CAS - Cardiff v Nantes

Paul Abbandonato's Wales Online piece this morning claims to lift the lid on the dispute.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...court-23468688

Not sure it adds much to the previously discussed hints, snippets and informed speculation about the basis of the case. It is also confusingly written in places and light on analysis.

However, the key points:

1. Cardiff claim the Sala contract was not completed before his death because (although registered by the FAW) there was an outstanding clause to resolve about the signing on fee, and the transfer had not been registered with the EPL.

If Abbandonato is right the EPL registration formed part of the transfer and was not something Cardiff needed to do after the transfer. That seems odd to me but maybe right. Emiliano Sala was due to sign amended/corrected/compliant forms on this return to Cardiff.

2. Cardiff claim that at the time of his death Sala was (under French contract law) still a Nantes player - his Nantes contract had not at that point been terminated.

3. Abbandonato suggests (but doesn't provide corroboration) that Cardiff City's insurers also believe that Emiliano Sala was a Nantes player at the time of his death and he was not covered by the club's policy.

4. Cardiff regard the announcement of Sala's signing with all the photos and press release as a publicity event that is not relevant to the contract status at the time.

5. Abbandonato says (based on 'club sources') that Cardiff asked CAS to adjudicate on whether Nantes was a party to organising the fatal flight (through Willie and Mark McKays?) and has some legal and financial liability as a result.

6. If Cardiff lose the CAS case they are likely to take civil action against Nantes - suing them (in the French courts?) for financial losses on the transfer (fees and legal costs) and also for loss of income from the club's relegation from the EPL - making the impossible to prove claim that Sala would or might have kept us up. (Echoes of Boro and Wycombe against Derby). If Cardiff win they will let it rest.

Cardiff have employed 16 lawyers on the case; Nantes 18.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Cardiff have employed 16 lawyers on the case; Nantes 18.

---

We must be fast approaching the reported transfer fee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

We must be fast approaching the reported transfer fee.

---

Billionaires don't care about money, it's all about power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Cardiff have employed 16 lawyers on the case; Nantes 18.

---

There’s only one winner here.

Thanks for the summary Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

There’s only one winner here.

---

Or you could say 34!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Paul Abbandonato's Wales Online piece this morning claims to lift the lid on the dispute.

---

An almost totally one-sided report, as you'd expect given the source of his information. Interesting note regarding the insurance, though. I've always felt that was the key to this situation. If Sala was properly insured by the club, I'm sure they'd have paid Nantes and claimed on the insurance. However, it seems likely the player wasn't properly insured, so the club are attempting to swerve the fee.

What an unsavoury business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

What an unsavoury business.

---

It is. And likely to drag on for a good while.

I wonder what happens if the insurers still determine that Emiliano Sala was a Nantes player when he died but CAS backs FIFA in saying that his transfer was complete (or complete enough)? I assume the insurers will accept the final judgement from CAS, but maybe not?

I don't like the way the contract status and the organisation of the flights are brought together - but it does look as if McKay (and therefore Nantes) didn't believe the transfer was all tied up when Cardiff did their publicity splash.

If it was all done why would they arrange and pay (who paid?) for a private flight at that time. McKay claims he did it because he's such a selfless and caring person and he wanted to do a favour to a young man left stranded at the mercy of commercial flights arranged by Cardiff. Does anyone believe that? I think he did it because he was concerned to get a revised and compliant contract signed as quickly and smoothly as possible so he could get his agent's fee paid. With tragic consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

If it was all done why would they arrange and pay (who paid?) for a private flight at that time.

---

Who was the player's agent?

The original contract between the club and sala was rejected by the premier league as sala had insisted on the signing on fee in one payment to which the club had agreed.
EPL rules allow that a signing on fee must be paid across the length of a contract so in salas case a 3 year contract meant 3 seperate annual payments.
Sala had not signed the new correct acceptable contract to the EPL prior to his passing although Nantes could argue that a football club with a decent football secretary would have known the rules and not produced the first contract.
the picture of sala signing his contract was a publicity stunt to placate the fans at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve davies

The original contract between the club and sala was rejected by the premier league as sala had insisted on the signing on fee in one payment to which the club had agreed. EPL rules allow that a signing on fee must be paid across the length of a contract so in salas case a 3 year contract meant 3 seperate annual payments.

