| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
DaveOriginally Posted by The Lone Gunman
The senior partner from the law firm (Capital Law) acting for the club in the dispute between CCFC and Nantes was at the meeting and said that they were continuing to build up evidence in support of the club’s defence against the Nantes claim for Emiliano Sala transfer fee
Cheers Keith. You'd imagine the club would have enough evidence two years after the event if they actually had a 'defence' which meant they could avoid paying the transfer fee despite announcing to the world they'd bought the player. Still, I guess the lawyers are making a mint out of this saga, so they'll be content.
Whatever happened to Tan's legal battle with Mackay and his alleged war on agents? Can't recall anything actually happening in either of those situations.
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.
On the Isaacs case, it is incredible that someone purpotedly from a finance background has got this wrong. Isaacs owned more than 2% of the club before his shares were diluted. His claim is, surely, that his shares were worth £10m at the time that he owned 10% before Tan then diluted them to take control of the club. He isn't claiming the club is worth £500m. He is claiming that his shares were worth £10m before Tan devalued each and every share he owned by bringing out a new share ownership.
On the Sala case, the guy was on a plane ready to come to Wales to play a game within 48 hours. Are the club saying he wouldn't have played that game at the time? And didn't the club say that "once a bluebird, always a bluebird" at the time of huge media attention?
It's much deeper and more complicated, than your 2nd paragraph, about Sala.
Well, you were privy to the information, why not enlighten us?
It's an ongoing case, with the club compiling more evidence all the time.
Obviously we were not told the specifics, as it's ongoing.
You are quite right about the Michael Isaac shareholding dilution- I was reporting on what was said by Mehmet Dalman at the meeting.
On checking the figures this evening, MI held approximately 11.4% of the shares in issue as at August 2011. As a result of new share issues and debt to equity conversions by Vincent Tan this has diluted greatly.As per an Annual Return in October 2020 there were just over 946m shares in issue of which nearly 930m were in the name of Vincent Tan (98%). Michael Isaac’s 11.2m shares now represent only just over 1% of the total.
Isaacs owned, I think, 10% of the club before Tan diluted his shares so that Isaac only owned 2% of the club.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...court-18365243 - June 2020.He said a number of issues had arisen, including: whether Tan "procured the dilution" of Isaac's shareholding; whether a March 2014 loan of £7.5 million, recorded as lent by Tormen Finance Inc, was "in fact advanced by Mr Tan" but "falsely recorded" in the club's financial records; whether Mr Tan was responsible for "wrongly removing" Isaac from his position as a director of the company; whether Tan "threatened" Isaac with "a Christmas message"; and whether Tan "procured the club" to issue and pursue a "vindictive claim" against Isaac.
That sounds a long way from Since62's assertion that Isaacs claims the club is worth £500m! Isaacs is claiming his shares were worth £10m at the point that they were diluted.
Without Tan Isaac's shareholding would be worth **** all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote