Re: THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES
I think the whole issue is …who was responsible for Emilianos death. Ultimately they should pay any costs or damages incurred by either Cardiff City or any insurers. The recent ruling was just to clarify (for legal reasons) what we already knew…that he signed for us.
Re: THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES
Quote:
Originally Posted by
G rangetown Blue
I think the whole issue is …who was responsible for Emilianos death. Ultimately they should pay any costs or damages incurred by either Cardiff City or any insurers. The recent ruling was just to clarify (for legal reasons) what we already knew…that he signed for us.
And that’s something Cardiff City FC have repeatedly denied had happened.
Re: THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES
Quote:
Originally Posted by
G rangetown Blue
I think the whole issue is …who was responsible for Emilianos death. Ultimately they should pay any costs or damages incurred by either Cardiff City or any insurers. The recent ruling was just to clarify (for legal reasons) what we already knew…that he signed for us.
If I ran the lad over and killed him [God forbid], I could be sued for £15 million. Only one problem with that !
Re: THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gabbsthenewt
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.
Ooooh! ;-)
Re: THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gabbsthenewt
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
Bobby Dandruff
Ooooh! ;-)
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
;-)
Re: THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Undercoverinwurzelland
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).
Yes I take your point and I understand these ad hoc increments to an insurance schedule happen all the time and are routinely effected. It usually suggests the added risk is not unusual in itself and is added on a batch basis to an existing policy.
However, in that case, wouldn't it be expected that as the risk was not unusual the insurance would have been paid out in the event that the worst happened? Doesn't the fact that the money wasn't paid out suggest that the policyholder hadn't entirely stuck to the terms or maybe recklessly misinterpreted them? If it were the Broker who somehow entered the risk details incorrectly then the club would have had a legitimate claim against the Broker. That didn't seem to happen so I'm scratching my head trying to work out what was amiss.
