Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
What a ****ing shambles. The club really is a joke. How any of these people became successful businessmen is beyond me.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
But the club spent years arguing they never signed him.
Well,yes Eric,because if Fifa had agreed that he hadn't signed then the question of insurance would have been irrelevant. Now,however they have been told they have to pay out so whether he was insured or not becomes important.
I don't know know though whether the insurance clubs take out normally means that any player who signs is automatically covered by the insurance or (crucially in this case of course!) if the club had to inform the insurers of the players name before the insurance was valid(which is the brokers defence of course).
I guess no one on here knows this, although I suspect the latter.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
Well,yes Eric,because if Fifa had agreed that he hadn't signed then the question of insurance would have been irrelevant. Now,however they have been told they have to pay out so whether he was insured or not becomes important.
I don't know know though whether the insurance clubs take out normally means that any player who signs is automatically covered by the insurance or (crucially in this case of course!) if the club had to inform the insurers of the players name before the insurance was valid(which is the brokers defence of course).
I guess no one on here knows this, although I suspect the latter.
Once upon a time I was a manager of a "high value" team at a life insurance company.
I can assure you that no footballer worth a lot of money, is automatically insured.
Higher value life insurance automatically requires an up-to-date full medical examination, and all relevant paperwork signed by the individual being insured as a minimum.
Sala's medical was completed by the 18th as reported by Wales Online. Possibly completed earlier.
It is not the job of the insurance company to chase the paperwork.
On completion of that medical, given the value of the player, that full medical paperwork should have been signed off by the club doctor, immediately scanned onto a computer, and immediately sent across to the insurer.
At this point, the club should have been contacting the insurer directly to request the application be processed as quickly as possible given the situation.
The insurance company literally could have had a policy in place within the hour if necessary given the high value nature of the case. A medical underwriter would have assessed the medical paperwork immediately upon request, and a decision would have been made at that point.
I daresay that, quite clearly, none of this happened.
Also, for the record, a flight to France in a plane being flown by an unqualified pilot... Would have likely voided the insurance anyway!!
It's all an absolute farce.
Tan has f*cked up royally and should have accepted that and paid up when asked.
Instead, ego and arrogance have cost him probably millions in legal fees, arguing a case he can never win.
As a result, we face a partial embargo and there's no funds for players even if we could sign them.
Oh, and by the way, all Mehmet's "the money's been set aside for the Sala case", was clearly untrue also, as he virtually admitted recently!
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WJ99mobile
I don't think they're taking the moral high ground just putting out their viewpoint to the fans who are very anti Cardiff due to the worm on the badge.
Anti Tan not anti Cardiff. If I were anti Cardiff I wouldn’t watch the shite being offered up every week.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
UNDERHILL1927
Anti Tan not anti Cardiff. If I were anti Cardiff I wouldn’t watch the shite being offered up every week.
Exactly!
Who on Earth on here is anti Cardiff? It's because we love the club so much we show our concern. Anti Tan but Anti Cardiff - never!
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
UNDERHILL1927
Anti Tan not anti Cardiff. If I were anti Cardiff I wouldn’t watch the shite being offered up every week.
If somebody is running the club that you love so badly that it is potentially harming the future of the club and you oppose this happening then surely that is pro Cardiff?
I don't get the thinking that whoever comes on board good bad or ugly should be supported regardless of what crap they do in the name of running the club.
Support the boys for 90 minutes but people can show concern for the welfare of the club.
In my opinion actively supporting a regime that is harming the Cardiff City brand and potentially harming the future of this club is anti Cardiff if anything.
What these people are doing to the club and the way they are running it is anti Cardiff.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninja
Once upon a time I was a manager of a "high value" team at a life insurance company.
I can assure you that no footballer worth a lot of money, is automatically insured.
Higher value life insurance automatically requires an up-to-date full medical examination, and all relevant paperwork signed by the individual being insured as a minimum.
Sala's medical was completed by the 18th as reported by Wales Online. Possibly completed earlier.
It is not the job of the insurance company to chase the paperwork.
On completion of that medical, given the value of the player, that full medical paperwork should have been signed off by the club doctor, immediately scanned onto a computer, and immediately sent across to the insurer.
At this point, the club should have been contacting the insurer directly to request the application be processed as quickly as possible given the situation.
The insurance company literally could have had a policy in place within the hour if necessary given the high value nature of the case. A medical underwriter would have assessed the medical paperwork immediately upon request, and a decision would have been made at that point.
I daresay that, quite clearly, none of this happened.
Also, for the record, a flight to France in a plane being flown by an unqualified pilot... Would have likely voided the insurance anyway!!
It's all an absolute farce.
Tan has f*cked up royally and should have accepted that and paid up when asked.
Instead, ego and arrogance have cost him probably millions in legal fees, arguing a case he can never win.
As a result, we face a partial embargo and there's no funds for players even if we could sign them.
Oh, and by the way, all Mehmet's "the money's been set aside for the Sala case", was clearly untrue also, as he virtually admitted recently!
I have always queried strongly that component myself.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
I have always queried strongly that component myself.
Not sure. If Sala knowingly risked his life, ie sky diving, climbing the Matterhorn, then possibly, but he got on a plane which in all reason would have expected to be flown by a qualified person and in full working order. I
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
I just hope this Sala case isn't a condensed version of what he is doing with the club as a whole.
