https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.co...further-delay/
Printable View
Really uncomfortable to still have this rumbling on, has never eat well with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNDERHILL1927
“The two parties have agreed to a further delay to the hearing in order to prepare their respective statements of case”.
Makes you wonder what further ‘preparation’ they could possibly need!
I don’t get anything to do with it, if he is our player dont the club cover them in some form of insurance? Would t that be standard procedure…..
And if he wasn't our player because the contract wasn't properly completed - despite the announcement and photos - he would not be covered by Cardiff City player insurance. From all the thousands of pages of reports and opinions across great swathes of the internet, that was what I always understood to be the basis of the dispute.Quote:
Originally Posted by goats
So, if we do have to pay for him, insurance pays up….what’s the fussQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
I imagine that our insurers are saying they require complete proof that he was our player. If he wasn't Nantes will require the same in order to pay out.Quote:
Originally Posted by goats
I suspect the issue is more along the lines of the club not having completed the necessary insurance application but still having to fork out £15m on the transfer fee.
I think there's a very good chance that's the case. He signed whatever he did sign and was announced on a Saturday afternoon/evening, and the plane disappeared early on the following Monday morning. I'm sure no insurers / brokers were working on a Saturday evening or Sunday to add him to the insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grangenders
This is all supposition, guesswork and speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
It is, although I work in insurance and know a bit about policies for professional footballers.Quote:
Originally Posted by dml1954
That’s the point - nothing’s being said or concluded, so that’s all we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by dml1954
City must be acting on the advice of their insurers and legal council. It would be stupid to pay them for advice and then not take it. If it was cut and dried that he was our player then this would have been sorted long ago, so there must clearly be room for doubt.
It’s not. Sala was announced as our player and he died a couple of days later - they are facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by dml1954
And yet the Prem League said he wouldn't have been allowed to play for us had he lived, due to incorrect/incomplete paperwork.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
To the best of my knowledge the club has done no wrong. It's a tragedy, but £15 million is a significant enough sum to warrant taking it through the courts. I'm pretty sure the Directors feel really uncomfortable too.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNDERHILL1927
He was in essence but not legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Being registered for the Premier League and being our player (or not) are different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobh
Leicester had a player that couldn’t play due to missing the paperwork deadline.
If Sala wasn’t our player, then it seems a bit niave of the club to have announced his signing.
That doesn’t make what I said untrue and itscertainly not “supposition, guesswork and speculation”.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobh