Honest Opinions: I do wonder how this expert estimation tha

I do wonder how this expert estimation that we had a 50% chance of staying up will be received in a court of law, when the defense can just as responsibly argue he could have broke his leg in his first training session with us, become ill etc etc just look at Ramsey?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674



The possibility is figured into this oddly, but surely courts deal with facts and will not want to hand out €120mill based on probability alone and he might have been great in the Premiership, he might not have been?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674

And remember Emiliano Sala was our player when he sadly died and was our responsibility.


Plus remember Tan tried to say Emiliano Sala was not our player for nearly 2 years, which was absolutely low to try that.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Very logical point annis but don't you think that argument as been looked at before launching this action? or have club/tan just thought what the hell gone this far may as well finish what we started? I'm not convinced they’ll win anything certainly not €120m but as I've said they have the right to seek redress from other people's negligence.... this case is about nantes involvement with agents and loss incurred by club
Rightly or wrongly club need to persue this...... and hopefully once judgement is made it will be end of this sorry saga and it hastens end of tans
Ownership of club.

If we're going to argue the odds of a player scoring a few goals Vs breaking his leg.

I'd say even in that simplified example it's a lot more likely he'd score than get a long term injury.

I trust the lawyers now. Over to them.

If we're going to argue the odds of a player scoring a few goals Vs breaking his leg.

I'd say even in that simplified example it's a lot more likely he'd score than get a long term injury.

I trust the lawyers now. Over to them.

Sheffield u won damages over a player signed illegally scoring for their rival and were relegated because of goals he scored so precedent in football..... obviously there is a mathematical equation based on probability which presumably is what club will use to put case forward... now its upto judge to say if City got case ... at end day if City do win this case it will be seen by many as exconirating club for there action if they lose well say no more.

Very logical point annis but don't you think that argument as been looked at before launching this action? or have club/tan just thought what the hell gone this far may as well finish what we started? I'm not convinced they’ll win anything certainly not €120m but as I've said they have the right to seek redress from other people's negligence.... this case is about nantes involvement with agents and loss incurred by club
Rightly or wrongly club need to persue this...... and hopefully once judgement is made it will be end of this sorry saga and it hastens end of tans
Ownership of club.

Afternoon Allan,

Under any other owner I would say yes advice has been listened to , but under Tan I know for a fact he never listens to 95% of advice and when he has got something on his mind or his head he never listens and just goes straight for it.

Tan is very very stubborn and does it his way and does not listen to many others and having got to know him personally, I’ve seen it first hand.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

If we're going to argue the odds of a player scoring a few goals Vs breaking his leg.

I'd say even in that simplified example it's a lot more likely he'd score than get a long term injury.

I trust the lawyers now. Over to them.

Did the lawyers also say Emiliano Sala was never our player?

Did the Lawyers say we never had to pay for Sala despite three different courts saying we had to?

I just don't see how we have any chance of winning this case.

Ifs and buts is what we are basing our case on in my mind. How can we be so sure that he would have scored enough to keep us up, how do we know he would even have scored a single goal?

Torres was a proven premier league striker, who flopped at Chelsea when he went to them. There are plenty of high profile players who couldn't cut it in the prem.

My own personal opinion is that Tan is clutching at straws here and it won't pay off.

Accept that he was our player at the time the plane went down, stop dragging it through the courts and think of the families of the deceased instead of his own back pocket.

Just my opinion.

If we're going to argue the odds of a player scoring a few goals Vs breaking his leg.

I'd say even in that simplified example it's a lot more likely he'd score than get a long term injury.

I trust the lawyers now. Over to them.

Has any player this season broken their leg, it's certainly not common?

Injury will have been factored in, It's also the effect his death had on the club, the fans, the other players, and the Manager, everything will have been taken into account, it's a starting point, if they win or settle out of court a figure will be decided.

If we're going to argue the odds of a player scoring a few goals Vs breaking his leg.

I'd say even in that simplified example it's a lot more likely he'd score than get a long term injury.

I trust the lawyers now. Over to them.

Did the lawyers also say Emiliano Sala was never our player?

Did the Lawyers say we never had to pay for Sala despite three different courts saying we had to?

