Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:20 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:42 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:52 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:36 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:24 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:39 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:51 am
JulesK wrote:Well I'm glad some have £5 - £15 m to give away ! Any chance of chipping in for a striker next season.
Can you honestly say that Nantes or anyone for that matter would fork out before investigation was completed.
I will say again CARDIFF HAVE NEVER REFUSED TO PAY.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:52 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:57 am
KBK-13 wrote:There is nothing new written there, we’ve heard it all before. With regards to paying, why would we hand over 15m if he isn’t our player? Our insurance on him certainly wouldn’t pay if he isn’t officially ours.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:12 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:12 am
Sven wrote:For me, if this is true, it will depend from where the 'issue' arose...
Was it City's error? Was it FC Nantes error? The FAW? The FA? Or UEFA itself?
Clearly, we don't know 100% yet but the report above states (quote) "Cardiff did not meet two specific provisions relating to the transfer when they filed the paperwork"
This seems to suggest the error might have laid at the Cardiff City end and IF (and I mean IF at this point) the 'issue' was an error on Cardiff's part rather than elsewhere in the process, then Mehmet Dalman's claim that City would pay FC Nantes (quote) "if contractually obliged" would surely also take on the adage 'if morally obliged'?
However, if the 'fault' lies elsewhere, then it will strengthen City's hand and justify their decision to 'hold back' payments to FC Nantes
It has been suggested for some time that the club's hierarchy are actively seeking (notwithstanding certain obligations to Emiliano Sala's family and estate) to avoid payment for the player, if it can be proved he was not 'officially' or 'contractually' the club's player and the apparent premature announcement of his signing would have no credibility in Law
I understand why the clubs (City holding back and FC Nantes putting in a claim) have done what they've done to date but this, I believe, is going to get even messier before it is sorted and (as someone told me in a recent conversation) the club (City) are not going to come out of this too favourably regardless of how it ends
Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:15 am
dogfound wrote:JulesK wrote:Well I'm glad some have £5 - £15 m to give away ! Any chance of chipping in for a striker next season.
Can you honestly say that Nantes or anyone for that matter would fork out before investigation was completed.
I will say again CARDIFF HAVE NEVER REFUSED TO PAY.
Cardiff have refused to pay until they are satisfied there are no more loopholes they can persue..
you ,i or uncle tom cobly would not be at all happy if you had sold something to someone who then did this...
as for the new twist...its hardly news.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:34 am
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:16 am
grange_end1927 wrote:Are we seriously trying to get out of paying the money we owe, yet we made the mistakes and told the world Sala was our player
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:34 am
castleblue wrote:
Whatever the reason why this transfer was not completed, and I still believe it surrounds the ITC not being issued, before the tragic death of Emiliano Sala it is going to become increasingly difficult for the club to maintain this "Not Contractually Obliged" to make payment for the player because you only have to ask one question. Why was Emiliano Sala on that plane?
The answer is simple it was because Cardiff City and Nantes FC had agreed a fee for the transfer of the player and the player himself had agreed terms with Cardiff City. Therein lies the "Moral Obligation" and I believe eventually both clubs will come to an agreement about who pays what and if they cannot reach agreement then either FIFA or the CAS will make the decision.
Having said that I still believe that Cardiff City are not the bad guys in all this because it is clear that the club had attempted to arrange a commercial flight for the player but "He" decided to go with the flight offered by the agent acting on behalf of Nantes FC.We now know that whilst the plane used was capable of making the flight the pilot was not trained to make the flight and did not have the licence required either. Is that Cardiff City fault?
This is why Cardiff City are absolutely right to say let's wait until we get the FULL report into this accident before making any decision on making any payments.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:40 am
grange_end1927 wrote:Are we seriously trying to get out of paying the money we owe, yet we made the mistakes and told the world Sala was our player
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:49 am
Tony Blue Williams wrote:grange_end1927 wrote:Are we seriously trying to get out of paying the money we owe, yet we made the mistakes and told the world Sala was our player
There are several ways of looking at this. Nantes had a legal obligation to deliver the goods intact before we had an obligation to pay £15m. It is arguable that Nantes should have taken out specific insurance on ES during the transit period to guard against injury or tragic death.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:13 pm
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:31 pm
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:42 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:castleblue wrote:
Whatever the reason why this transfer was not completed, and I still believe it surrounds the ITC not being issued, before the tragic death of Emiliano Sala it is going to become increasingly difficult for the club to maintain this "Not Contractually Obliged" to make payment for the player because you only have to ask one question. Why was Emiliano Sala on that plane?
The answer is simple it was because Cardiff City and Nantes FC had agreed a fee for the transfer of the player and the player himself had agreed terms with Cardiff City. Therein lies the "Moral Obligation" and I believe eventually both clubs will come to an agreement about who pays what and if they cannot reach agreement then either FIFA or the CAS will make the decision.
Having said that I still believe that Cardiff City are not the bad guys in all this because it is clear that the club had attempted to arrange a commercial flight for the player but "He" decided to go with the flight offered by the agent acting on behalf of Nantes FC.We now know that whilst the plane used was capable of making the flight the pilot was not trained to make the flight and did not have the licence required either. Is that Cardiff City fault?
This is why Cardiff City are absolutely right to say let's wait until we get the FULL report into this accident before making any decision on making any payments.
TBH we all know why ES was on the plane but I don't think that is materially important. This comes down to contract law which has six basic elements which form a legally binding contract.
(1) offer (2) acceptance (3) consideration (4) mutuality of obligation (5) competency and capacity and in certain circumstances (6) a written instrument.
Almost certainly (1), (2) and (5) were in place.
It is consideration, mutuality of obligation and possibly a written instrument which is where the contract may not be legally binding.
Consideration is something of value and is exchanged for the performance or a promise of performance by the other party. In this case it was ES (a player) exchanged for £15m so the something of value (ES) must be delivered in tact and able to perform as was promised under the terms of the contract. Unfortunately he wasn't because he died in transit.
Mutuality of Obligation means both parties are bound to perform their obligations or the law will treat the agreement as if neither party is bound to perform. This is similar to consideration and means unless Nantes transferred ES to CCFC in tact and he was able to perform as under the terms of the contract then CCFC is not bound to pay Nantes £15m.
The written instrument in this case revolves around whether the contract was completed. To complete the contract we needed to register the player. It is technical but we all know if we buy a house, car or land we need to transfer the registration before we become the legal owners.
Until a contract is finalised both parties have the right to withdraw. In theory even though ES was flying to Cardiff the club could have still pulled out of the deal because the paperwork sent to the PL was not properly completed and therefore no contract existed. Almost certainly this will affect whether our insurers will pay out and TBH they seem to have good reason not to as technically their was no legally binding contract between CCFC and Nantes at the time of ES death.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:45 pm
Steve Zodiak wrote:So if you buy a car from a garage and ask them to deliver it after all paperwork is nearly completed, and they write it off on the way to delivering it, you are going to say never mind, here is the money anyway as you are jolly nice people. I don't think anyone would part with the cash until it was proved that they are contractually obliged to pay out, even if they were telling everyone that they have bought a nice shiny new car. Personally, I have a feeling that Cardiff will probably have to pay, but I would not expect them to fork out the cash if the legalities were not completed, and if he was not officially a City player. Can't blame them for exercising caution, and I am sure every other club would be checking things out in exactly the same way.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:40 pm
dogfound wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:So if you buy a car from a garage and ask them to deliver it after all paperwork is nearly completed, and they write it off on the way to delivering it, you are going to say never mind, here is the money anyway as you are jolly nice people. I don't think anyone would part with the cash until it was proved that they are contractually obliged to pay out, even if they were telling everyone that they have bought a nice shiny new car. Personally, I have a feeling that Cardiff will probably have to pay, but I would not expect them to fork out the cash if the legalities were not completed, and if he was not officially a City player. Can't blame them for exercising caution, and I am sure every other club would be checking things out in exactly the same way.
really...you buy the car it GETS DELIVERED..
he arrived here and passed a medical ....this lost in transit or written off belongs in another story.
ye id pay..youd pay..and so would most on this board..how about some honesty..
and so would our club have paid if we had sufficient insurance cover.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:09 pm
Sven wrote:For me, if this is true, it will depend from where the 'issue' arose...
Was it City's error? Was it FC Nantes error? The FAW? The FA? Or UEFA itself?
Clearly, we don't know 100% yet but the report above states (quote) "Cardiff did not meet two specific provisions relating to the transfer when they filed the paperwork"
This seems to suggest the error might have laid at the Cardiff City end and IF (and I mean IF at this point) the 'issue' was an error on Cardiff's part rather than elsewhere in the process, then Mehmet Dalman's claim that City would pay FC Nantes (quote) "if contractually obliged" would surely also take on the adage 'if morally obliged'?
However, if the 'fault' lies elsewhere, then it will strengthen City's hand and justify their decision to 'hold back' payments to FC Nantes
It has been suggested for some time that the club's hierarchy are actively seeking (notwithstanding certain obligations to Emiliano Sala's family and estate) to avoid payment for the player, if it can be proved he was not 'officially' or 'contractually' the club's player and the apparent premature announcement of his signing would have no credibility in Law
I understand why the clubs (City holding back and FC Nantes putting in a claim) have done what they've done to date but this, I believe, is going to get even messier before it is sorted and (as someone told me in a recent conversation) the club (City) are not going to come out of this too favourably regardless of how it ends
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:19 pm
Sven wrote:For me, if this is true, it will depend from where the 'issue' arose...
Was it City's error? Was it FC Nantes error? The FAW? The FA? Or UEFA itself?
Clearly, we don't know 100% yet but the report above states (quote) "Cardiff did not meet two specific provisions relating to the transfer when they filed the paperwork"
This seems to suggest the error might have laid at the Cardiff City end and IF (and I mean IF at this point) the 'issue' was an error on Cardiff's part rather than elsewhere in the process, then Mehmet Dalman's claim that City would pay FC Nantes (quote) "if contractually obliged" would surely also take on the adage 'if morally obliged'?
However, if the 'fault' lies elsewhere, then it will strengthen City's hand and justify their decision to 'hold back' payments to FC Nantes
It has been suggested for some time that the club's hierarchy are actively seeking (notwithstanding certain obligations to Emiliano Sala's family and estate) to avoid payment for the player, if it can be proved he was not 'officially' or 'contractually' the club's player and the apparent premature announcement of his signing would have no credibility in Law
I understand why the clubs (City holding back and FC Nantes putting in a claim) have done what they've done to date but this, I believe, is going to get even messier before it is sorted and (as someone told me in a recent conversation) the club (City) are not going to come out of this too favourably regardless of how it ends
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:23 pm
Wayne S wrote:Whatever the issues with not complying to Premier League regulations. They would have been minor and sorted out within a day or two with amended paperwork.
We MUST pay the fee.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:30 pm
Charlie Harper wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:grange_end1927 wrote:Are we seriously trying to get out of paying the money we owe, yet we made the mistakes and told the world Sala was our player
There are several ways of looking at this. Nantes had a legal obligation to deliver the goods intact before we had an obligation to pay £15m. It is arguable that Nantes should have taken out specific insurance on ES during the transit period to guard against injury or tragic death.
I remember Ken Choo saying on TV when Emiliano first went missing that it was not in Cardiff Citys jurisdiction to sort out the method of him getting here and imo it was FC Nantes duty.
A totally and avoidable tragedy
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:41 pm
Steve Zodiak wrote:So if you buy a car from a garage and ask them to deliver it after all paperwork is nearly completed, and they write it off on the way to delivering it, you are going to say never mind, here is the money anyway as you are jolly nice people. I don't think anyone would part with the cash until it was proved that they are contractually obliged to pay out, even if they were telling everyone that they have bought a nice shiny new car. Personally, I have a feeling that Cardiff will probably have to pay, but I would not expect them to fork out the cash if the legalities were not completed, and if he was not officially a City player. Can't blame them for exercising caution, and I am sure every other club would be checking things out in exactly the same way.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:46 pm
KBK-13 wrote:There is nothing new written there, we’ve heard it all before. With regards to paying, why would we hand over 15m if he isn’t our player? Our insurance on him certainly wouldn’t pay if he isn’t officially ours.
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:58 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:castleblue wrote:
Whatever the reason why this transfer was not completed, and I still believe it surrounds the ITC not being issued, before the tragic death of Emiliano Sala it is going to become increasingly difficult for the club to maintain this "Not Contractually Obliged" to make payment for the player because you only have to ask one question. Why was Emiliano Sala on that plane?
The answer is simple it was because Cardiff City and Nantes FC had agreed a fee for the transfer of the player and the player himself had agreed terms with Cardiff City. Therein lies the "Moral Obligation" and I believe eventually both clubs will come to an agreement about who pays what and if they cannot reach agreement then either FIFA or the CAS will make the decision.
Having said that I still believe that Cardiff City are not the bad guys in all this because it is clear that the club had attempted to arrange a commercial flight for the player but "He" decided to go with the flight offered by the agent acting on behalf of Nantes FC.We now know that whilst the plane used was capable of making the flight the pilot was not trained to make the flight and did not have the licence required either. Is that Cardiff City fault?
This is why Cardiff City are absolutely right to say let's wait until we get the FULL report into this accident before making any decision on making any payments.
TBH we all know why ES was on the plane but I don't think that is materially important. This comes down to contract law which has six basic elements which form a legally binding contract.
(1) offer (2) acceptance (3) consideration (4) mutuality of obligation (5) competency and capacity and in certain circumstances (6) a written instrument.
Almost certainly (1), (2) and (5) were in place.
It is consideration, mutuality of obligation and possibly a written instrument which is where the contract may not be legally binding.
Consideration is something of value and is exchanged for the performance or a promise of performance by the other party. In this case it was ES (a player) exchanged for £15m so the something of value (ES) must be delivered in tact and able to perform as was promised under the terms of the contract. Unfortunately he wasn't because he died in transit.
Mutuality of Obligation means both parties are bound to perform their obligations or the law will treat the agreement as if neither party is bound to perform. This is similar to consideration and means unless Nantes transferred ES to CCFC in tact and he was able to perform as under the terms of the contract then CCFC is not bound to pay Nantes £15m.
The written instrument in this case revolves around whether the contract was completed. To complete the contract we needed to register the player. It is technical but we all know if we buy a house, car or land we need to transfer the registration before we become the legal owners.
Until a contract is finalised both parties have the right to withdraw. In theory even though ES was flying to Cardiff the club could have still pulled out of the deal because the paperwork sent to the PL was not properly completed and therefore no contract existed. Almost certainly this will affect whether our insurers will pay out and TBH they seem to have good reason not to as technically their was no legally binding contract between CCFC and Nantes at the time of ES death.
Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:29 am