THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DubaiDai

At £5.3M (first instalment) Nantes have already made a financial killing as Sala cost them less than £1M

---

I’ve seen this sort of line trotted out before. It’s amazing. It’s as if the writers have no idea how football transfers work.

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?

---

The courts exist partly for parties that are in dispute - and if one party thinks that it is in the right they probably won't negotiate. Understanding and empathy are all well and good regarding the deceased player but they are not attributes that matter much in court between opposing parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DubaiDai

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

---

Both FIFA and CAS believe otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

The courts exist partly for parties that are in dispute - and if one party thinks that it is in the right they probably won't negotiate. Understanding and empathy are all well and good regarding the deceased player but they are not attributes that matter much in court between opposing parties.

---

All totally reasonable and correct. However, it didn't make it right and it doesn't continue to do so. Especially after a second ruling against Cardiff City FC and a record sum for arbitration.

Does the same process have to be gone through for the 2nd and final installments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

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

---

Not for a record £15M or any player remotely close to the calibre of Sala. I doubt we'll ever do that kind of deal ever again under the current ownership/board. In actual fact, if this pans out as it is likely, we wouldn't be allowed to anyway: Transfer ban for delayed Emiliano Sala payments appeal to begin

Let's just remind ourselves that this is still out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

Not for a record £15M or any player remotely close to the calibre of Sala. I doubt we'll ever do that kind of deal ever again under the current ownership/board. In actual fact, if this pans out as it is likely, we wouldn't be allowed to anyway: Transfer ban for delayed Emiliano Sala payments appeal to begin

Let's just remind ourselves that this is still out there.

---

I wonder if that's why we've been signing anything that moves recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moodybluebird

Fair comment. But remember, we needed Tan at a time when the club could have gone under and regardless of how unethically you believe he has acted in this case, he is a very successful businessman who was never going to give this up without a fight. It may hurt to have the club's name dragged through the mud but we'll just have grin and bare it until this saga comes to an end.

---

no business is going to hand over 15 mill without a fight though, no-one in her right mind would expect them to,

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.

---

Dont you start your insurance from completion day ? ? ?

when we purchased our New quid, we exchanged contracts 3 months before completion, insurance starts on completion day, as you haven't completed the purchase yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

no business is going to hand over 15 mill without a fight though, no-one in her right mind would expect them to,

---

Unless whoever this her is had actually purchased and announced the signing of a player to media and on their own media channels complete with pictures of the contracts being signed by the player. Then should she be in her right mind you'd contend she'd be an idiot to fight that they shouldn't pay on the strength of that they hadn't registered them to play in any one competition, a secondary matter to the actual question as to whether or not you had completed the signing as has been ruled on, and then ruled on again on appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

no business is going to hand over 15 mill without a fight though, no-one in her right mind would expect them to,

---

In all fairness Matt, nobody ever was being asked to hand over any money without a fight. It was a deal (we've got the pictures and everything) The fight came about because of an awful tragedy. It didn't need to no matter what anybody says. Anyway, this'll just trundle along now. Shame, because I think this, and all the time/costs has really damaged us and we'll take a long time to recover. Not sure if that'll even be possible under the current ownership which also worries me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

Dont you start your insurance from completion day ? ? ?

when we purchased our New quid, we exchanged contracts 3 months before completion, insurance starts on completion day, as you haven't completed the purchase yet

---

Every situation is unique no set rule, lots of variables - ie what is written into the individual policy and the insurers own ways of doing things. For all we know there may be something written into any given overall insurance policy for a sports teams roster of insured players to be automatically inclusive of any new signings (may be up to a certain threshold of total insured value) - but really we can only speculate on that score without knowing for sure the policy and insurance in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

The courts exist partly for parties that are in dispute - and if one party thinks that it is in the right they probably won't negotiate. Understanding and empathy are all well and good regarding the deceased player but they are not attributes that matter much in court between opposing parties.

---

Exactly. This is purely a business dispute involving a lot of money and so it will be contested like other business disputes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Dandruff

Exactly. This is purely a business dispute involving a lot of money and so it will be contested like other business disputes.

---

Yeah the contesting of it isn't going well though is it lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Dandruff

Exactly. This is purely a business dispute involving a lot of money and so it will be contested like other business disputes.

---

Funnily enough, I was just going to come back and add to my reply to TBG about this. There are more business disputes that don't go to court than do. It's always a calculated risk. Ideally, you don't want it to go to court as it can go horribly wrong (as is the case for us now). Costs start spiralling and pride gets in the way. The lawyers are the winners. What you don't do is effectively cripple your business and assets unless you are confident you can win or have nothing to lose i.e. you're facing financial ruin. Sometimes, as I said, sh*t happens and you lose a lot of money. But this isn't a lot of money. Especially as it could have been paid back over time. Now, f*ck knows what costs have been incurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

Funnily enough, I was just going to come back and add to my reply to TBG about this. There are more business disputes that don't go to court than do. It's always a calculated risk. Ideally, you don't want it to go to court as it can go horribly wrong (as is the case for us now). Costs start spiralling and pride gets in the way. The lawyers are the winners. What you don't do is effectively cripple your business and assets unless you are confident you can win or have nothing to lose i.e. you're facing financial ruin. Sometimes, as I said, sh*t happens and you lose a lot of money. But this isn't a lot of money. Especially as it could have been paid back over time. Now, f*ck knows what costs have been incurred.

---

Lawyers…….don’t get me started on them…..:furious::furious:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

Funnily enough, I was just going to come back and add to my reply to TBG about this. There are more business disputes that don't go to court than do. It's always a calculated risk. Ideally, you don't want it to go to court as it can go horribly wrong (as is the case for us now). Costs start spiralling and pride gets in the way. The lawyers are the winners. What you don't do is effectively cripple your business and assets unless you are confident you can win or have nothing to lose i.e. you're facing financial ruin. Sometimes, as I said, sh*t happens and you lose a lot of money. But this isn't a lot of money. Especially as it could have been paid back over time. Now, f*ck knows what costs have been incurred.

---

There is one context in which your hands may be tied mind - should the insurer have as part of their conditions in paying out on a claim, that you pursue every possible avenue with which to recover the loss, however factored into this would usually be reasonable avenues. Pursuing fundamentally flawed legal argument wouldn't be one of them. When your argument is secondary (we didn't register him to play in any one competition) rather than primary to the matter at hand (he'd signed the contract and agreement completed upon), it is not reasonable and has has been ruled to be so twice now, at great extra cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt

Yeah the contesting of it isn't going well though is it lol

---

Do you think that Nantes wouldn’t appeal if they’d lost then? :facepalm:

Or that companies just accept every ruling without question? :facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Dandruff

Do you think that Nantes wouldn’t appeal if they’d lost then? :facepalm:

Or that companies just accept every ruling without question? :facepalm:

---

You are speaking to a management accountant, who has taken/managed large companies into and through litigation processes - for trade credit insurers, multinational manufacturers and financial services companies. i know they don't just accept every ruling without question, they also don't just disagree with them all either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

I wonder if that's why we've been signing anything that moves recently.

---

No we wanted to start our first game with the U16s and Gavin Whyte but this forced our hand

Sir,

Lots of supposition here which makes for interesting reading but can anyone, hand on heart, believe our plodding little board has emerged from this debacle with even a modicum of respect?

Highly dismayed
Tunbridge Wells

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt

There is one context in which your hands may be tied mind - should the insurer have as part of their conditions in paying out on a claim, that you pursue every possible avenue with which to recover the loss, however factored into this would usually be reasonable avenues. Pursuing fundamentally flawed legal argument wouldn't be one of them. When your argument is secondary (we didn't register him to play in any one competition) rather than primary to the matter at hand (he'd signed the contract and agreement completed upon), it is not reasonable and has has been ruled to be so twice now, at great extra cost.

---

That's interesting. I'm not a management accountant but I've worked with a few, mainly over intellectual property (initially in Pharma Development and now in Game Development), so the insurance conditions context is one that hasn't needed to be factored in during any disputes I've been involved with so I hadn't thought of that aspect.

Pursuing fundamentally flawed legal argument is an interesting one. In cases of IP for example, lawyers tend to try and come up with clever arguments based on technicalities. The risk was/is always to know who you're dealing with when it comes to the final judgement and 'will it p*ss them off?' I'm a person who has never wanted to go to court and that finding a figure to agree upon is better than losing and should be better for all parties. Like tribunals and compromise agreements for example. You're either going to lose some (but not as much if the court rules against you) or win some (but not as much if the court rules for you). Racking up legal costs can be a real disaster when it comes to making sound decisions and knowing when to back down.

There is one third point I've just thought of while writing this. Pride and/or stubbornness i.e. not wanting to lose. So you could be getting sound legal argument but choosing to ignore it because you just feel it's unfair (it may be but not legally). This goes back to the sh*t happens mindset and can that be accepted. All hypothetical but a second ruling against and record costs/arbitration fees doesn't bode well. I hope it's not stubbornness. As a mere fan in all this, it's my biggest worry and what the long-term repercussions will be for the club. Sure it's not my money. Sure it's not legally my club. Emotionally, it is though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DubaiDai

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

---

I can't believe there was not some kind of interim insurance arrangement in place. That's the fundamental issue of risk management. Whatever the niceties of the deal, stage by stage every element of risk should have been covered. Were talking substantial money so surely if handled properly all risk would have been covered/minimalised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

That's interesting. I'm not a management accountant but I've worked with a few, mainly over intellectual property (initially in Pharma Development and now in Game Development), so the insurance conditions context is one that hasn't needed to be factored in during any disputes I've been involved with so I hadn't thought of that aspect.

Pursuing fundamentally flawed legal argument is an interesting one. In cases of IP for example, lawyers tend to try and come up with clever arguments based on technicalities. The risk was/is always to know who you're dealing with when it comes to the final judgement and 'will it p*ss them off?' I'm a person who has never wanted to go to court and that finding a figure to agree upon is better than losing and should be better for all parties. Like tribunals and compromise agreements for example. You're either going to lose some (but not as much if the court rules against you) or win some (but not as much if the court rules for you). Racking up legal costs can be a real disaster when it comes to making sound decisions and knowing when to back down.

There is one third point I've just thought of while writing this. Pride and/or stubbornness i.e. not wanting to lose. So you could be getting sound legal argument but choosing to ignore it because you just feel it's unfair (it may be but not legally). This goes back to the sh*t happens mindset and can that be accepted. All hypothetical but a second ruling against and record costs/arbitration fees doesn't bode well. I hope it's not stubbornness. As a mere fan in all this, it's my biggest worry and what the long-term repercussions will be for the club. Sure it's not my money. Sure it's not legally my club. Emotionally, it is though.

---

The basis of an Insurance Policy is that it's a contact between two parties, both of whom agree to its terms. If the Insured party conforms to every stipulation then there's no reason the policy shouldn't pay out. If the Insurer doesn't pay out it becomes a dispute under Law of Contract. If City were somehow involved in a dispute with Nantes something occurred to void the contract with the Insurance Company. One wonders what that was and why did it occur?

By the way I'm assuming City bothered to take out insurance on the deal in the first place; if they didn't there's not much left to debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

The basis of an Insurance Policy is that it's a contact between two parties, both of whom agree to its terms. If the Insured party conforms to every stipulation then there's no reason the policy shouldn't pay out. If the Insurer doesn't pay out it becomes a dispute under Law of Contract. If City were somehow involved in a dispute with Nantes something occurred to void the contract with the Insurance Company. One wonders what that was and why did it occur?

By the way I'm assuming City bothered to take out insurance on the deal in the first place; if they didn't there's not much left to debate.

---

OK. So the Law of Contract (with an Insurer) is another factor. Interesting. It's a very complicated case involving many areas of specialist law. Contract, Financial, Criminal and Employment. The press release states City will appeal. I'm unclear as to where that appeal goes (back to CAS?) I don't know how this works.

I didn’t realise there was a further appeal stage possible through CAS until I read the club statement.

But what would be the point? What could be the basis of any appeal?

CAS has confirmed the FIFA ruling that the Sala transfer was complete at the time of his death. That will not change. The club’s ‘disappointment’ with the ruling is not that something significant in relation to contact completion was missed or misinterpreted but that CAS didn’t consider any Nantes liability for the fatal crash.

As CAS and the club itself have made clear, that is a matter for another legal process and forum.

The club should take action to recover some or all of it’s losses. But it should also pay Nantes the transfer fee in three delayed tranches and cough up for all the legal costs stacked up over 3 years.

We are no clearer on the insurance position.

In my view the club should accept the CAS ruling (is there a benefit to delaying things with appeals - kicking the can down the road?) and get on with suing the people and organisations responsible for the Sala flight. That might include Nantes (via Mark McKay) but that seems a stretch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

People can think what they like but I'll tell you straight what I would do/have done. I'd have already committed to the transfer so that money was already spent as far as I'm concerned. It's irrelevant as to 'who's money it is', it's a spreadsheet at the time of the deal. I'd have abided by the original ruling and sought to seek compensation afterwards. I wouldn't risk a transfer embargo. I wouldn't put the club in that position and neither would I want my club/business to look the way Cardiff City FC look right now.

Sure, it's not my money. There are enough people who know the type of person I am on here who know I'm not bull*tting when I say this stuff. I don't like this argument that 'it's Tan's money'. No! It may be Tan's business but that business is called Cardiff City Football Club and I live a mile away from it. We support its football team. This is visceral. It hurts and makes me feel ashamed.

Sh*t happens. Really bad sh*t happens. My view is you deal with it at the time and fairly and honourably. Move on, get on with it. We support a football team. I do not support this. It's why I'd make a sh*t politician because I believe in keeping to my agreements and doing the right thing. That is not always the same as the 'legal' thing. It works both ways.

---

Nice post mate. It represents the vast majority of opinions & sentiments of City supporters. It’s an embarrassment.
To appeal an appeal result is desperation

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

---

I honestly think this is the crux of the matter. My experience of insurance companies is that they’ll try everything possible not to pay out. There are enough tenuous pieces to this case that it makes me believe there are plenty of get out clauses. Was he an asset at the time? Was the transport approved under the terms of the contract? I’ve done a reasonable amount on employment contract law to know there are plenty of loop holes to be found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I can understand us going after the agents/flight organisers but never saw much sense in claiming he wasn't our player. As Sludge says that kind of money to Tan is like £100 to most of us

---

Especially when the argument that he wasn’t our player was based on us cocking up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

People can think what they like but I'll tell you straight what I would do/have done. I'd have already committed to the transfer so that money was already spent as far as I'm concerned. It's irrelevant as to 'who's money it is', it's a spreadsheet at the time of the deal. I'd have abided by the original ruling and sought to seek compensation afterwards. I wouldn't risk a transfer embargo. I wouldn't put the club in that position and neither would I want my club/business to look the way Cardiff City FC look right now.

Sure, it's not my money. There are enough people who know the type of person I am on here who know I'm not bull*tting when I say this stuff. I don't like this argument that 'it's Tan's money'. No! It may be Tan's business but that business is called Cardiff City Football Club and I live a mile away from it. We support its football team. This is visceral. It hurts and makes me feel ashamed.

Sh*t happens. Really bad sh*t happens. My view is you deal with it at the time and fairly and honourably. Move on, get on with it. We support a football team. I do not support this. It's why I'd make a sh*t politician because I believe in keeping to my agreements and doing the right thing. That is not always the same as the 'legal' thing. It works both ways.

---

Good post, Vincent Tan has said he would not leave Cardiff City in a worse state that when he came into the club. I’d say that, although we’re hardly in an ideal position, he could walk away today and be sticking to that promise financially, but reputationally? That’s a bit different - this is dragging the club through the mud when it comes to that criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

I didn’t realise there was a further appeal stage possible through CAS until I read the club statement.

But what would be the point? What could be the basis of any appeal?

CAS has confirmed the FIFA ruling that the Sala transfer was complete at the time of his death. That will not change. The club’s ‘disappointment’ with the ruling is not that something significant in relation to contact completion was missed or misinterpreted but that CAS didn’t consider any Nantes liability for the fatal crash.

As CAS and the club itself have made clear, that is a matter for another legal process and forum.

The club should take action to recover some or all of it’s losses. But it should also pay Nantes the transfer fee in three delayed tranches and cough up for all the legal costs stacked up over 3 years.

We are no clearer on the insurance position.

In my view the club should accept the CAS ruling (is there a benefit to delaying things with appeals - kicking the can down the road?) and get on with suing the people and organisations responsible for the Sala flight. That might include Nantes (via Mark McKay) but that seems a stretch!

---

One can only assume that by now they are trying to kick the can as far down the road as they possibly can without paying. With bogus argument and 2 judgements against us It's not a matter of there may be, in continuing not to pay and continuing to argue, further expense and damage to our reputation than there need to be incurred - there *will* be - but blindingly obvious is that the opportunity to save a few bucks/delay as long as possible the outlay is more important to the management than the size of the final expense we risk incurring as a result in doing so (as at the end of the day the owner does have the funds). Very embarrassing, highly unadvisable, highly short sighted.

They should pay now if there is no other place to go , the club were stitched up though on the fictional bids the agents (who were not registered) released via the press in order to increase the eventual fee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

I didn’t realise there was a further appeal stage possible through CAS until I read the club statement.

---

I also believed the CAS decision would be final - the guidance on their website suggests as much - but City can appeal to the Swiss Federal Court according to Sky. I've no idea how that would work and I've no idea what the point of such an appeal would be, but apparently it's an option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

They should pay now if there is no other place to go , the club were stitched up though on the fictional bids the agents (who were not registered) released via the press in order to increase the eventual fee.

---

That's tough shit though, isn't it? It almost certainly happens all the time in the murky world of football transfers. The crux of the matter is that Nantes named a fee, City agreed to pay it and signed the player accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

That's tough shit though, isn't it? It almost certainly happens all the time in the murky world of football transfers. The crux of the matter is that Nantes named a fee, City agreed to pay it and signed the player accordingly.

---

It is , the only thing the club could insist on is not paying is the £1.5 M agent fee as they were unregulated.
Why the clubs should pay the agent is a strange one , the player should

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

It is , the only thing the club could insist on not paying is the £1.5 M agent fee as they were unregulated

---

Apparently, McKay's son is a registered agent and he was the 'official' intermediary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

I can't believe there was not some kind of interim insurance arrangement in place. That's the fundamental issue of risk management. Whatever the niceties of the deal, stage by stage every element of risk should have been covered. Were talking substantial money so surely if handled properly all risk would have been covered/minimalised?

---

You're right, all signings really should be covered from the instant they're signed to the second they're released or sign for someone else, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. Clubs just ask their broker to add new players to the schedule as and when they sign them. You may be able to have a clause that gives you some interim cover for new signings before you add them, but almost certainly not up to £15m.
So yes, there is the potential for a short period, especially if you sign someone late at night or at the weekend, when a player you've forked out for isn't covered.
(I work in insurance, and although insurance for professional clubs isn't my thing I've had some experience of it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Apparently, McKay's son is a registered agent and he was the 'official' intermediary.

---

Mark McKay is a licenced intermediary (he wasn`t made personally bankrupt when his company was put into compulsory liquidation in Scotland by HMRC for non payment of very substantial tax debts so didn`t `lose his licence). However, Willie McKay was most certainly involved in the transfer discussions and to be involved in any way whatsoever (whether officially or not) is not allowed by the football authorities. The club knew this yet still dealt with him and allowed their manager at the time to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninian1962

Mark McKay is a licenced intermediary (he wasn`t made personally bankrupt when his company was put into compulsory liquidation in Scotland by HMRC for non payment of very substantial tax debts so didn`t `lose his licence). However, Willie McKay was most certainly involved in the transfer discussions and to be involved in any way whatsoever (whether officially or not) is not allowed by the football authorities. The club knew this yet still dealt with him and allowed their manager at the time to do so.

---

There is so much that has apparently yet to be uncovered regarding the club's relationship with the McKay family. Some have claimed the bizarre deal to bring to bring Jack and Paul McKay to Cardiff City in 2018 is irrelevant, while others have suggested it cost the club next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. I reckon it could turn out to be the most expensive in the club's history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

There is so much that has apparently yet to be uncovered regarding the club's relationship with the McKay family. Some have claimed the bizarre deal to bring to bring Jack and Paul McKay to Cardiff City in 2018 is irrelevant, while others have suggested it cost the club next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. I reckon it could turn out to be the most expensive in the club's history.

---

There's a story there I agree with your statement. Both of them signed for Leeds and then us but were not even considered as serious players. I believe neither made league appearances for either club. Effectively, they went from 2016-2019 with no appearances between them in the time with Leeds and Cardiff. Bizarre signings for both clubs (I think one of them made it into an FA Cup match but that's it). I haven't checked but you're the person who's on the button with these things which is why I think we're on the same page regarding the brothers.