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.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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.
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.Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
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.
If the case for Sala not being a City player was proven, then there wouldn't have been any need to involve insurance. It's just sequential logic to address each issue in this order.
It isn't if you insured them after the plane went missing. As is being claimed.
Now we know what Vincent Tan does in his spare time. He writes weird posts on a football message board.
dml1954 never says “God willing” and he doesn’t mention Cornelius in every post, so we can rule Vinny out. But whoever is behind the creation of dml1954, he’s a great invention. Far and away the funniest character we’ve had on this board in the 23 years I’ve been using it, and we’ve had a few.
Ha ha, you're right.
Is it possible he was created by Harry Enfield maybe?
possible, maybe ? One too many.
If I'd bought a product for that kind of money, I wouldn't be allowing it to be transported around on a dodgy 2-bit plane run by "McKay airways ltd", and flown by an unqualified f*cking pilot!
to be fair to the club, I wouldn't have thought they would have known the plane was a wreck and not safe and the pilot was not qualified to have taken the flight, they offered him a commercial flight from CDG
So while Vinnie is to blame for a few things he has done wrong, not sure this is one
This poor man was transported illegally from France, destination Cardiff Wales
No I've only had soft drinks all day.
[QUOTE=DubaiDai;5385035]Charlton must be sick as pigs Mehmet didn't buy them ...Not!
In fairness, their current owner isn't much better... They've really been through the mill.
I see nothing remotely comedic about DML's well reasoned argument at all, nor your sad effort to discredit it.
You obviously have an axe to grind with our owner as you seem to with many of the said poster's posts, all backed up in the usual way by a couple of your "mates".
CCFC may well end up losing a lot of money on this saddest of cases but it will not be down to one man's actions before or after the tragedy.
I’m not in the slightest bit surprised. After all, you take umbrage with everything I post, while you seem to view comedy king dml1954 as some sort of role model.
As regards having an axe to grind, you must have a shed full of them where I’m concerned. Do I know you away from this board and have done something to upset you in the past? If not, then your apparent obsession with my contributions and the upset they seem to cause you is extremely weird.
Let me get this right the Insurance Company who City are pursuing in court have said we are in the wrong so we must believe them before the club , because Mr Tan runs it . Wow.
Incredibly folk hate the current crew and are not so vocal about Sam ( let me sue the club ) Hamman because I'm short of cash.. FFS
I think the reason people joke about it is because the case against the insurance company is ludicrous, the club have been poorly organised to sort out the paperwork (I’m sure other clubs are too but now we have the benefit of hindsight). Personally I don’t see any logic to the court case but no doubt tan has enough money to piss up the walls on lawyers.
I’m sure there’s plenty who will think that tan will know far better than us because he has a great business brain but I’ve seen no evidence of that to date. I wonder if he made his millions because he was wearing lucky red
As far as hating tan and the board is concerned that’s certainly not true for me, I just feel apathetic to the whole set up. In my opinion the villain in the piece is arguably Nantes and given the extraordinary case both clubs should’ve met half way on the fee rather than us being forced to pay £10m for a player who never arrived.
You specialise in this sort of thing don’t you. A thread begins criticising the Tory party and you jump in saying, but what about Labour - a party that haven’t been in Government for thirteen years. Now people are rightly being critical of an owner who has turned us into a laughing stock and you’re saying what about Hammam - a man who has not had any real influence at the club for over sixteen years!
With all that is going wrong at City at the moment, to expect supporters to be turning their fire on Sam Hammam now is completely and utterly barmy. Go to page three of this thread and look at what Tuerto posted at ten past six yesterday evening. That’s why the club are being given such short shrift on this subject - what would you and the other blind faith merchants on here be saying in the identical circumstances if it was another club that had signed Emiliano Sala? You’d be slaughtering them.
As I posted [last weeks ?] this is a unique situation for a football club. Tan is a 'serious' businessman, and I doubt he would pursue a vexatious action without consulting lawyers. It's not a pleasant matter for anyone remotely involved but we're talking about something that was completely beyond the expectations of the club ,it's employees and dreadfully, the family of Sala. I don't begrudge the club pursuing the insurance angle now the legal ownership of the player in football terms has been finally exhausted through the courts. This has shrouded the club for 4 years now and I doubt Tan etc. have enjoyed the adverse publicity and inaccurate reporting [viz WOL] as much as it's infuriated and angered our supporters.
On what evidence from his time at city would you base this assertion on?
Not looking to argue just genuinely interested. As much as I think it would be good to have change now I don’t dislike tan and am grateful to some extent. But the things I’d be grateful for are the opposite of what a serious businessman would do
Haha. My word you have such an inflated opinion of yourself.
I take umbrage at Cyber bullying period.
You seem to have a following who jump on the bandwagon every time you post this type of thing, very often aimed at DML.
This man seems to be a Cardiff City fan who wants what is best for the club. A glass half full type of chap. I don't get it.
I take umbrage when you post on here with negativity towards the club and owner every time an opportunity arises.
I find it embarrassing when so called fans on here are posting that they are embarrassed by the owner fighting his corner in what is obviously a very fishy affair.
Don't worry, I'm not some kind of nut job on a crusade to bring you down à la yourself with VT.
This comment is kind of ironic considering it’s you who seems to believe my posts are important enough to get upset about on a very regular basis. And don’t think you’ll fool anyone with your cyber bullying nonsense. That’s a really cowardly claim, but it’s par for the course where you’re concerned.
The truth is that you take umbrage with pretty much everything I post regardless of the subject, and you’ve been supplying your outraged responses on a continual basis for years. The bad news for you is that, while you apparently care deeply about what I say, I genuinely couldn’t care less what you think. I just reckon you’re an oddball. You’d have to be to take strangers’ opinions about a football club so seriously.
Irony LOL. It is you who seem to be upset, with me telling it as it is.
"Very regular basis" I don't think so, just those posts I can be arsed to reply to. There could be so many more
You will notice that I have employed your trick here, cutting and pasting a sample of a post choosing to ignore the rest, usually the points that matter.
My reasoning tho, I refuse to stoop to name calling.
I'm off now to try and enjoy my weekend without obsessing over you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote