‘ Cardiff will continue to argue / contest ‘

by **Forever Blue** » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:41 pm

Cardiff City have been locked in a bitter dispute with Nantes over the £15million transfer fee to bring Sala to the Welsh capital, and it does not appear this will be resolved swiftly.

Tuesday 21st January 2020

By Katie Sands

Cardiff argue he was not officially their player at the time of his death and are not responsible for the fee, while Nantes disagree.

Fifa stepped in and have already ordered the Bluebirds to pay up the first instalment fee - £5.3m - but the club is appealing the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

“ CARDIFF CITYS CASE “

Cardiff's view is they did not put Sala on this plane.

Pick the pilot or choose the aircraft.

They insist certain conditions of the deal to bring him to Wales had not been met.

The appeal is due to be heard this spring, with two likely scenarios:

CAS make a decision and rule there should be a compromise, with all parties paying a section of the fee. They could rule that both Cardiff and Nantes must each pay pay £5m and also put £2m each into a trust fund for the Sala family.
Because there is a criminal investigation underway, matters could be suspended for four to five years.
At some point in the coming days, WalesOnline understand it is the Bluebirds' intention to put their point of view across to fans and media in general about the non-payment of the transfer fee instalment. They feel this could put a different perception on the situation; the club feels no one has yet got anywhere near the truth.

The club are also keen for a trust to be set up for the Sala family which they can pay into.

For now, the club are preparing the case with their lawyers for the CAS appeal.

**Advertisement**

by **Forever Blue** » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:45 pm

“ CARDIFF CITYS CASE “

Cardiff's view is they did not put Sala on this plane.

Pick the pilot or choose the aircraft.

They insist certain conditions of the deal to bring him to Wales had not been met.

by **Forever Blue** » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:51 pm

I thought and read that Cardiff City’s originally were arguing they Emiliano Sala was not their player and he had not signed all the papers ? ? ?

FAW have a signed contract stating Emiliano Sala was a Cardiff player.

by **bluebirdoct1962** » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:56 pm

Forever Blue wrote:
I thought and read that Cardiff City’s originally were arguing they Emiliano Sala was not their player and he had not signed all the papers ? ? ?

FAW have a signed contract stating Emiliano Sala was a Cardiff player.

I suppose it’ll all come out soon.

by **snoopystorm** » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:56 pm

Think the main issue other than those pointed out was that according to the Premier League he wasn’t our player as they were the official body that stated there were issues with his contract and it needed resigning

by **bluebirdoct1962** » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:58 pm

snoopystorm wrote:Think the main issue other than those pointed out was that according to the Premier League he wasn’t our player as they were the official body that stated there were issues with his contract and it needed resigning

It seems that there’s also a big issue in how he was set up to make that fateful journey.

by **Forever Blue** » Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:08 pm

bluebirdoct1962 wrote:
snoopystorm wrote:Think the main issue other than those pointed out was that according to the Premier League he wasn’t our player as they were the official body that stated there were issues with his contract and it needed resigning

It seems that there’s also a big issue in how he was set up to make that fateful journey.

That’s what the case has turned in to, apparently that’s now what Cardiff’s main argument is now.

by **Forever Blue** » Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:25 pm

Cardiff Chairman Mehmet Dalman:

Cardiff chairman Mehmet Dalman reveals the moral and financial reasons behind the club’s refusal to pay Nantes the huge fee for the player.

“There remain so many unanswered questions.

“If the player was an asset of Cardiff, what right did anyone have to make decisions on our behalf about the pilot, the state of the plane and all aspects about the licensing to fly commercially?

“A club of our size do not have vast resources.

“It is obvious we cannot hand over £15million . . . without heading toward bankruptcy.”

by **tanky** » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:25 am

What on earth were we doing spending 15 mlllion if it could potentially make us bankrupt.

by **bluesince62** » Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:42 am

tanky wrote:What on earth were we doing spending 15 mlllion if it could potentially make us bankrupt.

I don't think he meant just the one payment,but a generalised business speak that the club has a duty to protect their funds in this case,and I suppose if he had played for us,and his goals kept us in the prem,then it was worth the possible risk,against almost certain relegation after one term again.it surprised me when the club were prepared to spend that amount,but was pleased more so,as it showed intent on the club's part,that they would be fighting tooth and nail to survive against the odds,funnily enough,we were so close,even without emiliano,such a tragic way to end. :sad7:

by **badgeofhonor** » Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:52 pm

snoopystorm wrote:Think the main issue other than those pointed out was that according to the Premier League he wasn’t our player as they were the official body that stated there were issues with his contract and it needed resigning

That isn't true.

