Nantes Important Reminder : The court verdic

Interesting that most people in their replies aren't referring to what it says in the OP about the agent's link with Warnock.

Maybe because they don't want to accept that, especially as some of us have been saying it for years but were accused of just having a vendetta against Warnock.

I don't know if this is the reason why, but I do know that Tan won't have Warnock anywhere near the club again while he's owner - one of the few things I agree with Tan on.

Ned, I’m 109% with you on Warnock and also surprised he doesn’t get more air on here for the negative reasons surrounding the Willie McKay links

One question I do have regards to whether Tan “won’t have Warnock anywhere near the club again while he’s the owner” after it was reported (on here) he was approached for another ‘firefighter’ role when we were sinking last season?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=244166&start=30&hilit=Neil+Warnock

Maybe false/incorrect information at the time or not at Tan’s instigation?

Interesting that most people in their replies aren't referring to what it says in the OP about the agent's link with Warnock.

Maybe because they don't want to accept that, especially as some of us have been saying it for years but were accused of just having a vendetta against Warnock.

I don't know if this is the reason why, but I do know that Tan won't have Warnock anywhere near the club again while he's owner - one of the few things I agree with Tan on.

Ned, I’m 109% with you on Warnock and also surprised he doesn’t get more air on here for the negative reasons surrounding the Willie McKay links

One question I do have regards to whether Tan “won’t have Warnock anywhere near the club again while he’s the owner” after it was reported (on here) he was approached for another ‘firefighter’ role when we were sinking last season?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=244166&start=30&hilit=Neil+Warnock

Maybe false/incorrect information at the time or not at Tan’s instigation?

I think, if I remember right, that it was Dalman and Choo who wanted Warnock back and persuaded him to agree to it.

But it was Tan who blocked it when it was put to him.

It will be good to bring an end to this for Emiliano's family bit I think this is pretty much the end game now.

I've said all along that City had to push this to every level of the arbitration possible to them, simply because every single stage has added weight to the argument that would be made in the civil court.

Nantes by defending themselves in all the arbitration courts have now confirmed the following in a legal setting.

1) Emiliano was 100% our player.
2) The contract that was in place was binding (hence why we had to pay)
3) Mackay was involved in the deal despite being struck off.
4) Mackay was acting on behalf of the selling club (Nantes) and initiated the contact (this was in the out of court settlement between Mackay and CCFC
5) Cardiff offered Emiliano business class flight from Nantes to Cardiff - it was the agent (Macaky) acting as Nantes intermediary that offered him the option of a private flight
6) This was not authorised by CCFC it was authorised by the agent acting on behalf of Nantes.
7) The agent arranged a flight with an unqualified pilot and an uncertified plane.

A spaingful as it has been all of this is now explictly acknowledged in formal legal documents. Each round of litigation solidifying the documentation of the further. All of the above is now accepted as fact.

Therefore, CCFC's case, whicv is to establish that Nantes acted in a negligent way in relation to the transfer of the asset (I hate to use such non-humanising language but that is the way it will be presented legally) was incomplete.

The result of that negligence financially is:

a) direct loss (cost of transfer)
b) potential loss - cost of not staying in the league
c) legal cost
d) reputational damage.

Personally I think we over-egged the potential loss, understated the reputational damage - but honestly I think it is a case of how much the court will award us, rather than if we will win at this point. I may well be wrong but Nantes seem to be backed in the corner at this point.

The one I can't see Tan getting is for the potential loss of earnings(staying in the Prem)

I just don’t see how it can be 100% that we would have stayed up if Sala made it over here

I'll admit I don't know much about the court of law but that will get ruled out as speculation surely?

They employed specialist statisticians to forecast the potential goals ES could have scored as I think he was the 2nd highest in Ligue 1 at the time, behind Mbappe. We only went down by a whisker. Just a few more points would have kept us up.
Same principle of Sheffield Utd suing West Ham for their relegation, based on Tevez being an illegal signing and scoring a load of goals on the end of season run in. If the PL had done the right thing back then and erased Tevez goals, I think WH would have gone down and Sheffield stayed up. Rumours were they secured about £20m to £25m compo from WH. And ironically a certain Colin Wanker was Sheffield manager at the time.
As this is a civil case it’s decided on balance of probabilities, 50% or more. And is it reasonable to think ES may have scored say, 4 or more goals and would they have kept us up?