NANTES BEING PAID ON WEDNESDAY

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

But you drove me to the game, your employer didn’t authorise it.

The agent sorted the flight out. We aren’t getting £15 out of him let alone £15 million and definitely not £80 million.

There would have to be proof Nantes were involved in booking that flight.

Paul you're living in a dream world if you think that is any type of basis for successful litigation. The only people that would advise that would be our own lawyers who would be filling their own pockets pursuing costly and pointless litigation. Sal a was our player and it was up to us to arrange flights, insurance, etc. We didn't use a reputable company and a terrible accident took place. After he signed for us it's got chuff all to do with Nantes. The sooner people at the club pay up and move on the better. More fantasy island litigation is the last thing this saga needs!

Really hope this is true, have no reason to doubt wez hes been right before
Sure some will find something to moan about though if/when we do get embargo lifted.

Really hope this is true, have no reason to doubt wez hes been right before
Sure some will find something to moan about though if/when we do get embargo lifted.

Can only pass on what I'm told I'm pretty confident in the guy that told me .he's been bag on in the past .but like anything I life it's 3rd hand but 99% sure he's right.

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

But you drove me to the game, your employer didn’t authorise it.

The agent sorted the flight out. We aren’t getting £15 out of him let alone £15 million and definitely not £80 million.

There would have to be proof Nantes were involved in booking that flight.

There selling agent booked and arrange everything surly that s counts for something .?

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

But you drove me to the game, your employer didn’t authorise it.

The agent sorted the flight out. We aren’t getting £15 out of him let alone £15 million and definitely not £80 million.

There would have to be proof Nantes were involved in booking that flight.

There selling agent booked and arrange everything surly that s counts for something .?

I hope so but pretty sure he was acting for himself/Sala and not Nantes. Sala has signed for cardiff, his business was personal. We can sue the agent but won’t get anything out of him.

I hope I’m wrong.

Sounds this pay you on Wednesday statement is a bit like my first f**k when I was a boy----coming too soon.

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

But you drove me to the game, your employer didn’t authorise it.

The agent sorted the flight out. We aren’t getting £15 out of him let alone £15 million and definitely not £80 million.

There would have to be proof Nantes were involved in booking that flight.

The law of Agency means that anyone acting as your agent represents you. And you are liable for their actions, negligence etc in the course of the deal.
The argument is: Mackay claimed publicly he and his son were agents for Nantes to sell ES in Uk, mackay arranged the flight. The flight was illegal. Mackay is liable. Therefore Nantes are liable.
It seems a reasonable claim to be honest.

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

This is far from over.

Whilst I still think we will get some/all of the money back at some point it’s right to now pay at least some of it to get the monkey of our back.

However, anyone thinking that the club was/is wrong to fight this all the way is either deluded or has another agenda.

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

But you drove me to the game, your employer didn’t authorise it.

The agent sorted the flight out. We aren’t getting £15 out of him let alone £15 million and definitely not £80 million.

There would have to be proof Nantes were involved in booking that flight.

The law of Agency means that anyone acting as your agent represents you. And you are liable for their actions, negligence etc in the course of the deal.
The argument is: Mackay claimed publicly he and his son were agents for Nantes to sell ES in Uk, mackay arranged the flight. The flight was illegal. Mackay is liable. Therefore Nantes are liable.
It seems a reasonable claim to be honest.

I very much hope so.

Surely once the player is sold though McKay stops acting for Nantes and is now acting for Sala? If there was communication where Nantes asked McKay to look after Sala that would be a golden bullet, fingers crossed.

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

But you drove me to the game, your employer didn’t authorise it.

The agent sorted the flight out. We aren’t getting £15 out of him let alone £15 million and definitely not £80 million.

There would have to be proof Nantes were involved in booking that flight.

The law of Agency means that anyone acting as your agent represents you. And you are liable for their actions, negligence etc in the course of the deal.
The argument is: Mackay claimed publicly he and his son were agents for Nantes to sell ES in Uk, mackay arranged the flight. The flight was illegal. Mackay is liable. Therefore Nantes are liable.
It seems a reasonable claim to be honest.

