FIFA have ordered Cardiff to pay 5% extra for Sala

FIFA

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload ... ydvrzqrqdw

After reading most of that .
It looks like Cardiff legally will win the case , law always hinges on contracts and at the time of death the contract was not complete or signed. Therefore legally he was not our player. Nantes at the same time had also terminated the contract there end so on paper the player belonged to nobody.

Morally though we probably should pay something as it would have gone thorough.

Fifa are only judging it on wether the relevant registration paperwork was sent, legally that holds no real relevance

what? How on earth can anyone reading that come to that conclusion?!

What you are referring to is registration with the Premier League... which is irrelevant.

His registration was cleared by the FAW and international clearance granted. He was a Cardiff City player that at time of death was ineligible to play in a certain competition.

No parts of his actual employment contract were also not complete. He was to sign the ammended contract on his return which he never did.
Law is all about paperwork, if it's not complete then cardiff legally have a very good case

No parts of his actual employment contract were also not complete. He was to sign the ammended contract on his return which he never did.
Law is all about paperwork, if it's not complete then cardiff legally have a very good case

Again, I’m not entirely sure what you are reading.

There was nothing incomplete. A part of the contract that was signed did not comply with Premier League regulations (signing on fee structure) so in order for Sala to compete in that competition then that part would need an amendment. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a Cardiff player.

As explained, it means he was a Cardiff player that at the time of his death was ineligible to play in a certain competition. To then make a claim that as he was ineligible to play in the Premier League means he was not a Cardiff player is beyond ludicrous.

It’s quite probable that the interest was a set clause in the contract.

That’s pretty usual

As for the rights and wrongs of paying it, absolutely no one on here or outside of the club and it’s insurers and solicitors knows the full story, so any speculation is a complete waste of time and quite likely to end up with a few eggs on faces when everything does come out.


My experience with a very large insurance case ( and this is backed up with conversations with my broker) is that in cases like this is as soon as they get involved they completely take over and will be making the decisions regarding when and how much to pay.

At the end of the day it’s their money after all

It’s quite probable that the interest was a set clause in the contract.

That’s pretty usual

As for the rights and wrongs of paying it, absolutely no one on here or outside of the club and it’s insurers and solicitors knows the full story, so any speculation is a complete waste of time and quite likely to end up with a few eggs on faces when everything does come out.


My experience with a very large insurance case ( and this is backed up with conversations with my broker) is that in cases like this is as soon as they get involved they completely take over and will be making the decisions regarding when and how much to pay.

At the end of the day it’s their money after all

Eh?

There is no insurance. It gets paid when FIFA say it gets paid and in the amount FIFA state, it really is straight forward.

Nantes terminated the employment with Sala on the 19th, Cardiff signed employment agreement with Sala on the 19th. Cardiff are claiming he was never their player, if that is the case then there is no insurance as you cannot insure something you don’t own. If there was insurance on Sala taken out by the club then not only would they not even bother withholding payment but they would own him by default and there would be no case to hear.

Termination of contract by Nantes does not mean he is a Cardiff City

Termination of contract by Nantes does not mean he is a Cardiff City

- Termination of employment means he was not a Nantes player (happened on 19th of Jan).

- Signing an employment contract with Cardiff meant he was a Cardiff City player (happened 19th of Jan).

- International clearance being granted ratified the employment contract (happened 21st of Jan)

- Failure to register with the Premier League has no affect on any of the above. It just means he was not permitted to play in that particular competition until sorted. It’s a straight forward case and the club is barking if they choose to appeal.

Termination of contract by Nantes does not mean he is a Cardiff City

- Termination of employment means he was not a Nantes player (happened on 19th of Jan).

- Signing an employment contract with Cardiff meant he was a Cardiff City player (happened 19th of Jan).

- Failure to register with the Premier League has no affect on either of the above. It just means he was not permitted to play in that particular competition until sorted.

Wasn’t the contract he signed with Cardiff rejected because it broke Premier league rules and have to be altered and resigned ?

Termination of contract by Nantes does not mean he is a Cardiff City

- Termination of employment means he was not a Nantes player (happened on 19th of Jan).

