SALA MONEY - AVAILABILITY : As it stands , and as an

I agree that we shouldn’t bother appealing the CAS.

However, it would be foolhardy not to initiate litigation against the others liable for the accident.

Easy to just say pay up and draw a line when it’s not your money !

Appealing the case would inevitably would end in a loss which would incur additional fees as he was our player under the rules of football.

In doing so there has to be some other underlying legal reason for doing so as part of any litigation case the club is pursuing as why incur unnecessary fees. Possibly it all relates to ownership and 3 appeals rather than two would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was ours and insurers would have to pay up?

I agree that we shouldn’t bother appealing the CAS.

However, it would be foolhardy not to initiate litigation against the others liable for the accident.

Easy to just say pay up and draw a line when it’s not your money !

Appealing the case would inevitably would end in a loss which would incur additional fees as he was our player under the rules of football.

In doing so there has to be some other underlying legal reason for doing so as part of any litigation case the club is pursuing as why incur unnecessary fees. Possibly it all relates to ownership and 3 appeals rather than two would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was ours and insurers would have to pay up?

Why would insurers have to pay up?

It was an illegal flight making any claim invalid.

Horrible and tragic case, and so emotive alongside all the legal complexity but I fear that appealing with no end will damage the club reputationally and financially.

Both morally and by the letter of CAS' judgement, we should pay up for Sala. I know it puts us another 15m plus into Tan's pocket but spending all this time arguing about it only damages us further.

Terrible tragedy but I hope we do the right thing, and that lessons are learned not to use dodgy agents who put pressure on players to arrive the day after they sign. We could have waited and Sala would have survived.

Replies FB:

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

Thanks Annis, think I will leave it to the legal eagles before I give myself a headache, lot more twists and turns methinks

I agree with this we will never know the full truth as the club are saying they have the money and supporters should not worry and figures were talking of the instalments not the full fee.

Different views everywhere we have to allow the owners and the people in charge to get on with it.

My main concern and question is . When you spend lots of money you have insurance I do when I buy a PC or something for the house worth a bit of money surely when as football is a big money game there must be insurances regarding accidents illness and injury against players?

Don’t know what went wrong with my original reply. The cash has to physically be there, as shown in the accounts. If it’s been removed in any form it has to be reported as such. Otherwise it’s fraudulent accounting. Accountants, auditors and directors then liable for prosecution. I’m sure none of those mentioned would want to be done for £19m fraud.

Nowhere in the accounts does it say the cash is actually there. All they did was provide in the balance sheet for a potential liability of £19 million - thus reducing the net assets of the club by £19 million-so that anyone reading the accounts would be aware that such a liability existed. The club probably would have preferred not to have done this and was probably on the advice of the auditors who would almost certainly have qualified the accounts if they hadn't.

Whether Tan has personally set aside the £19 million in a separate account outside the club is another matter.

Don’t know what went wrong with my original reply. The cash has to physically be there, as shown in the accounts. If it’s been removed in any form it has to be reported as such. Otherwise it’s fraudulent accounting. Accountants, auditors and directors then liable for prosecution. I’m sure none of those mentioned would want to be done for £19m fraud.

Nowhere in the accounts does it say the cash is actually there. All they did was provide in the balance sheet for a potential liability of £19 million - thus reducing the net assets of the club by £19 million-so that anyone reading the accounts would be aware that such a liability existed. The club probably would have preferred not to have done this and was probably on the advice of the auditors who would almost certainly have qualified the accounts if they hadn't.

Whether Tan has personally set aside the £19 million in a separate account outside the club is another matter.

I’ll take your word on that mate, as I haven’t read the accounts (nor intend to read them) I was merely stating that if they say it’s there it has to be there. My understanding of accounts is that a provision is an amount of money set aside for a potential/likely debt. That money is then put into an escrow type of account while the debt is dealt with. If the money isn’t there then Vinny will need to cover it. I can’t see the auditors claiming the provision without some hefty supporting evidence on how it would be paid if realised. But on the matter itself, I’ll be glad when it’s finally put to bed and behind us. But I can’t see that happening for a while as it looks like the club will be pursuing the compensation route linked to the flight. Maybe they should have done that from the off, but I suppose everything would have had to wait the criminal case around it anyway. Too complicated and too tragic.

Don’t know what went wrong with my original reply. The cash has to physically be there, as shown in the accounts. If it’s been removed in any form it has to be reported as such. Otherwise it’s fraudulent accounting. Accountants, auditors and directors then liable for prosecution. I’m sure none of those mentioned would want to be done for £19m fraud.

Nowhere in the accounts does it say the cash is actually there. All they did was provide in the balance sheet for a potential liability of £19 million - thus reducing the net assets of the club by £19 million-so that anyone reading the accounts would be aware that such a liability existed. The club probably would have preferred not to have done this and was probably on the advice of the auditors who would almost certainly have qualified the accounts if they hadn't.

Whether Tan has personally set aside the £19 million in a separate account outside the club is another matter.

I’ll take your word on that mate, as I haven’t read the accounts (nor intend to read them) I was merely stating that if they say it’s there it has to be there. My understanding of accounts is that a provision is an amount of money set aside for a potential/likely debt. That money is then put into an escrow type of account while the debt is dealt with. If the money isn’t there then Vinny will need to cover it. I can’t see the auditors claiming the provision without some hefty supporting evidence on how it would be paid if realised. But on the matter itself, I’ll be glad when it’s finally put to bed and behind us. But I can’t see that happening for a while as it looks like the club will be pursuing the compensation route linked to the flight. Maybe they should have done that from the off, but I suppose everything would have had to wait the criminal case around it anyway. Too complicated and too tragic.

The accounts are very detailed but I have looked at the accounts briefly and as far as I can see the club have merely disclosed that a contingent liability exists in respect of Sala and have provided for that in the accounts. All this means is the club is saying that the accounts should be read as if such a liability exists without acknowledging that such a liability will arise. Hence the word contingent liability. This is common practice. There is nothing to say they have the money to pay it. As part of the arbitration Tan may personally have had to lodge a sum of money- but the club certainly haven't. If they had, this would have be shown in the accounts and I cant see it has. The auditors would be satisfied with this level of disclosure As a former auditor I would have been happy with that. I agree the accounts are complicated and can only really be understood by someone who has wasted their life in the accountancy profession - which unfortunately i have !

And I agree tragic as well and this is only being prolonged by this legal battle which as far as i can see we have little chance of success.