WITH SALA TRANSFER DECISION LOOMING: WHO WILL DECIDE?

Eyes on Raymond Hack as decision on Emiliano Sala transfer fee saga looms
By Mark Gleeson
   

The decision over the transfer fee dispute involving deceased Argentine footballer Emiliano Sala is in the hands of former South African Football Association (Safa) chief executive and Wits chairman Raymond Hack.

The much anticipated decision‚ which is expected in the coming days‚ comes about nine months after the player died in a plane crash in the English Channel.


Hack‚ in his capacity as chairman of the players’ status committee of FIFA‚ has been in Zurich hearing arguments from the legal representatives of both French club Nantes and Cardiff City who are arguing about the 17-million euro transfer fee.


The 28-year-old Argentine striker died in a plane crash while travelling from France to join his new club Cardiff who are arguing they cannot be held liable for the fee because Sala was not officially their player when he died in January.

This is despite having visited the club and signed a contract before he died.


Cardiff are arguing the transfer is null and void because the English Premier League rejected certain clauses that were requested by Nantes in the original contract and that Sala never had a chance to review or sign the final version‚ meaning he was not registered as a Premier League player.


Nantes’ counter claim is the required paperwork was completed.


Hack had given the clubs until September 5 to reach a settlement in the dispute‚ but they could not find each other.

His decision in the case is much anticipated in both England and France.


Hack also serves as the chairman of disciplinary committee of the Confederation of African Football and made the recent decision that awarded the African Champions League title to Tunisia’s Esperance after the walk off in the final by opponents Wydad Casablanca.

The 69-year-old Johannesburg lawyer is also an arbitrator for WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) and sits on the ethics committee of FINA‚ world swimming’s controlling body.

Should be interesting

Personally, I hope a decision is forthcoming,it's a cloud over our heads imo,and most probably affected the budget for this season.but can see it dragging on for some time yet,with either side placing an immediate appeal, thus dragging it out longer.

It's a learning curve

I'm sure we now insure transfers as a result

Using my legal head here I think the decision could go against us.

When you break down the wording "He signed a Contract with CCFC but the EPL/FA rejected the wording of the contract"

There are two issues:

1) Was he contracted to Cardiff City - I think yes he was
2) Was he cleared to play in the PL - No he wasnt

There is a caveat here

In English Law an offer (whether verbal or written) and an acceptance is deemed as an enforceable contract.

The question here is that if CCFC offered ES the opportunity to play PL football they may not have been able to offer him that - thus nullifying the agreement (possibly??)

Dont like our position though with this.

As Ive always said I think this is a case where ES was contracted to us and it will be up to us to sue (civil proceedings) Nantes for Loss of Income for being vicariously liable for the actions of others.

It's a learning curve

I'm sure we now insure transfers as a result

Difficult to do as surely cannot ins player with two clubs? But by same token things will be in place to negate such a thing happening again in form of wording in contracts

You can't insure something you don't have a financial interest in. We would only have a financial interest once we've signed someone. We havent paid anything and we, our club, are putting forward the argument that we hadn't actually, on a technicality, signed him.

Using my legal head here I think the decision could go against us.

When you break down the wording "He signed a Contract with CCFC but the EPL/FA rejected the wording of the contract"

There are two issues:

1) Was he contracted to Cardiff City - I think yes he was
2) Was he cleared to play in the PL - No he wasnt

There is a caveat here

In English Law an offer (whether verbal or written) and an acceptance is deemed as an enforceable contract.

The question here is that if CCFC offered ES the opportunity to play PL football they may not have been able to offer him that - thus nullifying the agreement (possibly??)

Dont like our position though with this.

As Ive always said I think this is a case where ES was contracted to us and it will be up to us to sue (civil proceedings) Nantes for Loss of Income for being vicariously liable for the actions of others.

Your final point is key. I actually don’t think this will be sorted anywhere but the courts because of the point.

Using my legal head here I think the decision could go against us.

When you break down the wording "He signed a Contract with CCFC but the EPL/FA rejected the wording of the contract"

There are two issues:

1) Was he contracted to Cardiff City - I think yes he was
2) Was he cleared to play in the PL - No he wasnt

There is a caveat here

In English Law an offer (whether verbal or written) and an acceptance is deemed as an enforceable contract.

The question here is that if CCFC offered ES the opportunity to play PL football they may not have been able to offer him that - thus nullifying the agreement (possibly??)

Dont like our position though with this.

As Ive always said I think this is a case where ES was contracted to us and it will be up to us to sue (civil proceedings) Nantes for Loss of Income for being vicariously liable for the actions of others.

I thought - that although a verbal agreement may mean a contract has been formed - it becomes a lot more difficult to prove in court what was said and by who and any misunderstandings that can arrise. Add on top of this - one part of the contract is dead - and it will be come impossible (in my opinion) to rely on a 'verbal contract'.

What they wil havbe to look at though is the actual paperwork that was signed - and as you said - and we know - there needs to be consideration. IE he would be a cardiff city player as long as he was subsequently approved by the PL or whoever does the approval.

If you consider this for example - we 'sign' a player from outside the EU - how many times have we heard - subject to international clearance / work visa etc.

If any club 'signs' a player that subsequently fails to get clearance / work visa - he wouldnt be our player - as he could not fulfil his side of the contract. In addition to this a lawyer may argue - that we have a claim against the player / nantes - as if we paid Nantes a fee for a player - who could then not fulfil his contract - we would make a claim.

It's not cut and dried on either side. They will also be arguing that Nante actually havent physically lost 15 million, that is just the profit they may have made on the completion of the contract - which they can no longer fulfil.

https://youtu.be/Wcl2wNwcOeY

Thats actually a very good point.

If the contract specifically said "subject to EPL/FL Clearance" then the contract never crystalised - and is that.

Player remains a Nantes Player.

No need for us to sue Nantes for Vicarious Liability

Its between Nantes and their pilot then.