The Premier League have no view on who's player he was or wasn't - only that in order to play in the competition, his signing on fee would have to be structured in a way that complies with their rules. That doesn't make him a non-Cardiff player, it makes him a Cardiff player that unless a re-structured signing on fee was amended, was not allowed to play in the Premier League.

That's why FIFA rules in Nantes favour and threw out that line of argument from the club, its one that shows a complete lack of understanding of football in general. I can only imagine it is simply Tan bulldozing it and not listening to people who obviously know such basic things as Premier League registration not constituting ownership.

by **badgeofhonor** » Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:57 pm

Forever Blue wrote:
bluebirdoct1962 wrote:
snoopystorm wrote:Think the main issue other than those pointed out was that according to the Premier League he wasn’t our player as they were the official body that stated there were issues with his contract and it needed resigning

It seems that there’s also a big issue in how he was set up to make that fateful journey.

That’s what the case has turned in to, apparently that’s now what Cardiff’s main argument is now.

... which is also a ridiculous argument.

Does that mean if you work for Cardiff you are not allowed to travel anywhere without them choosing your flight, car, driver, pilot? I have never heard anything more ridiculous in my life.

Sala was travelled to Nantes in a personal trip. The club offered him a return budget flight to make training - a few hours drive away from where he was, so decided to make his own arrangements and get on another flight instead. Nobody ''put'' him on the flight, he was an adult completely capable of making his own decisions and personal travel arrangements.

The fact the club feel they should have control over all of their staff out of work hours and how they travel is utterly ludicrous and again no doubt the reason FIFA threw their argument out. It smacks of stalling to me, hoping that they may be promoted by the time a decision is made - because their arguments are crazy.

by **snoopystorm** » Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:41 pm

badgeofhonor wrote:
snoopystorm wrote:Think the main issue other than those pointed out was that according to the Premier League he wasn’t our player as they were the official body that stated there were issues with his contract and it needed resigning

That isn't true.

The Premier League have no view on who's player he was or wasn't - only that in order to play in the competition, his signing on fee would have to be structured in a way that complies with their rules. That doesn't make him a non-Cardiff player, it makes him a Cardiff player that unless a re-structured signing on fee was amended, was not allowed to play in the Premier League.

That's why FIFA rules in Nantes favour and threw out that line of argument from the club, its one that shows a complete lack of understanding of football in general. I can only imagine it is simply Tan bulldozing it and not listening to people who obviously know such basic things as Premier League registration not constituting ownership.

Cardiff announced he was our player on the Saturday evening pending international clearance, FAW cleared him on the Sunday, Premier League ‘REJECTED’ the transfer initially stating the contract needed to be re-signed as there were issues within the contract that needed further discussions between Sala and Cardiff and they would accept the transfer once the contract had been re-signed on the Monday. This is where the issue of him not being our player stems from, the PL rejection of the contract, all of this can be found in posts on this forum and news pages online.

That’s what originally happened on the weekend he signed, FIFA were not involved, They only got involved later in the year as a last resort for a frustrated Nantes

by **badgeofhonor** » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:06 pm

snoopystorm wrote:
badgeofhonor wrote:
snoopystorm wrote:Think the main issue other than those pointed out was that according to the Premier League he wasn’t our player as they were the official body that stated there were issues with his contract and it needed resigning

That isn't true.

The Premier League have no view on who's player he was or wasn't - only that in order to play in the competition, his signing on fee would have to be structured in a way that complies with their rules. That doesn't make him a non-Cardiff player, it makes him a Cardiff player that unless a re-structured signing on fee was amended, was not allowed to play in the Premier League.

That's why FIFA rules in Nantes favour and threw out that line of argument from the club, its one that shows a complete lack of understanding of football in general. I can only imagine it is simply Tan bulldozing it and not listening to people who obviously know such basic things as Premier League registration not constituting ownership.

Cardiff announced he was our player on the Saturday evening pending international clearance, FAW cleared him on the Sunday, Premier League ‘REJECTED’ the transfer initially stating the contract needed to be re-signed as there were issues within the contract that needed further discussions between Sala and Cardiff and they would accept the transfer once the contract had been re-signed on the Monday. This is where the issue of him not being our player stems from, the PL rejection of the contract, all of this can be found in posts on this forum and news pages online.

That’s what originally happened on the weekend he signed, FIFA were not involved, They only got involved later in the year as a last resort for a frustrated Nantes

Again, wrong.

The Premier League cannot accept or reject our transfers. They are a competition, not a governing body. The FA can, but Welsh clubs are governed by the FAW not the FA.

The Premier League stared that he was ineligible to play in the Premier League unless an amendment was made to the structure of the signing on fee, in order to comply with its rules. Until that was done, he would be ineligible to play in that competition.

Whether you are eligible to play in the Premier League or not has no baring what so ever on ownership. This is what Tan clearly cannot grasp either.