- Signing an employment contract with Cardiff meant he was a Cardiff City player (happened 19th of Jan).

- Failure to register with the Premier League has no affect on either of the above. It just means he was not permitted to play in that particular competition until sorted.

Wasn’t the contract he signed with Cardiff rejected because it broke Premier league rules and have to be altered and resigned ?

No. International clearance was granted not rejected. You are talking about the Premier League, which is just a governing body of a competition.

What the Premier League said is, if the club wanted him to play in that competition then they would need to amend his signing on fee structure so it complies with that competitions regulations. It doesn’t mean his contract is invalid, it means he was ineligible to play in that competition until that part was altered.

If it was never altered then he would remain a Cardiff City player that is unable to play in the Premier League. A bit like signing a player that has already played for the maximum amount of clubs in that season, or signing a player and not naming him in your 25 man squad. It doesn’t mean they are not your players, it means they just can’t play in that competition.

FIFA

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload ... ydvrzqrqdw

After reading most of that .
It looks like Cardiff legally will win the case , law always hinges on contracts and at the time of death the contract was not complete or signed. Therefore legally he was not our player. Nantes at the same time had also terminated the contract there end so on paper the player belonged to nobody.

Morally though we probably should pay something as it would have gone thorough.

Fifa are only judging it on wether the relevant registration paperwork was sent, legally that holds no real relevance

how can all the relevant paper work being done hold no relevance...its a contradiction..

FIFA

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload ... ydvrzqrqdw

After reading most of that .
It looks like Cardiff legally will win the case , law always hinges on contracts and at the time of death the contract was not complete or signed. Therefore legally he was not our player. Nantes at the same time had also terminated the contract there end so on paper the player belonged to nobody.

Morally though we probably should pay something as it would have gone thorough.

Fifa are only judging it on wether the relevant registration paperwork was sent, legally that holds no real relevance

he had been registered by the Welsh FA on the ITMS. so therefore our player..
he had signed a contract with us which did not contravene the rules of our Welsh FA, the French FA or FIFA .so therefore was our employee.

the fact the contract broke the rules of a certain competition would then mean our club and the player sit down and re negotiate. Nantes could not sell ES to someone else. but in theory if he refused to re negotiate we could sell him..

as for our 2nd claim re MCkay… there is evidence ES offered to pay for the flight and MCkay turned payment down and sorted it as a favour. AFTER we had got involved and offered a commercial flight. how that then turns into a Nantes operation beats me..

don't see how the contract between ES and ourselves effected the contract between ourselves and Nantes...
ES himself could argue he only signed for those specific amounts of money paid as in the contract , and to play in the EPL..and might have a case.. but we will never know and cannot assume he would.

It’s quite probable that the interest was a set clause in the contract.

That’s pretty usual

As for the rights and wrongs of paying it, absolutely no one on here or outside of the club and it’s insurers and solicitors knows the full story, so any speculation is a complete waste of time and quite likely to end up with a few eggs on faces when everything does come out.


My experience with a very large insurance case ( and this is backed up with conversations with my broker) is that in cases like this is as soon as they get involved they completely take over and will be making the decisions regarding when and how much to pay.

At the end of the day it’s their money after all

Eh?

There is no insurance. It gets paid when FIFA say it gets paid and in the amount FIFA state, it really is straight forward.

Nantes terminated the employment with Sala on the 19th, Cardiff signed employment agreement with Sala on the 19th. Cardiff are claiming he was never their player, if that is the case then there is no insurance as you cannot insure something you don’t own. If there was insurance on Sala taken out by the club then not only would they not even bother withholding payment but they would own him by default and there would be no case to hear.

More supposition.

Truth is you are just making theories from what you have read and don’t know half of the story.

Just ties up with your obsession with our club.

Wait and see what happens at the end of it all.

More supposition.

Truth is you are just making theories from what you have read and don’t know half of the story.

Just ties up with your obsession with our club.

Wait and see what happens at the end of it all.

There isn’t any supposition there at all.

- Termination of employment happened on 19th means he was not insured by Nantes. This was ratified by FIFA and the FA of France.

- Cardiff are claiming he was not their player means they had no insurance either, as you cannot legally insure something you don’t own. If they did have insurance then they own him by default and wouldn’t have any sort of case at all (not that they do now either mind).

