THE CAS AGREES WITH FC NANTES

[Dorcus]

Sir,

Lots of supposition here which makes for interesting reading but can anyone, hand on heart, believe our plodding little board has emerged from this debacle with even a modicum of respect?

Highly dismayed
Tunbridge Wells

[Citizen's Nephew]

There is one context in which your hands may be tied mind - should the insurer have as part of their conditions in paying out on a claim, that you pursue every possible avenue with which to recover the loss, however factored into this would usually be reasonable avenues. Pursuing fundamentally flawed legal argument wouldn't be one of them. When your argument is secondary (we didn't register him to play in any one competition) rather than primary to the matter at hand (he'd signed the contract and agreement completed upon), it is not reasonable and has has been ruled to be so twice now, at great extra cost.

That's interesting. I'm not a management accountant but I've worked with a few, mainly over intellectual property (initially in Pharma Development and now in Game Development), so the insurance conditions context is one that hasn't needed to be factored in during any disputes I've been involved with so I hadn't thought of that aspect.

Pursuing fundamentally flawed legal argument is an interesting one. In cases of IP for example, lawyers tend to try and come up with clever arguments based on technicalities. The risk was/is always to know who you're dealing with when it comes to the final judgement and 'will it p*ss them off?' I'm a person who has never wanted to go to court and that finding a figure to agree upon is better than losing and should be better for all parties. Like tribunals and compromise agreements for example. You're either going to lose some (but not as much if the court rules against you) or win some (but not as much if the court rules for you). Racking up legal costs can be a real disaster when it comes to making sound decisions and knowing when to back down.

There is one third point I've just thought of while writing this. Pride and/or stubbornness i.e. not wanting to lose. So you could be getting sound legal argument but choosing to ignore it because you just feel it's unfair (it may be but not legally). This goes back to the sh*t happens mindset and can that be accepted. All hypothetical but a second ruling against and record costs/arbitration fees doesn't bode well. I hope it's not stubbornness. As a mere fan in all this, it's my biggest worry and what the long-term repercussions will be for the club. Sure it's not my money. Sure it's not legally my club. Emotionally, it is though.

[Dorcus]

I don’t think he was covered by insurance until he was fully signed. Which he wasn’t

I can't believe there was not some kind of interim insurance arrangement in place. That's the fundamental issue of risk management. Whatever the niceties of the deal, stage by stage every element of risk should have been covered. Were talking substantial money so surely if handled properly all risk would have been covered/minimalised?

[Dorcus]

That's interesting. I'm not a management accountant but I've worked with a few, mainly over intellectual property (initially in Pharma Development and now in Game Development), so the insurance conditions context is one that hasn't needed to be factored in during any disputes I've been involved with so I hadn't thought of that aspect.

Pursuing fundamentally flawed legal argument is an interesting one. In cases of IP for example, lawyers tend to try and come up with clever arguments based on technicalities. The risk was/is always to know who you're dealing with when it comes to the final judgement and 'will it p*ss them off?' I'm a person who has never wanted to go to court and that finding a figure to agree upon is better than losing and should be better for all parties. Like tribunals and compromise agreements for example. You're either going to lose some (but not as much if the court rules against you) or win some (but not as much if the court rules for you). Racking up legal costs can be a real disaster when it comes to making sound decisions and knowing when to back down.

There is one third point I've just thought of while writing this. Pride and/or stubbornness i.e. not wanting to lose. So you could be getting sound legal argument but choosing to ignore it because you just feel it's unfair (it may be but not legally). This goes back to the sh*t happens mindset and can that be accepted. All hypothetical but a second ruling against and record costs/arbitration fees doesn't bode well. I hope it's not stubbornness. As a mere fan in all this, it's my biggest worry and what the long-term repercussions will be for the club. Sure it's not my money. Sure it's not legally my club. Emotionally, it is though.

The basis of an Insurance Policy is that it's a contact between two parties, both of whom agree to its terms. If the Insured party conforms to every stipulation then there's no reason the policy shouldn't pay out. If the Insurer doesn't pay out it becomes a dispute under Law of Contract. If City were somehow involved in a dispute with Nantes something occurred to void the contract with the Insurance Company. One wonders what that was and why did it occur?

By the way I'm assuming City bothered to take out insurance on the deal in the first place; if they didn't there's not much left to debate.

[Citizen's Nephew]

The basis of an Insurance Policy is that it's a contact between two parties, both of whom agree to its terms. If the Insured party conforms to every stipulation then there's no reason the policy shouldn't pay out. If the Insurer doesn't pay out it becomes a dispute under Law of Contract. If City were somehow involved in a dispute with Nantes something occurred to void the contract with the Insurance Company. One wonders what that was and why did it occur?

By the way I'm assuming City bothered to take out insurance on the deal in the first place; if they didn't there's not much left to debate.

OK. So the Law of Contract (with an Insurer) is another factor. Interesting. It's a very complicated case involving many areas of specialist law. Contract, Financial, Criminal and Employment. The press release states City will appeal. I'm unclear as to where that appeal goes (back to CAS?) I don't know how this works.

[jon1959]

I didn’t realise there was a further appeal stage possible through CAS until I read the club statement.

But what would be the point? What could be the basis of any appeal?

CAS has confirmed the FIFA ruling that the Sala transfer was complete at the time of his death. That will not change. The club’s ‘disappointment’ with the ruling is not that something significant in relation to contact completion was missed or misinterpreted but that CAS didn’t consider any Nantes liability for the fatal crash.

As CAS and the club itself have made clear, that is a matter for another legal process and forum.

The club should take action to recover some or all of it’s losses. But it should also pay Nantes the transfer fee in three delayed tranches and cough up for all the legal costs stacked up over 3 years.

We are no clearer on the insurance position.

In my view the club should accept the CAS ruling (is there a benefit to delaying things with appeals - kicking the can down the road?) and get on with suing the people and organisations responsible for the Sala flight. That might include Nantes (via Mark McKay) but that seems a stretch!

[Des Parrot]

People can think what they like but I'll tell you straight what I would do/have done. I'd have already committed to the transfer so that money was already spent as far as I'm concerned. It's irrelevant as to 'who's money it is', it's a spreadsheet at the time of the deal. I'd have abided by the original ruling and sought to seek compensation afterwards. I wouldn't risk a transfer embargo. I wouldn't put the club in that position and neither would I want my club/business to look the way Cardiff City FC look right now.

Sure, it's not my money. There are enough people who know the type of person I am on here who know I'm not bull*tting when I say this stuff. I don't like this argument that 'it's Tan's money'. No! It may be Tan's business but that business is called Cardiff City Football Club and I live a mile away from it. We support its football team. This is visceral. It hurts and makes me feel ashamed.

Sh*t happens. Really bad sh*t happens. My view is you deal with it at the time and fairly and honourably. Move on, get on with it. We support a football team. I do not support this. It's why I'd make a sh*t politician because I believe in keeping to my agreements and doing the right thing. That is not always the same as the 'legal' thing. It works both ways.

Nice post mate. It represents the vast majority of opinions & sentiments of City supporters. It’s an embarrassment.
To appeal an appeal result is desperation

[Des Parrot]

I know this sounds distasteful, but Sala was an asset and not just an employee. With players making up by far the largest proportion of assets the club can have, I'm sure they would have been insured. Whether Sala was insured is another matter

I honestly think this is the crux of the matter. My experience of insurance companies is that they’ll try everything possible not to pay out. There are enough tenuous pieces to this case that it makes me believe there are plenty of get out clauses. Was he an asset at the time? Was the transport approved under the terms of the contract? I’ve done a reasonable amount on employment contract law to know there are plenty of loop holes to be found.

[the other bob wilson]

I can understand us going after the agents/flight organisers but never saw much sense in claiming he wasn't our player. As Sludge says that kind of money to Tan is like £100 to most of us

Especially when the argument that he wasn’t our player was based on us cocking up.

[the other bob wilson]

People can think what they like but I'll tell you straight what I would do/have done. I'd have already committed to the transfer so that money was already spent as far as I'm concerned. It's irrelevant as to 'who's money it is', it's a spreadsheet at the time of the deal. I'd have abided by the original ruling and sought to seek compensation afterwards. I wouldn't risk a transfer embargo. I wouldn't put the club in that position and neither would I want my club/business to look the way Cardiff City FC look right now.

Sure, it's not my money. There are enough people who know the type of person I am on here who know I'm not bull*tting when I say this stuff. I don't like this argument that 'it's Tan's money'. No! It may be Tan's business but that business is called Cardiff City Football Club and I live a mile away from it. We support its football team. This is visceral. It hurts and makes me feel ashamed.

Sh*t happens. Really bad sh*t happens. My view is you deal with it at the time and fairly and honourably. Move on, get on with it. We support a football team. I do not support this. It's why I'd make a sh*t politician because I believe in keeping to my agreements and doing the right thing. That is not always the same as the 'legal' thing. It works both ways.

Good post, Vincent Tan has said he would not leave Cardiff City in a worse state that when he came into the club. I’d say that, although we’re hardly in an ideal position, he could walk away today and be sticking to that promise financially, but reputationally? That’s a bit different - this is dragging the club through the mud when it comes to that criteria.

[gabbsthenewt]

I didn’t realise there was a further appeal stage possible through CAS until I read the club statement.

But what would be the point? What could be the basis of any appeal?

CAS has confirmed the FIFA ruling that the Sala transfer was complete at the time of his death. That will not change. The club’s ‘disappointment’ with the ruling is not that something significant in relation to contact completion was missed or misinterpreted but that CAS didn’t consider any Nantes liability for the fatal crash.

As CAS and the club itself have made clear, that is a matter for another legal process and forum.

The club should take action to recover some or all of it’s losses. But it should also pay Nantes the transfer fee in three delayed tranches and cough up for all the legal costs stacked up over 3 years.

We are no clearer on the insurance position.

In my view the club should accept the CAS ruling (is there a benefit to delaying things with appeals - kicking the can down the road?) and get on with suing the people and organisations responsible for the Sala flight. That might include Nantes (via Mark McKay) but that seems a stretch!

One can only assume that by now they are trying to kick the can as far down the road as they possibly can without paying. With bogus argument and 2 judgements against us It's not a matter of there may be, in continuing not to pay and continuing to argue, further expense and damage to our reputation than there need to be incurred - there *will* be - but blindingly obvious is that the opportunity to save a few bucks/delay as long as possible the outlay is more important to the management than the size of the final expense we risk incurring as a result in doing so (as at the end of the day the owner does have the funds). Very embarrassing, highly unadvisable, highly short sighted.

[TWGL1]

They should pay now if there is no other place to go , the club were stitched up though on the fictional bids the agents (who were not registered) released via the press in order to increase the eventual fee.

[The Lone Gunman]

I didn’t realise there was a further appeal stage possible through CAS until I read the club statement.

I also believed the CAS decision would be final - the guidance on their website suggests as much - but City can appeal to the Swiss Federal Court according to Sky. I've no idea how that would work and I've no idea what the point of such an appeal would be, but apparently it's an option.

[The Lone Gunman]

They should pay now if there is no other place to go , the club were stitched up though on the fictional bids the agents (who were not registered) released via the press in order to increase the eventual fee.

That's tough shit though, isn't it? It almost certainly happens all the time in the murky world of football transfers. The crux of the matter is that Nantes named a fee, City agreed to pay it and signed the player accordingly.

[TWGL1]

That's tough shit though, isn't it? It almost certainly happens all the time in the murky world of football transfers. The crux of the matter is that Nantes named a fee, City agreed to pay it and signed the player accordingly.

It is , the only thing the club could insist on is not paying is the £1.5 M agent fee as they were unregulated.
Why the clubs should pay the agent is a strange one , the player should

[The Lone Gunman]

It is , the only thing the club could insist on not paying is the £1.5 M agent fee as they were unregulated

Apparently, McKay's son is a registered agent and he was the 'official' intermediary.

[Undercoverinwurzelland]

I can't believe there was not some kind of interim insurance arrangement in place. That's the fundamental issue of risk management. Whatever the niceties of the deal, stage by stage every element of risk should have been covered. Were talking substantial money so surely if handled properly all risk would have been covered/minimalised?

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).

[Ninian1962]

Apparently, McKay's son is a registered agent and he was the 'official' intermediary.

Mark McKay is a licenced intermediary (he wasn`t made personally bankrupt when his company was put into compulsory liquidation in Scotland by HMRC for non payment of very substantial tax debts so didn`t `lose his licence). However, Willie McKay was most certainly involved in the transfer discussions and to be involved in any way whatsoever (whether officially or not) is not allowed by the football authorities. The club knew this yet still dealt with him and allowed their manager at the time to do so.

[The Lone Gunman]

Mark McKay is a licenced intermediary (he wasn`t made personally bankrupt when his company was put into compulsory liquidation in Scotland by HMRC for non payment of very substantial tax debts so didn`t `lose his licence). However, Willie McKay was most certainly involved in the transfer discussions and to be involved in any way whatsoever (whether officially or not) is not allowed by the football authorities. The club knew this yet still dealt with him and allowed their manager at the time to do so.

There is so much that has apparently yet to be uncovered regarding the club's relationship with the McKay family. Some have claimed the bizarre deal to bring to bring Jack and Paul McKay to Cardiff City in 2018 is irrelevant, while others have suggested it cost the club next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. I reckon it could turn out to be the most expensive in the club's history.

[Citizen's Nephew]

There is so much that has apparently yet to be uncovered regarding the club's relationship with the McKay family. Some have claimed the bizarre deal to bring to bring Jack and Paul McKay to Cardiff City in 2018 is irrelevant, while others have suggested it cost the club next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. I reckon it could turn out to be the most expensive in the club's history.

There's a story there I agree with your statement. Both of them signed for Leeds and then us but were not even considered as serious players. I believe neither made league appearances for either club. Effectively, they went from 2016-2019 with no appearances between them in the time with Leeds and Cardiff. Bizarre signings for both clubs (I think one of them made it into an FA Cup match but that's it). I haven't checked but you're the person who's on the button with these things which is why I think we're on the same page regarding the brothers.

[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.

[The Lone Gunman]

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.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

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 !

[Bobby Dandruff]

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! ;-)

[gabbsthenewt]

Do you think that Nantes wouldn’t appeal if they’d lost then?

Or that companies just accept every ruling without question?

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! ;-)

;-)