There is so many variables involved in this. We could compare everything and come out with different answers every time.

I'm leaving it to them. But I'm glad they're fighting it. It's the right thing to do. For Sala, his family, justice and lastly our club.

Nantes horrible little club.

The club have been spending huge sums of money on legal fees and entering transfer embargoes while maintaining for several years that they never signed the player in the first place. As many say what type of person suddenly says a dead innocent player is not ours to try to get out of paying, no respect from me or others who back the tyrant.

If we're going to argue the odds of a player scoring a few goals Vs breaking his leg.

I'd say even in that simplified example it's a lot more likely he'd score than get a long term injury.

I trust the lawyers now. Over to them.

Did the lawyers also say Emiliano Sala was never our player?

Did the Lawyers say we never had to pay for Sala despite three different courts saying we had to?

There is so many variables involved in this. We could compare everything and come out with different answers every time.

I'm leaving it to them. But I'm glad they're fighting it. It's the right thing to do. For Sala, his family, justice and lastly our club.

Nantes horrible little club.

Why not just simply answer two simple questions and say your view on Tan denying Emiliano Sala was our player when it was there in b/w on the Welsh FA’s Table?



So did you then trust the Lawyers over who’s player he was?

Did you then trust these lawyers when they then said don’t pay?

If you believe it’s the lawyers all the time.

Tan says Emiliano Sala was not a Cardiff City player:

Pembroke Allan Wrote 24th March 2019

Think the explanation is quite clear and if true then Nantes have made the boob boob over contracts! It clearly states ameliano died before international clearance was completed! Yes its a messy buisness but at end day no one including you would part with 15m if contracts was not valid.

And Tans mate Wez backed Tan to the hilt and said Emiliano Sala was not a Cardiff City player when he sadly died.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674

https://cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopi ... 2&t=206083

Shocking and unbelievable

Very logical point annis but don't you think that argument as been looked at before launching this action? or have club/tan just thought what the hell gone this far may as well finish what we started? I'm not convinced they’ll win anything certainly not €120m but as I've said they have the right to seek redress from other people's negligence.... this case is about nantes involvement with agents and loss incurred by club
Rightly or wrongly club need to persue this...... and hopefully once judgement is made it will be end of this sorry saga and it hastens end of tans
Ownership of club.

Afternoon Allan,

Under any other owner I would say yes advice has been listened to , but under Tan I know for a fact he never listens to 95% of advice and when he has got something on his mind or his head he never listens and just goes straight for it.

Tan is very very stubborn and does it his way and does not listen to many others and having got to know him personally, I’ve seen it first hand.

Afternoon annis
I tend to agree with you about tan not listening to anyone and being stubborn if only because some things he comes out with are bizarre.... as for pursuing nante like I've said having gone this far rightly or wrongly club as to persue redress for someones negligence that ultimately as cost club millions ..... this is not about who's player he was or who's responsible for their deaths that's been established .... its simply about holding nante/ mckay responsible for clubs losses .... how they arrive at figure is an established method so now upto judge if club got case to persue.... then hopefully tan will depart asap when over.

Last edited by pembroke allan on Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've had my say on this and I'm of the opinion we are clutching at straws on this.

I've look at some cases that have used this process and most if not all have been known facts. The main one being when Tevez played for WHU and his goals kept them up at the expense of Sheff Utd. the case went in favour of Sheff Utd and the courts ordered WHU to compensate then £50m.

Our case it total conjecture and how the experts came to the conclusion we would have stayed up if Sala played 50% is to be fantasy island stuff. Still I'm no expert so lets see what happens.

I do wonder how this expert estimation that we had a 50% chance of staying up will be received in a court of law, when the defense can just as responsibly argue he could have broke his leg in his first training session with us, become ill etc etc just look at Ramsey?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674



The possibility is figured into this oddly, but surely courts deal with facts and will not want to hand out €120mill based on probability alone and he might have been great in the Premiership, he might not have been?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674

And remember Emiliano Sala was our player when he sadly died and was our responsibility.


Plus remember Tan tried to say Emiliano Sala was not our player for nearly 2 years, which was absolutely low to try that.

Hi Annis. I have personal experience into these types of experts. I employed a similar type person (from Holland) when seeking to establish, following football abuse at Southampton & Man City, whether it would have been likely that certain persons would have made it in top flight football.

In the UK Courts judges are not experts in this field (same for diagnosing personal injuries) and for that reason, surprisingly as it may seem, Judges do put a lot of weight into expert evidence.

Remember in the civil court the bar is much lower. You only have to prove "on the balance of probabilites" (i.e. nothing guaranteed).

The expert has said he believes it is 52% or thereabouts.

I therefore expect this to go as follows:

a) We are claiming £120m
b) Nantes insurers will base any offer on a lower amount - say £70m
c) They will point to the expert opinion at around 50%
d) Bringing it to £35m
e) I anticipate they will offer somewhere between £20-40m

Reply Roy Colley:

Every Club that goes up has a 50% chance of staying up. But there again they have 50% of being Relegated.
As the season goes on, them odds will either go up or down.
What was the odds of him being killed kn a plane crash.
There are many things that has to be taken into consideration.
He could have had a Hamstring problem that may have kept him out for months.

Courts don't act on could haves, they act on facts and Evidence.
How is he going to prove he could have scored and kept us up.

It's all ifs and courts don't act on if.

I mean if my Auntie had a Dick she would be my uncle

I do wonder how this expert estimation that we had a 50% chance of staying up will be received in a court of law, when the defense can just as responsibly argue he could have broke his leg in his first training session with us, become ill etc etc just look at Ramsey?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674



The possibility is figured into this oddly, but surely courts deal with facts and will not want to hand out €120mill based on probability alone and he might have been great in the Premiership, he might not have been?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674

And remember Emiliano Sala was our player when he sadly died and was our responsibility.


Plus remember Tan tried to say Emiliano Sala was not our player for nearly 2 years, which was absolutely low to try that.

Hi Annis. I have personal experience into these types of experts. I employed a similar type person (from Holland) when seeking to establish, following football abuse at Southampton & Man City, whether it would have been likely that certain persons would have made it in top flight football.

In the UK Courts judges are not experts in this field (same for diagnosing personal injuries) and for that reason, surprisingly as it may seem, Judges do put a lot of weight into expert evidence.

Remember in the civil court the bar is much lower. You only have to prove "on the balance of probabilites" (i.e. nothing guaranteed).

The expert has said he believes it is 52% or thereabouts.

I therefore expect this to go as follows:

a) We are claiming £120m
b) Nantes insurers will base any offer on a lower amount - say £70m
c) They will point to the expert opinion at around 50%
d) Bringing it to £35m
e) I anticipate they will offer somewhere between £20-40m

Paul ,

If we get say £25mill back as a settlement then we will have got the fee back and all The costs and the interest added.

But as someone said on FB, we have not put a case together of “IF’S and BUTS”
We are actually not presenting facts.

Courts act on facts.

Well Paul let’s hope your right as this latest case is costing our club once again a small fortune and continues to drag our clubs name through the mud.

I do wonder how this expert estimation that we had a 50% chance of staying up will be received in a court of law, when the defense can just as responsibly argue he could have broke his leg in his first training session with us, become ill etc etc just look at Ramsey?

https://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/view ... 4#p2085674



The possibility is figured into this oddly, but surely courts deal with facts and will not want to hand out €120mill based on probability alone and he might have been great in the Premiership, he might not have been?

https://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/view ... 4#p2085674

And remember Emiliano Sala was our player when he sadly died and was our responsibility.


Plus remember Tan tried to say Emiliano Sala was not our player for nearly 2 years, which was absolutely low to try that.

Hi Annis. I have personal experience into these types of experts. I employed a similar type person (from Holland) when seeking to establish, following football abuse at Southampton & Man City, whether it would have been likely that certain persons would have made it in top flight football.

In the UK Courts judges are not experts in this field (same for diagnosing personal injuries) and for that reason, surprisingly as it may seem, Judges do put a lot of weight into expert evidence.

Remember in the civil court the bar is much lower. You only have to prove "on the balance of probabilites" (i.e. nothing guaranteed).