It’s common sense really.

It’s quite probable that the interest was a set clause in the contract.

That’s pretty usual

As for the rights and wrongs of paying it, absolutely no one on here or outside of the club and it’s insurers and solicitors knows the full story, so any speculation is a complete waste of time and quite likely to end up with a few eggs on faces when everything does come out.


My experience with a very large insurance case ( and this is backed up with conversations with my broker) is that in cases like this is as soon as they get involved they completely take over and will be making the decisions regarding when and how much to pay.

At the end of the day it’s their money after all

That is my understanding that no one here knows anything. In January when the tragedy unfolded, this board was full of people who knew all about flying

Termination of contract by Nantes does not mean he is a Cardiff City

- Termination of employment means he was not a Nantes player (happened on 19th of Jan).

- Signing an employment contract with Cardiff meant he was a Cardiff City player (happened 19th of Jan).

- Failure to register with the Premier League has no affect on either of the above. It just means he was not permitted to play in that particular competition until sorted.

Wasn’t the contract he signed with Cardiff rejected because it broke Premier league rules and have to be altered and resigned ?

No. International clearance was granted not rejected. You are talking about the Premier League, which is just a governing body of a competition.

What the Premier League said is, if the club wanted him to play in that competition then they would need to amend his signing on fee structure so it complies with that competitions regulations. It doesn’t mean his contract is invalid, it means he was ineligible to play in that competition until that part was altered.

If it was never altered then he would remain a Cardiff City player that is unable to play in the Premier League. A bit like signing a player that has already played for the maximum amount of clubs in that season, or signing a player and not naming him in your 25 man squad. It doesn’t mean they are not your players, it means they just can’t play in that competition.

I’m not an expert on employment contracts but I would have thought that if a contract needs to be changed and resigned it would make The previous contract null and void but I’m sure you will clear that up for me

That is my understanding that no one here knows anything. In January when the tragedy unfolded, this board was full of people who knew all about flying

There is a 22 page document for you to read, then you will know all you need to.

Termination of contract by Nantes does not mean he is a Cardiff City

- Termination of employment means he was not a Nantes player (happened on 19th of Jan).

- Signing an employment contract with Cardiff meant he was a Cardiff City player (happened 19th of Jan).

- Failure to register with the Premier League has no affect on either of the above. It just means he was not permitted to play in that particular competition until sorted.

Wasn’t the contract he signed with Cardiff rejected because it broke Premier league rules and have to be altered and resigned ?

No. International clearance was granted not rejected. You are talking about the Premier League, which is just a governing body of a competition.

What the Premier League said is, if the club wanted him to play in that competition then they would need to amend his signing on fee structure so it complies with that competitions regulations. It doesn’t mean his contract is invalid, it means he was ineligible to play in that competition until that part was altered.

If it was never altered then he would remain a Cardiff City player that is unable to play in the Premier League. A bit like signing a player that has already played for the maximum amount of clubs in that season, or signing a player and not naming him in your 25 man squad. It doesn’t mean they are not your players, it means they just can’t play in that competition.

I’m not an expert on employment contracts but I would have thought that if a contract needs to be changed and resigned it would make The previous contract null and void but I’m sure you will clear that up for me

it only needed changing to comply with EPL rules...the contract signed was not illegal .. who knows ES could have refused to alter it and just pick up wages and not play...

I’m not an expert on employment contracts but I would have thought that if a contract needs to be changed and resigned it would make The previous contract null and void but I’m sure you will clear that up for me

It didn’t NEED to be changed or re-signed, it is perfectly valid as it is.

However, Cardiff and the player no doubt would want to opt to change it because as it stood he was ineligible to play in the league competition that Cardiff competed in.

If it was never re-signed he would still be a Cardiff player, just one that couldn’t play in the league.

I’m not an expert on employment contracts but I would have thought that if a contract needs to be changed and resigned it would make The previous contract null and void but I’m sure you will clear that up for me

It didn’t NEED to be changed or re-signed, it is perfectly valid as it is.

However, Cardiff and the player no doubt would want to opt to change it because as it stood he was ineligible to play in the league competition that Cardiff competed in.

