Quote Originally Posted by Allez Allez Allez View Post
So they still reckon they don't have to pay for a transfer that was completed?

They have to win all three of these claims

£15m Sam. Should be easy, but I think the club conceded they owed Sam money so that makes it tricky.
£10m Isaacs. Shares can drop in value as well as rise, but didn't Isaacs' shares get diluted?
£15m Nantes. Not much chance of the club winning that one, morally, ethically or legally.

£40m in court cases, losing £3m a month, still signing players. Christ, I hope there is a plan somewhere.
As I understand it the position on the three claims is as follows

Sam’s claim is that he is owed £15 m because his exit deal gave him the right to a life presidency of the club and the right to rejoin the executive board and take part in decision making. The club say that he was given the life presidency role but it was only a titular role and that the agreement gave no executive powers at all.

Michael Isaac’ claim is based on his assertion that his 2% shareholding in the club is worth £10m and was lost when Vincent Tan took more shares by his debt to equity conversion. If 2% of the club is worth £10m that would make the whole club worth £500m. Really?

The club has always maintained the view that Nantes and the actions of the ( unlicensed)intermediary they used in the deal caused the transfer to be nul and void. FIFA disagreed with this view, hence the full legal case being taken to CAS. The meeting was told that Nantes have asked for various adjournments of the CAS hearing and are yet to provide the paperwork to support their claim.