---

That's interesting, Steve. I wonder if the contract would have been considered fine in France? It seems odd (to me at least) that a British club would consider a transfer null and void simply because the contract they had produced had been deemed unacceptable under their own league's rules. It sounds very one-sided if those are the only grounds for appeal. I'd have thought the transfer itself would be a separate issue to the player's contract, but it's all guesswork on my part of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Who was the player's agent?

---

https://www.theguardian.com/football...o-sala-cardiff

English FA rules insist clubs and players may deal on a transfer only with people registered or licensed as an agent - McKay wasn’t

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Who was the player's agent?

---

Meissa N'Diaye

But I have never seen any suggestion that he was involved in arranging or paying for the flights. McKay claims he (or his son) paid for the flights but maybe in the expectation that they would recover their costs from their employer - Nantes?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47626855

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

That's interesting, Steve. I wonder if the contract would have been considered fine in France? It seems odd (to me at least) that a British club would consider a transfer null and void simply because the contract they had produced had been deemed unacceptable under their own league's rules. It sounds very one-sided if those are the only grounds for appeal. I'd have thought the transfer itself would be a separate issue to the player's contract, but it's all guesswork on my part of course.

---

It depends entirely on what is specified in the contract between the clubs, e.g. if it states that the contract is only complete when the player is properly registered at the EPL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpersforGoalposts

It depends entirely on what is specified in the contract between the clubs.....

---

No shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Meissa N'Diaye

But I have never seen any suggestion that he was involved in arranging or paying for the flights. McKay claims he (or his son) paid for the flights but maybe in the expectation that they would recover their costs from their employer - Nantes?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47626855

---

The FA is understood to be taking the same view based on what has been made public: that McKay was not acting for Cardiff but for Nantes, when he had all the dealings with Cardiff and so cannot be said to have engaged in “intermediary activity” for a club under its jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

English FA rules insist clubs and players may deal on a transfer only with people registered or licensed as an agent - McKay wasn’t

---

Indeed. Nevertheless, Warnock was flying back and forth to France with him and two of his sons were on the books at Cardiff City...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

That's interesting, Steve. I wonder if the contract would have been considered fine in France? It seems odd (to me at least) that a British club would consider a transfer null and void simply because the contract they had produced had been deemed unacceptable under their own league's rules. It sounds very one-sided if those are the only grounds for appeal. I'd have thought the transfer itself would be a separate issue to the player's contract, but it's all guesswork on my part of course.

---

im looking back at the bits and pieces i have Jon and it also says that the paperwork received from the French Fa and lodged with the premier league to say he was no longer registered with Nantes was dated 4 days after his passing. All this to one side though and surely he must have been insured with one of the clubs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve davies

All this to one side though and surely he must have been insured with one of the clubs?

---

That's the thing that amazes me, although I guess the insurance companies are taking the same stance as Nantes and Cardiff, ie: that the player wasn't connected to whichever club their insurance covers at the time of his passing. Also, perhaps the insurance values greatly differ from the transfer value. Who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

That's the thing that amazes me, although I guess the insurance companies are taking the same stance as Nantes and Cardiff, ie: that the player wasn't connected to whichever club their insurance covers at the time of his passing. Also, perhaps the insurance values greatly differ from the transfer value. Who knows?

---

I agree Dave his £15 million price tag was i believe considerably over the insurance value Nantes would have had on him as I believe he had been valued at £1.5 million in the previous transfer window. i know in steve borleys time he had to have players insured on the day he signed them but back then the club had football secretarys who knew their jobs and the rules

There is no winner just tragic loss of life In a world of corrupt sport run by money enjoyed by all .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

It is. And likely to drag on for a good while.