If it was never re-signed he would still be a Cardiff player, just one that couldn’t play in the league.

Do you work for Cardiff City as you seem to have unparalleled knowledge of the contract status of certain players as well as unrivalled expertise on contract law

football is about about winning at all costs. However, under this cicumstances

More supposition.

Truth is you are just making theories from what you have read and don’t know half of the story.

Just ties up with your obsession with our club.

Wait and see what happens at the end of it all.

There isn’t any supposition there at all.

- Termination of employment happened on 19th means he was not insured by Nantes. This was ratified by FIFA and the FA of France.

- Cardiff are claiming he was not their player means they had no insurance either, as you cannot legally insure something you don’t own. If they did have insurance then they own him by default and wouldn’t have any sort of case at all (not that they do now either mind).

It’s common sense really.

It’s guesswork.

How do you know that Cardiff City’s insurers are not telling them what to do here and that the dispute isn’t de facto between Cardiff’s insurers and Nantes.

The situation is unique and will most likely end up being tested in court given the scale of the figures involved.



And finally can you stop changing name/ account?

It’s guesswork.

How do you know that Cardiff City’s insurers are not telling them what to do here and that the dispute isn’t de facto between Cardiff’s insurers and Nantes.

The situation is unique and will most likely end up being tested in court given the scale of the figures involved.



And finally can you stop changing name/ account?

It isn’t guesswork. It’s common sense based on fact.

I know Cardiff’s insurers are not instructing Cardiff because that isn’t how insurers work. They would have no dog in this fight as it were, as things stand they would not have to pay out due to the illegality of the flight. Secondly if Cardiff had insurance on him then it wouldn’t have even got as far as it has because insurance equals ownership.

Scale of figures doesn’t matter. It is the same remedy if the fee was £1.50. Contract law is contract law and does not alter due to figures.

I don’t “change” my name, I create a new one when Sven gets frustrated and bans the last. Something you will need to blame him for I’m afraid.

It didn’t NEED to be changed or re-signed, it is perfectly valid as it is.

However, Cardiff and the player no doubt would want to opt to change it because as it stood he was ineligible to play in the league competition that Cardiff competed in.

If it was never re-signed he would still be a Cardiff player, just one that couldn’t play in the league.

Do you work for Cardiff City as you seem to have unparalleled knowledge of the contract status of certain players as well as unrivalled expertise on contract law[/quote]

I do not need to work for the club. The rules and regulations are the same across the board and of course common sense and common knowledge is consistent regardless of clubs involved. Registration to a competition does not constitute registration to a club. There are many examples of players being signed that are ineligible for the league competition such as players who have already been registered at 3 clubs in a single season and players at clubs that have not been named in the submitted squad that are over 23 years of age - none of the above will be eligible to play in the Premier League, but they are still owned and paid by the club. They can train, play on cup competitions and do all the things everyone else does - except play in the league.

There is a 22 page document stating dates of when things occurred and when each were ratified by each finalising governing body. Read it would be my suggestion.

Contrary to what Pembroke Allan said; it really isn’t a difficult document to understand.

I’m not an expert on employment contracts but I would have thought that if a contract needs to be changed and resigned it would make The previous contract null and void but I’m sure you will clear that up for me

It didn’t NEED to be changed or re-signed, it is perfectly valid as it is.

However, Cardiff and the player no doubt would want to opt to change it because as it stood he was ineligible to play in the league competition that Cardiff competed in.

If it was never re-signed he would still be a Cardiff player, just one that couldn’t play in the league.

Do you work for Cardiff City as you seem to have unparalleled knowledge of the contract status of certain players as well as unrivalled expertise on contract law

you do not need to be a CCFC employee ..just able to read a bit.

People just hate it when I say these things dogfound. They do anything possible to argue the point even though I have explained it in great detail and been very patient... then blame me for it and demand my banning as a result.

It’s bonkers.

It’s guesswork.

How do you know that Cardiff City’s insurers are not telling them what to do here and that the dispute isn’t de facto between Cardiff’s insurers and Nantes.

The situation is unique and will most likely end up being tested in court given the scale of the figures involved.