The expert has said he believes it is 52% or thereabouts.

I therefore expect this to go as follows:

a) We are claiming £120m
b) Nantes insurers will base any offer on a lower amount - say £70m
c) They will point to the expert opinion at around 50%
d) Bringing it to £35m
e) I anticipate they will offer somewhere between £20-40m

Yes Paul that is what I'm reading at other places.

I find this process good and bad. Good in a way it can bring justice, Bad in that it can be exploited. I think the best we will get is a settlment you have in your point e.

Wrong argument as this is NOT about if ES was or wasn't our player that will not come into it. Done and dusted, water under the bridge, that bird had flown or whatever term you want to use.
Negligence on Nantes part, that is it. Nothing else.

I do wonder how this expert estimation that we had a 50% chance of staying up will be received in a court of law, when the defense can just as responsibly argue he could have broke his leg in his first training session with us, become ill etc etc just look at Ramsey?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674



The possibility is figured into this oddly, but surely courts deal with facts and will not want to hand out €120mill based on probability alone and he might have been great in the Premiership, he might not have been?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674

And remember Emiliano Sala was our player when he sadly died and was our responsibility.


Plus remember Tan tried to say Emiliano Sala was not our player for nearly 2 years, which was absolutely low to try that.

He was only our player in fifa eyes , everyone else says he wasn't which I find really strange .this case isn't about whos player he was it about if Nantes is liable for a part in his death .

I do wonder how this expert estimation that we had a 50% chance of staying up will be received in a court of law, when the defense can just as responsibly argue he could have broke his leg in his first training session with us, become ill etc etc just look at Ramsey?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674



The possibility is figured into this oddly, but surely courts deal with facts and will not want to hand out €120mill based on probability alone and he might have been great in the Premiership, he might not have been?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674

And remember Emiliano Sala was our player when he sadly died and was our responsibility.


Plus remember Tan tried to say Emiliano Sala was not our player for nearly 2 years, which was absolutely low to try that.

He was only our player in fifa eyes , everyone else says he wasn't which I find really strange .this case isn't about whos player he was it about if Nantes is liable for a part in his death .

If people remember PFA didn't pay out because they said he was not our player ?

No ' death in service ' says a lot.

Wrong argument as this is NOT about if ES was or wasn't our player that will not come into it. Done and dusted, water under the bridge, that bird had flown or whatever term you want to use.
Negligence on Nantes part, that is it. Nothing else.

The fact that ES was not our player is a crucial point.

If he was Not our player = we could not claim loss of revenue (in the same way a taxi driver claims LOE when in an accident

The fact that he WAS our player =allows us to claim loss of revenue

I know some on here are referring to facts.

In the civil courts, surprising as it may seem, facts sometimes don't matter. Cases are settled in the "balance of probabilities".

If a judge is happy that we owned ES abd that judge is also happy that WM was acting as some sort of agent (i.e travel was part of the whole transfer deal for example) then the judge will then turn on to quantum (legal for value of loss) and this is where the expert report comes in.

Now there's a few things here. CCFC cannot just get an expert report (same as in Injury claims). Before you get an expert report you have to get Court permission. A judge has looked at this, potentially acknowledged that CCFC have a case, and thus given approval for this report.

Some have questioned whether I am on VT side. Definately not. He's fine his bit for the club and deserves credit for that but, going forward, I don't think he has either the knowledge or willingness.

I do occasionally speak to MD but not as often as others.

For me I only want one person bsck at the club.

Another point is the fact that someone has died here. Unfortunately when you have worked in the legal field for at long as I have (30 years now) you learn you have to put emotion to one side and concentrate on the legal facts. It's hard. I acknowledge that. My dad was killed in a car accident in 1980. But if you represent someone emotion doesn't come into it.

If we're going to argue the odds of a player scoring a few goals Vs breaking his leg.

I'd say even in that simplified example it's a lot more likely he'd score than get a long term injury.

I trust the lawyers now. Over to them.

Did the lawyers also say Emiliano Sala was never our player?

Did the Lawyers say we never had to pay for Sala despite three different courts saying we had to?

