the agent ?

---

What insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G rangetown Blue

So, does Cardiffs insurance pay Nantes…then sue the agent. Or do the club pay Nantes…. and sue the agent ?

---

It looks like there was no insurance cover in place.
CCFC pay Nantes.
CCFC sue who they think they can prove are culpable for Sala's death and have sufficient assets to make it worthwhile (which is probably nobody).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mattsonthebeach

Taken from FC Nantes website https://www.fcnantes.com/articles/ar....php?num=40668

FC Nantes welcomes today's decision on appeal by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS dismissed Cardiff City's appeal entirely and upheld FIFA's decision of 25 September 2019 regarding the transfer of player Emiliano Sala.

The court therefore ruled, as FC Nantes had maintained since the beginning of the proceedings, that the player's transfer to Cardiff City was complete when he tragically died in an aviation accident.

Consequently, the CAS ordered Cardiff City to pay the transfer costs to FC Nantes and ordered Cardiff to pay a historically high sum, in respect of procedural costs and arbitration costs.

FC Nantes is delighted that this procedure - initiated by Cardiff City and then delayed many times by Cardiff City - which has been difficult for all those close to Emiliano, is finally closed.

The Club hopes this will mark the end of the public disinformation campaign, to which FCN has never reacted, out of respect for the player's family.

---

I’ve been to few Nantes games since this happened, and thankfully the Nantais do not hold Cardiff City responsible for any of this, but lay the blame at feet of their owner (who they despise for “selling Emi like a dog”), and insurance companies withholding payments until someone is held responsible for his death. The agent was found guilty of causing his death a few days ago, and therefore should pay for his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt

That's a notion inferred by the individual reader which simply isn't there in the writer's feelings in actuality. I don't even have a long standing dislike of Tan - I've been very fair to him in years gone by. I certainly have no issue with the perusal of causes/legal routes on behalf of the club which have any ounce of good sound reasoning behind them. This, the non payment of the transfer fee for a player which we had announced was ours, was not one. Should have paid it and then taken up matters against who we believed was guilty of causing his death afterwards. This has our name smeared with shit in the opinion of most onlooking, for the rest of their days.

And I don't hate any person for it per se - I dislike, am annoyed at, disgusted by their actions

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

What insurance?

---

If Cardiff City have no insurance (I don’t know), then they will sue the agent for any costs incurred I guess.

Like someone said…the lawyers must be rubbing their hands. :frown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

This. My concern is that we've been run into the ground over this and should have cleared it up a long time ago. I've never been comfortable with the way this has been handled and it just seems to get worse.

---

If I was Tan I’d do everything within the law to get out of paying - most (business) people would if they have the funds.

Especially when you consider that there were all sorts of irregularities with the flight that Sala was on.

So someone is liable for Sala’s death and therefore any transfer fee due - and that won’t be Cardiff City by the sounds of it, unless they organised the flight directly of course.

Bang goes us signing a decent striker 🤮

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpersforGoalposts

It looks like there was no insurance cover in place.
CCFC pay Nantes.
CCFC sue who they think they can prove are culpable for Sala's death and have sufficient assets to make it worthwhile (which is probably nobody).

---

Ultimately, Cardiff City we’re in no way responsible for his death, and although I’ve not met any Cardiff fan who think Nantes (and Bordeaux) should lose out, it’s who should pay them is the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

What insurance?

---

I know this sounds distasteful, but Sala was an asset and not just an employee. With players making up by far the largest proportion of assets the club can have, I'm sure they would have been insured. Whether Sala was insured is another matter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt

Signed the contracts, taken the keys, rocked up to it with full walk of the house, covered it in bunting saying "I've just taken receipt of the house!", but were just on the way to go about setting up and registering your utilities when another party carelessly sets it on fire .

---

Once you've exchanged contracts on a house it is your responsibility to insure it. If it is burnt down prior to completion then you, or your insurance company, have to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

We both lost out Nantes £15million and us the Striker that probably would have got the goals to keep us up, it's the organiser of the plane that need to pay up via his or the plane owners insurance.

---

I have always thought it rather strange that a player's employer doesn't include in the contract that only approved airlines should be used in order to protect their very valuable assets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NottinghamBlue

Once you've exchanged contracts on a house it is your responsibility to insure it. If it is burnt down prior to completion then you, or your insurance company, have to pay.

---

Bingo! *Your* house has been burnt down. You don't pursue a ridiculous tact that it wasn't your house because you hadn't had the virgin media man plumb in the broadband.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I know this sounds distasteful, but Sala was an asset and not just an employee. With players making up by far the largest proportion of assets the club can have, I'm sure they would have been insured. Whether Sala was insured is another matter

---

If Sala was insured properly I'm pretty sure it would have been the Insurance Company pursuing the matter in the courts and not Cardiff City. If everything had been set up correctly then the Insurance Co. would have paid out according to the terms and then it's their business to pursue damage claims in the courts with the aim of defraying expenses. Was everything set up correctly on our part?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Dandruff

If I was Tan I’d do everything within the law to get out of paying - most (business) people would if they have the funds.

Especially when you consider that there were all sorts of irregularities with the flight that Sala was on.

So someone is liable for Sala’s death and therefore any transfer fee due - and that won’t be Cardiff City by the sounds of it, unless they organised the flight directly of course.

---

Well theyve done that - that's been the route taken - they've spent money and incurred now further penalty in having done so, tarnished opinions of the club across the world, and there we go outcome is there for all to see now today. It's the title of the thread.

The only people liable to have paid by now any transfer due is the purchasing club. It should have been paid, and then seperately damages sought for others malfeasance - which is what is now going on to play out anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

If Sala was insured properly I'm pretty sure it would have been the Insurance Company pursuing the matter in the courts and not Cardiff City. If everything had been set up correctly then the Insurance Co. would have paid out according to the terms and then it's their business to pursue damage claims in the courts with the aim of defraying expenses. Was everything set up correctly on our part?

---

That is just not correct. The action would be in the name of the plaintiff i.e. Cardiff City FC. Not the insurance Company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Dandruff

If I was Tan I’d do everything within the law to get out of paying - most (business) people would if they have the funds.

Especially when you consider that there were all sorts of irregularities with the flight that Sala was on.

So someone is liable for Sala’s death and therefore any transfer fee due - and that won’t be Cardiff City by the sounds of it, unless they organised the flight directly of course.

---

I am of the opinion there are many, many businesses and clubs who would have paid the transfer fees and dealt with these issues later and there are certainly good negotiators out there that could have sorted this out between the two clubs with understanding and empathy. I am absolutely sure there wouldn't be many on here defending another club for doing what we've done.

Would you ever feel comfortable with dealing with this Cardiff City regarding this kind of asset while the current board/owner is here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I know this sounds distasteful, but Sala was an asset and not just an employee. With players making up by far the largest proportion of assets the club can have, I'm sure they would have been insured. Whether Sala was insured is another matter

---

It's always possible he was insured but that the accident falls foul of an exclusion clause, e.g. taking a non commercial flight.
Either way it seems that there is no insurance to make a valid claim against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpersforGoalposts

It's always possible he was insured but that the accident falls foul of an exclusion clause, e.g. taking a non commercial flight.
Either way it seems that there is no insurance to make a valid claim against.

---

Right, so effectively invalidated any possible claim. Makes sense.

Consequently, the CAS ordered Cardiff City to pay the transfer costs to FC Nantes and ordered Cardiff to pay a historically high sum, in respect of procedural costs and arbitration costs.


For those saying we shouldn't have settled.

I hope this horrible mess ends soon. As far as I am concerned we should have paid Nantes straight away and then looked at some other legal routes to go down. The whole thing stinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

I am of the opinion there are many, many businesses and clubs who would have paid the transfer fees and dealt with these issues later and there are certainly good negotiators out there that could have sorted this out between the two clubs with understanding and empathy. I am absolutely sure there wouldn't be many on here defending another club for doing what we've done.

Would you ever feel comfortable with dealing with this Cardiff City regarding this kind of asset while the current board/owner is here?

---

It would seem so, since we have had quite a few transfers since the refusal of payment

Too many simplistic viewpoints on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

That is just not correct. The action would be in the name of the plaintiff i.e. Cardiff City FC. Not the insurance Company.

---

The plaintiff would be the Insurance Company. Having paid out they would become the aggrieved party and they would have recourse to remedy under the Law of Tort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

Too many simplistic viewpoints on this thread.

---

Very often the simplest assumption turns out to be the accurate one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

I have always thought it rather strange that a player's employer doesn't include in the contract that only approved airlines should be used in order to protect their very valuable assets.

---

While I wouldn't be surprised if that happens as a result, would the contract also insist on only having approved taxi drivers etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

Too many simplistic viewpoints on this thread.

---

The viewpoints of FIFA and the CAS seem fairly simplistic - Cardiff City bought the player and should therefore pay for the player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

I am of the opinion there are many, many businesses and clubs who would have paid the transfer fees and dealt with these issues later and there are certainly good negotiators out there that could have sorted this out between the two clubs with understanding and empathy. I am absolutely sure there wouldn't be many on here defending another club for doing what we've done.

Would you ever feel comfortable with dealing with this Cardiff City regarding this kind of asset while the current board/owner is here?

---

I’m going to disagree with you here.

We are talking about a lot of money here - companies will go to great lengths, within the law, to avoid paying, whether we might think it right or wrong.

If this wasn’t football, Tan’s company would be doing exactly the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by City123

Public disinformation campaign?

Nobody comes out of this at all well, especially Cardiff who really ought to pay something

---

I agree but Nantes should also come to the table. If reports are to be believed Nantes and the agent were responsible for continually hiking the fee based on fictitious counter offers from other clubs.
At £5.3M (first instalment) Nantes have already made a financial killing as Sala cost them less than £1M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

If Sala was insured properly I'm pretty sure it would have been the Insurance Company pursuing the matter in the courts and not Cardiff City. If everything had been set up correctly then the Insurance Co. would have paid out according to the terms and then it's their business to pursue damage claims in the courts with the aim of defraying expenses. Was everything set up correctly on our part?

---

I don’t think he was covered by insurance until he was fully signed. Which he wasn’t