Agree. I’ve seen plenty of similar claims in my time, not all are successful but it’s pretty well accepted as a reasonable claim.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to see the merit in such a claim, just an open mind !!

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

This is far from over.

Whilst I still think we will get some/all of the money back at some point it’s right to now pay at least some of it to get the monkey of our back.

However, anyone thinking that the club was/is wrong to fight this all the way is either deluded or has another agenda.

Got to agree , why should we be out of pocket ? .

Ok just answering a few of the points above in one email so as not to cause confusion.

BigLad6 - I have been involved in Civil Litigation since 1996. Initially at Insurance Companies, Admiral when I lived in Cardiff, and several leading Law firms in the North West since 2005. Predominantly Personal Injury & Credit Hire (Car Hire) claims, Loss of Earnings, Loss of Revenue, etc etc. Also done some Historic Football Abuse (See Below).

Sometimes I do think I am in a dream world but my advice on this board is based on nearly 30 years experience in the legal world. No offence taken though

There being no proof that Nantes were involved. I understand your point of view but, in UK law, there doesnt have to be. If a connection can be made that Mr Henderson (or others) were acting in any way connected to Nantes FC then they will be found Vicariously liable for their actions.

Let me make a suggestion. If Mr Henderson etc arranged transport for other Nantes players (at any time) then it could easily be proved that the provision of transport was part of his association with Nantes.

Let me throw another argument into the mix. Several years ago I was working for a law firm and represented 14 Players who were part of the Southampton Youth setup and had been abused by Bob Higgins. I went to his Criminal Trial, met the players, and was involved in a successful civil action where we sued Defendant (1) - Bob Higgins. Defendant (2) Mrs Higgins. Defendant (3) Southampton FC and Defendant (4) The Football Association.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/12/bob-higgins-jailed-for-24-years-for-abusing-young-footballers

I can repeat parts of the Criminal Trial because they are public knowledge and have been reported in the paper.

Basically Bob Higgins was the Southampton Youth Coach who looked after all youth players within the 13-16 age group. At the age of 16 they then moved to the upper part of the Southampton Youth Academy which at that time was looked after by Dave Merrington (Dave Merrington was not part of any of the abuse. He gave evidence against Bob Higgins).

I am not allowed to name the players but a search of Southampton Youth 1985 will highlight some of the players who pursued actions against the above defendants.

Anyway Bob Higgins run his own academy. The Bob Higgins Soccer Academy

[url]https://companycheck.co.uk/company/02099426/BOB-HIGGINS-SOCCER-ACADEMY-LIMITED/companies-house-data
[/url]
Solicitors for Southampton FC argued that because the players were trained by his academy there was no connection with Southampton. This was rejected because many of the players who went through his academy then went onto Southampton Academy and several players played first team football.

Southampton clearly didnt know but they had to accept that they were vicariously liable for his actions because there was a link (maybe tenuous but a link nonetheless) between the 1st Defendant and the club.


So returning back to Mr Henderson all we would need to do is prove that he had some connection with Nantes and the case would immediately look very good for us - In my opinion and it is only my opinion

Anyway hope this helps a little. I know its an emotive subject - so I am trying to explain things in "laymans terms"

And where Ive quoted Mr Henderson I also mean Mr McKay

SimpleSimon is entirely right.

Ok just answering a few of the points above in one email so as not to cause confusion.

BigLad6 - I have been involved in Civil Litigation since 1996. Initially at Insurance Companies, Admiral when I lived in Cardiff, and several leading Law firms in the North West since 2005. Predominantly Personal Injury & Credit Hire (Car Hire) claims, Loss of Earnings, Loss of Revenue, etc etc. Also done some Historic Football Abuse (See Below).

Sometimes I do think I am in a dream world but my advice on this board is based on nearly 30 years experience in the legal world. No offence taken though

There being no proof that Nantes were involved. I understand your point of view but, in UK law, there doesnt have to be. If a connection can be made that Mr Henderson (or others) were acting in any way connected to Nantes FC then they will be found Vicariously liable for their actions.

Let me make a suggestion. If Mr Henderson etc arranged transport for other Nantes players (at any time) then it could easily be proved that the provision of transport was part of his association with Nantes.

Let me throw another argument into the mix. Several years ago I was working for a law firm and represented 14 Players who were part of the Southampton Youth setup and had been abused by Bob Higgins. I went to his Criminal Trial, met the players, and was involved in a successful civil action where we sued Defendant (1) - Bob Higgins. Defendant (2) Mrs Higgins. Defendant (3) Southampton FC and Defendant (4) The Football Association.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/12/bob-higgins-jailed-for-24-years-for-abusing-young-footballers

I can repeat parts of the Criminal Trial because they are public knowledge and have been reported in the paper.

Basically Bob Higgins was the Southampton Youth Coach who looked after all youth players within the 13-16 age group. At the age of 16 they then moved to the upper part of the Southampton Youth Academy which at that time was looked after by Dave Merrington (Dave Merrington was not part of any of the abuse. He gave evidence against Bob Higgins).

I am not allowed to name the players but a search of Southampton Youth 1985 will highlight some of the players who pursued actions against the above defendants.

Anyway Bob Higgins run his own academy. The Bob Higgins Soccer Academy

[url]https://companycheck.co.uk/company/02099426/BOB-HIGGINS-SOCCER-ACADEMY-LIMITED/companies-house-data
[/url]
Solicitors for Southampton FC argued that because the players were trained by his academy there was no connection with Southampton. This was rejected because many of the players who went through his academy then went onto Southampton Academy and several players played first team football.

Southampton clearly didnt know but they had to accept that they were vicariously liable for his actions because there was a link (maybe tenuous but a link nonetheless) between the 1st Defendant and the club.


So returning back to Mr Henderson all we would need to do is prove that he had some connection with Nantes and the case would immediately look very good for us - In my opinion and it is only my opinion

Anyway hope this helps a little. I know its an emotive subject - so I am trying to explain things in "laymans terms"

I understand that it applies in French law too this ? .

If we are now paying the fee to Nantes. And one way or another we pay it all. Nantes will have their agents fee to pay. Someone mention £3m?
As Paul mentioned above, the flight was proven criminally illegal and in that hearing mackay proven to have commissioned the flight. I’d expect CCFC to request that agent fee be withheld while they decide whether to sue the mackays directly.
So many aspects to this whole story. A legal minefield.

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

Can see us suing people .

Anyone who was involved in this saga in whatever capacity that has money should be pursued in the courts.

"I will gladly pay you Wednesday, for an Embargo lift today"

Hope im wrong lol

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

All sounds promising.

All sounds promising.

Soon see after Wednesday if it's true .

Yeah right! CCFC Going into administration

Another Twist

If we are now paying the fee to Nantes. And one way or another we pay it all. Nantes will have their agents fee to pay. Someone mention £3m?
As Paul mentioned above, the flight was proven criminally illegal and in that hearing mackay proven to have commissioned the flight. I’d expect CCFC to request that agent fee be withheld while they decide whether to sue the mackays directly.
So many aspects to this whole story. A legal minefield.

Nantes instructed Mark Mackay to sell Emiliano to Cardiff and he (Mackay) was also playing the 'double mandate' game, as West Ham had instructed him to sign him, which is illegal, as it inflated the price.

So Mackay was acting on behalf of Nantes, as their selling agent and I've read that in French Law, Employment Laws are very specific

As no expert, I think this appears to be a clear link that Mackay was in the employ of Nantes and as his company arranged the flight. Both Mackay and ultimately Nantes are responsible and liable, even if he was our player.

I also seem to recollect that Mackay said he'd refuse his fee. It's really very murky and I don't blame the club for pursuing this through the courts, whatever the procedural sequence. Here's a link:

https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2 ... sala-deal/

Yeah right! CCFC Going into administration

Why is that, then...?

Administration is not on the cards, regardless of what is hapoening currently, so why make it up?

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

But you drove me to the game, your employer didn’t authorise it.

The agent sorted the flight out. We aren’t getting £15 out of him let alone £15 million and definitely not £80 million.

There would have to be proof Nantes were involved in booking that flight.

The law of Agency means that anyone acting as your agent represents you. And you are liable for their actions, negligence etc in the course of the deal.
The argument is: Mackay claimed publicly he and his son were agents for Nantes to sell ES in Uk, mackay arranged the flight. The flight was illegal. Mackay is liable. Therefore Nantes are liable.
It seems a reasonable claim to be honest.

I very much hope so.

Surely once the player is sold though McKay stops acting for Nantes and is now acting for Sala? If there was communication where Nantes asked McKay to look after Sala that would be a golden bullet, fingers crossed.

Not necessarily. I would say McKay was still involved in the deal as it hadn’t concluded and wouldn’t until payment in full was made. Therefore he was still acting as Nantes agent.
A bit Like taking your car for a service, when it’s done they park it on the road, but it gets hit by another car. The garage is still liable as it’s in their care until you pay them and drive off with it.
When you cut through all the noise on this, for me the whole problem was caused by McKay. If he hadn’t interfered with the travel plans, and bear in mind he chose to get involved in them, not instructed to. ES would have taken the scheduled flight arranged by the club to Paris, been chauffeured to Nantes to say goodbye to his team mates and been back with us by Monday morning safe and sound.

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

But you drove me to the game, your employer didn’t authorise it.

The agent sorted the flight out. We aren’t getting £15 out of him let alone £15 million and definitely not £80 million.

There would have to be proof Nantes were involved in booking that flight.

The law of Agency means that anyone acting as your agent represents you. And you are liable for their actions, negligence etc in the course of the deal.
The argument is: Mackay claimed publicly he and his son were agents for Nantes to sell ES in Uk, mackay arranged the flight. The flight was illegal. Mackay is liable. Therefore Nantes are liable.
It seems a reasonable claim to be honest.

I very much hope so.

Surely once the player is sold though McKay stops acting for Nantes and is now acting for Sala? If there was communication where Nantes asked McKay to look after Sala that would be a golden bullet, fingers crossed.

Not necessarily. I would say McKay was still involved in the deal as it hadn’t concluded and wouldn’t until payment in full was made. Therefore he was still acting as Nantes agent.
A bit Like taking your car for a service, when it’s done they park it on the road, but it gets hit by another car. The garage is still liable as it’s in their care until you pay them and drive off with it.
When you cut through all the noise on this, for me the whole problem was caused by McKay. If he hadn’t interfered with the travel plans, and bear in mind he chose to get involved in them, not instructed to. ES would have taken the scheduled flight arranged by the club to Paris, been chauffeured to Nantes to say goodbye to his team mates and been back with us by Monday morning safe and sound.

Bang on

Yeah right! CCFC Going into administration

There is no chance of city going into administration tan is not going to lose his control over his 250 plus million investment , people need to realise how administration works the whole club is handed over to the administrators ,dalman, tan and any other creditors would lose most of there money .

Yeah right! CCFC Going into administration

There is no chance of city going into administration tan is not going to lose his control over his 250 plus million investment , people need to realise how administration works the whole club is handed over to the administrators ,dalman, tan and any other creditors would lose most of there money .

Spot on !

I hate it when uneducated people make posts like this because some people will actually believe it.

Tan is more likely to sell at a lower price than let the club go into administration. He may only get say 50% of his investment back by doing that but it’s still going to be significantly more than he’d get from the administrators.

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

Can see us suing people .

Yep. That’s what we should have done from the start or at least following the end of the criminal case

We don't know all the details; while the club claimed Sala wasn't ours, what these cases have verified is that he was. So nobody can opt out of paying based on him not being a Cardiff player. This may have been needed to pursue those other avenues, but I am not sure.

I'm glad we will do our part and pay up. And if any avenues are legitimate, then I have no problem with us pursuing those after paying what we owe (for now).

EMILIANO SALA WAS 1,000% a CARDIFF CITY PLAYER.

One case was bad enough , but fir this Hierarchy to drag us through 3 cases , disgusting, disgraceful and costly to OUR CLUB.

Zzzzzz give it a rest misery gutts

Just for one Dalman admit it and stop causing our club misery and unbelievable costs

The problem regarding the agents, how do you get blood out of a stone they are skint.


Plus they were working with Warnock who we had 2 of his sons playing for us.