And finally can you stop changing name/ account?

It isn’t guesswork. It’s common sense based on fact.

I know Cardiff’s insurers are not instructing Cardiff because that isn’t how insurers work. They would have no dog in this fight as it were, as things stand they would not have to pay out due to the illegality of the flight. Secondly if Cardiff had insurance on him then it wouldn’t have even got as far as it has because insurance equals ownership.

Scale of figures doesn’t matter. It is the same remedy if the fee was £1.50. Contract law is contract law and does not alter due to figures.

I don’t “change” my name, I create a new one when Sven gets frustrated and bans the last. Something you will need to blame him for I’m afraid.

Insurance doesn’t equal ownership though!!!! Hire purchase on a car being one example that springs to mind.

Insurance doesn’t equal ownership though!!!! Hire purchase on a car being one example that springs to mind.

Ownership of registration, yes it does. Try and insure my car if you like? (You won't be able to by the way, I will save you the phone call).

Sala was essentially on hire purchase as the fee was amortised. However in order to insure him he would need to be legally registered to the club taking out the insurance. So if he was insured - he was legally registered, then there is no argument.

Your never gonna change its opinion and it's always right,why waste your time? ,"You cannot f**k somebody who's already fucked" is the saying that comes to mind here with roathy.think about it how are you gonna be able to debate on the same level as anyone else when your always right in your own mind and think hes better than everyone else? I'm fed up of just seeing his posts. One possible solution would be to let him have one account so everyone who dont wanna see his bullshit can put him straight to foes its impossible when hes got five accounts a week.

I’m not an expert on employment contracts but I would have thought that if a contract needs to be changed and resigned it would make The previous contract null and void but I’m sure you will clear that up for me

It didn’t NEED to be changed or re-signed, it is perfectly valid as it is.

However, Cardiff and the player no doubt would want to opt to change it because as it stood he was ineligible to play in the league competition that Cardiff competed in.

If it was never re-signed he would still be a Cardiff player, just one that couldn’t play in the league.

Do you work for Cardiff City as you seem to have unparalleled knowledge of the contract status of certain players as well as unrivalled expertise on contract law

you do not need to be a CCFC employee ..just able to read a bit.

Why the need for a personal dig at my reading ability ? I’m no keyboard warrior just contributing to a message board on the club I support but if you want to make it really personally

Your never gonna change its opinion and it's always right,why waste your time? ,"You cannot f**k somebody who's already fucked" is the saying that comes to mind here with roathy.think about it how are you gonna be able to debate on the same level as anyone else when your always right in your own mind and think hes better than everyone else? I'm fed up of just seeing his posts. One possible solution would be to let him have one account so everyone who dont wanna see his bullshit can put him straight to foes its impossible when hes got five accounts a week.

I would say the clear problem here is that I am right fundamentally, wouldn’t you? If I was wrong then it should be relatively easy to show me where, right? The main problem is the level of frustration people have that they can’t find any angle as to where I may possibly be wrong and they end up reacting like you have.

Wouldn’t it be a crazy world where Instead of looking to prove me wrong at every turn and throwing your toys out of the pram when you can’t - how about just realise what I am saying is probably right if you cannot find any reasoning behind what I am saying being wrong and either leave it as a result and learn from what I have said, or even crazier... agree.

I’m not an expert on employment contracts but I would have thought that if a contract needs to be changed and resigned it would make The previous contract null and void but I’m sure you will clear that up for me

It didn’t NEED to be changed or re-signed, it is perfectly valid as it is.

However, Cardiff and the player no doubt would want to opt to change it because as it stood he was ineligible to play in the league competition that Cardiff competed in.

If it was never re-signed he would still be a Cardiff player, just one that couldn’t play in the league.

Do you work for Cardiff City as you seem to have unparalleled knowledge of the contract status of certain players as well as unrivalled expertise on contract law

you do not need to be a CCFC employee ..just able to read a bit.

Why the need for a personal dig at my reading ability ? I’m no keyboard warrior just contributing to a message board on the club I support but if you want to make it really personally

because most of what he said was in a FIFA document which is pasted into this thread. nothing to do with your personal ability to read it. or him being CCFC employee.