There is so many variables involved in this. We could compare everything and come out with different answers every time.

I'm leaving it to them. But I'm glad they're fighting it. It's the right thing to do. For Sala, his family, justice and lastly our club.

Nantes horrible little club.

Why not just simply answer two simple questions and say your view on Tan denying Emiliano Sala was our player when it was there in b/w on the Welsh FA’s Table?



So did you then trust the Lawyers over who’s player he was?

Did you then trust these lawyers when they then said don’t pay?

If you believe it’s the lawyers all the time.

I will answer...

Yes. Lawyers said he was out player.

Yes. Lawyers said we did have to pay. (We did).

Not our lawyers though. But their decision means we move on...

So now we are at the point we are going after something completely different. He was our player. And another clubs negligence cost us that, a player who more than likely would've scored goals to keep us in the PL.

Now answer me... Do you honestly believe he would have failed?

Do you honestly believe we just let Nantes get away with everything?

And Tans mate Wez backed Tan to the hilt and said Emiliano Sala was not a Cardiff City player when he sadly died.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226&p=2085674#p2085674

I still don't believe he was our player nor do the pfa or Premier league hence why they won't pay out . Fifa and the welsh fa jumped the gun , but it's moved on since then , if and it's a big if we get all our money back and more from Nantes your going to have egg on your face big time .

Why are we still hanging our hat on player ownership. This whole case has nothing to do with ownership.

Cardiff all but accepted ownership by paying the monies owed.

This is purely about negligence on the part of Nantes and their use of a banned agent. Their involvement with McKay and the plane hire is being called into question.

We need answers when, as many keep saying, Sala was OUR player.

Paul Keevil has pretty much called everything right so far and has also helped making what is a complicated case in terms of process and technicals much simpler which I've found very valuable. I also think his conclusions are correct in the settlement and approx figure in the game of negotiation.

What I would add in all of this is to remind folks that the Nantes owners have recently been indicted again for the use of illegal agents and also money laundering. My point being is that they have a track record of this and also have been caught, so careless. I think that it will be proved that McKay was still acting for Nantes when the flight was arranged, even though he was our player. Whilst the ES deal was completed, I wonder if McKay was working on other deals for Nantes too, clearly linking him to the club as a proxy employee thus making Nantes Vicariously Liable?

It's also amazing that McKay is now acting for a Turkish club despite all of this.

I'll be glad when all this is settled but more importantly when Tan either sells or gets someone in to run the show, his time was over years ago, we know it, he knows it, everyone knows it. The latter is the only way he's ever going to make even some of his £250M back.

Wrong argument as this is NOT about if ES was or wasn't our player that will not come into it. Done and dusted, water under the bridge, that bird had flown or whatever term you want to use.
Negligence on Nantes part, that is it. Nothing else.

The fact that ES was not our player is a crucial point.

If he was Not our player = we could not claim loss of revenue (in the same way a taxi driver claims LOE when in an accident

The fact that he WAS our player =allows us to claim loss of revenue

I know some on here are referring to facts.

In the civil courts, surprising as it may seem, facts sometimes don't matter. Cases are settled in the "balance of probabilities".

If a judge is happy that we owned ES abd that judge is also happy that WM was acting as some sort of agent (i.e travel was part of the whole transfer deal for example) then the judge will then turn on to quantum (legal for value of loss) and this is where the expert report comes in.

Now there's a few things here. CCFC cannot just get an expert report (same as in Injury claims). Before you get an expert report you have to get Court permission. A judge has looked at this, potentially acknowledged that CCFC have a case, and thus given approval for this report.

Some have questioned whether I am on VT side. Definately not. He's fine his bit for the club and deserves credit for that but, going forward, I don't think he has either the knowledge or willingness.

I do occasionally speak to MD but not as often as others.

For me I only want one person bsck at the club.

Another point is the fact that someone has died here. Unfortunately when you have worked in the legal field for at long as I have (30 years now) you learn you have to put emotion to one side and concentrate on the legal facts. It's hard. I acknowledge that. My dad was killed in a car accident in 1980. But if you represent someone emotion doesn't come into it.

Great post, keep them coming