Not being able to swallow his pride and pushing on with anything he thinks will work and ultimately failing while ignoring all advice.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
I think the type of policy involved here is personal accident rather than life insurance. I work in commercial insurance, and although sports insurance isn’t my thing I’ve seen a few of the policies that Premier League and EFL clubs have taken out. The way they work is this:
· The policy covers all players the club, via their broker, has told the insurer they want to cover, for the value the club has asked for.
· The policy pays out if a player is killed in an accident or suffers permanent disablement due to accident or illness.
· If the club wants to add a player they tell their broker the player’s name and value, the broker tells the insurer and the insurer confirms when the player has been added.
· All pre-existing medical conditions are excluded unless the insurer has assessed medical records and agreed to cover it.
· Cover might also be dependent on the player being between certain ages (eg 16 and 35) and having passed their medical.
· Anything related to things like drugs/alcohol/suicide would be excluded, but surprisingly, risky activities like flying in small planes usually aren’t.
· You can have automatic cover for new signings during transfer windows under this type of policy, which would give you cover for the transfer fee amount (up to a pre-agreed limit) for a few days. It appears though that the club’s policy didn’t have this, or that they didn’t advise the insurer of the signing within the time limit. (If they’d had this on a policy in the past, and their broker hadn’t told them they didn’t have it any more, that would also be a potential claim against the broker).
So, Sala’s death should have been covered if this is the type of policy the club had at the time and if they had added him to the policy in time. They clearly hadn’t added him in time, but are arguing that their broker, who should be providing them with expert advice, hadn’t warned them that they needed to be adding players from the moment they signed a contract. They’re also saying that they’d added players late before and the broker hadn’t told them this was risky. The broker is arguing that they had warned the club. If the broker has evidence of this (an email, letter, meeting minutes) then Cardiff’s action will fail. If they don’t, Cardiff have a chance in my opinion.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Undercoverinwurzelland
I think the type of policy involved here is personal accident rather than life insurance. I work in commercial insurance, and although sports insurance isn’t my thing I’ve seen a few of the policies that Premier League and EFL clubs have taken out. The way they work is this:
· The policy covers all players the club, via their broker, has told the insurer they want to cover, for the value the club has asked for.
· The policy pays out if a player is killed in an accident or suffers permanent disablement due to accident or illness.
· If the club wants to add a player they tell their broker the player’s name and value, the broker tells the insurer and the insurer confirms when the player has been added.
· All pre-existing medical conditions are excluded unless the insurer has assessed medical records and agreed to cover it.
· Cover might also be dependent on the player being between certain ages (eg 16 and 35) and having passed their medical.
· Anything related to things like drugs/alcohol/suicide would be excluded, but surprisingly, risky activities like flying in small planes usually aren’t.
· You can have automatic cover for new signings during transfer windows under this type of policy, which would give you cover for the transfer fee amount (up to a pre-agreed limit) for a few days. It appears though that the club’s policy didn’t have this, or that they didn’t advise the insurer of the signing within the time limit. (If they’d had this on a policy in the past, and their broker hadn’t told them they didn’t have it any more, that would also be a potential claim against the broker).
So, Sala’s death should have been covered if this is the type of policy the club had at the time and if they had added him to the policy in time. They clearly hadn’t added him in time, but are arguing that their broker, who should be providing them with expert advice, hadn’t warned them that they needed to be adding players from the moment they signed a contract. They’re also saying that they’d added players late before and the broker hadn’t told them this was risky. The broker is arguing that they had warned the club. If the broker has evidence of this (an email, letter, meeting minutes) then Cardiff’s action will fail. If they don’t, Cardiff have a chance in my opinion.
This is all well and good but falls down on the fact the club were saying until very recently that they had not signed the player.
The arguments they have put forward prior to this have given the insurance broker the vast majority of their argument to defend the case.
Only at Cardiff City.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninja
Once upon a time I was a manager of a "high value" team at a life insurance company.
I can assure you that no footballer worth a lot of money, is automatically insured.
Higher value life insurance automatically requires an up-to-date full medical examination, and all relevant paperwork signed by the individual being insured as a minimum.
Sala's medical was completed by the 18th as reported by Wales Online. Possibly completed earlier.
It is not the job of the insurance company to chase the paperwork.
On completion of that medical, given the value of the player, that full medical paperwork should have been signed off by the club doctor, immediately scanned onto a computer, and immediately sent across to the insurer.
At this point, the club should have been contacting the insurer directly to request the application be processed as quickly as possible given the situation.
The insurance company literally could have had a policy in place within the hour if necessary given the high value nature of the case. A medical underwriter would have assessed the medical paperwork immediately upon request, and a decision would have been made at that point.
I daresay that, quite clearly, none of this happened.
Also, for the record, a flight to France in a plane being flown by an unqualified pilot... Would have likely voided the insurance anyway!!
It's all an absolute farce.
Tan has f*cked up royally and should have accepted that and paid up when asked.
Instead, ego and arrogance have cost him probably millions in legal fees, arguing a case he can never win.
As a result, we face a partial embargo and there's no funds for players even if we could sign them.
Oh, and by the way, all Mehmet's "the money's been set aside for the Sala case", was clearly untrue also, as he virtually admitted recently!
Ah but did he actually say that the money had been ‘set aside’ or did he say that the fee had been fully accounted for in the clubs accounts. Two totally different matters.
Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dml1954
Ah but did he actually say that the money had been ‘set aside’ or did he say that the fee had been fully accounted for in the clubs accounts. Two totally different matters.
Tell us. What did you say?