I wonder what happens if the insurers still determine that Emiliano Sala was a Nantes player when he died but CAS backs FIFA in saying that his transfer was complete (or complete enough)? I assume the insurers will accept the final judgement from CAS, but maybe not?

I don't like the way the contract status and the organisation of the flights are brought together - but it does look as if McKay (and therefore Nantes) didn't believe the transfer was all tied up when Cardiff did their publicity splash.

If it was all done why would they arrange and pay (who paid?) for a private flight at that time. McKay claims he did it because he's such a selfless and caring person and he wanted to do a favour to a young man left stranded at the mercy of commercial flights arranged by Cardiff. Does anyone believe that? I think he did it because he was concerned to get a revised and compliant contract signed as quickly and smoothly as possible so he could get his agent's fee paid. With tragic consequences.

---

He did it because he gets a huge cut of the fee doesn’t he? Isn’t it something like 2 million? Makes you wanna puke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goats

He did it because he gets a huge cut of the fee doesn’t he? Isn’t it something like 2 million? Makes you wanna puke

---

Wasn’t the breakdown £8 million Nantes Chairman approx, £3 million to Mckays approx and the remainder to the Club. Both City and Nantes shafted.

3. Abbandonato suggests (but doesn't provide corroboration) that Cardiff City's insurers also believe that Emiliano Sala was a Nantes player at the time of his death and he was not covered by the club's policy.

The above suggests that Cardiff City had insured the player. Isn't that new information? While the insurers have taken the view they have that is meaningless if the Courts rule otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vindec

3. Abbandonato suggests (but doesn't provide corroboration) that Cardiff City's insurers also believe that Emiliano Sala was a Nantes player at the time of his death and he was not covered by the club's policy.

The above suggests that Cardiff City had insured the player. Isn't that new information? While the insurers have taken the view they have that is meaningless if the Courts rule otherwise.

---

Insurance companies are rarely wrong in their assessments, risk management is their business and they only employ the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

An almost totally one-sided report, as you'd expect given the source of his information. Interesting note regarding the insurance, though. I've always felt that was the key to this situation. If Sala was properly insured by the club, I'm sure they'd have paid Nantes and claimed on the insurance. However, it seems likely the player wasn't properly insured, so the club are attempting to swerve the fee.

What an unsavoury business.

---

Even if he was insured the club would be under an obligation to mitigate any losses, so wed be having the argument with Nantes anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Insurance companies are rarely wrong in their assessments, risk management is their business and they only employ the best.

---

well when 2 insurance companies take opposing views, one of them is probably wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vindec

3. Abbandonato suggests (but doesn't provide corroboration) that Cardiff City's insurers also believe that Emiliano Sala was a Nantes player at the time of his death and he was not covered by the club's policy.

The above suggests that Cardiff City had insured the player. Isn't that new information? While the insurers have taken the view they have that is meaningless if the Courts rule otherwise.

---

How could the club have insured him if as you say the insurers say he was still a Nantes player? They can’t….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Insurance companies are rarely wrong in their assessments, risk management is their business and they only employ the best.

---

They do try it on sometimes, especially when there's a huge amount of money at stake. The courts do overturn their decisions sometimes.
I think another issue with the insurance is going to be whether we actually added him to the policy or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goats

How could the club have insured him if as you say the insurers say he was still a Nantes player? They can’t….

---

I think both insurers are awaiting the CAS decision on whether Sala was a City player or a Nantes player at the time of the accident. Logic says he was one or the other, and then presumably the relevant club's insurer would pay whatever compensation was underwritten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I think both insurers are awaiting the CAS decision on whether Sala was a City player or a Nantes player at the time of the accident. Logic says he was one or the other, and then presumably the relevant club's insurer would pay whatever compensation was underwritten.

---

...and both could argue that any insurance was invalid due to Sala taking a flight which was illegal. Unless he was taking a scheduled flight (or one with a proper charter company), no insurance policy would cover him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

well when 2 insurance companies take opposing views, one of them is probably wrong

---

It won't be the insurers who made the mistake.