CLAIM: VIDEO SHOWS EMILIANO SALA 'SIGNING' FOR CITY

[Sven]

New video 'shows Emiliano Sala signing for Cardiff City' , three different papers, three days before tragic striker died in plane crash in English Channel - with CAS set to rule on £15m transfer row with Nantes



By Ian Herbert and Simon Jones


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... r-row.html

Thursday 28th May 2020


https://cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopi ... 2&t=204226


A previously unseen video of Emiliano Sala signing three Cardiff City forms could lend support to French club Nantes, whose demands for a £15million transfer fee have gone to sport's highest court.

The footage, obtained by Sportsmail, shows the player being presented with the forms in quick succession and signing each of them, three days before he died when a plane carrying him to Cardiff crashed.

FIFA have already ruled that Cardiff must pay in full for the player or face a three-window transfer embargo. Cardiff's appeal against the decision has gone to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Cardiff's case includes a claim that the transfer was invalid because the Premier League had rejected the paperwork, on grounds that the signing-on fee was not spread equally across the three years of the Argentine's contract — a breach of rules.

But FIFA insisted that it was always Cardiff's intention to sign Sala, declaring it was the club's own fault that the process had not been completed by the time of his death.

A source close to the deal told Sportsmail on Wednesday night: 'It is somehow being suggested that the deal was not done but the footage shows how keen Cardiff were to do it — placing form after form in front of him and getting the deal done with some urgency.'

The timing of the footage reveals Sala signed for Cardiff at 6.21pm on Friday, January 18 last year, hours after the team he was joining had left for Newcastle, where they lost 3-0.


The source said: 'All of the staff had set off for an away game at Newcastle, but still there was determination to get things done and dusted. That's why there is hardly anyone present. In every possible sense, this was a completed transfer.'

The forms are placed before Sala by Scott Dommett, an FA of Wales player registrations manager, who urges him several times to 'sign there'.

The FAW said that Dommett had become a Cardiff employee at the time of the signing and still was. A phone in front of Sala as he signed is thought to have linked him up, via Facebook, to Meissa Ndiaye, one of his agents, who was advising him.


Though CAS have acknowledged that the Covid-19 crisis delayed their deliberations, an outcome is expected soon.

Cardiff's case centres on their assertion that the paperwork was not completed.

A club spokesman said: 'When the papers went up to the Premier League, they were rejected. There was a review of payment terms, which broke Premier League rules.

'The documents were being re-drafted while Emiliano was in the air. He would have needed to see them before signing.'

The Championship club insist Sala's agents were responsible for the rejection of the initial forms, because of their wish for payments to be made up front rather than spread across the three years of the contract.

Cardiff also argue that agents, helping Nantes to sell the player, were to blame for the fact that he was flown on a sub-standard plane when they had offered safe scheduled flights.

FIFA's ruling last September stated: 'It was clear that it was always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself.'


The governing body did not view the state of the plane to be relevant to their considerations.

Their report added: 'The circumstances surrounding the player's tragic passing in a plane accident may activate criminal proceedings and civil actions regarding Nantes' possible liability before local courts.

'(We are) of the opinion that those proceedings should be settled by the local courts and not by FIFA.'

Nantes did not offer comment on the video


View video here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... r-row.html

[Sven]

He's certainly signing something; but it's validity is still to be decided

I'll be patient and await the CAS statement rather than jumping to conclusions

[skidemin]

He's certainly signing something; but it's validity is still to be decided

I'll be patient and await the CAS statement rather than jumping to conclusions

I don't think anyone has ever claimed he did not sign .

[Forever Blue]

At the end of the day Emiliano Sala was a Cardiff player

For over a month our club told the world Sala was a Cardiff player and so did Neil Warnock.

And in my strong opinion Tan/Choo/Dalman have tried to get out if it by any means.

The Welsh FA have signed paper work stating Sala was a Cardiff player which was correct.

One form was sent back by the Premier League which had to be re-signed as was incorrect and so could not for that week play in the league.

The Premier League received an incorrect form from Cardiff, by that just meant he could not play in their league that following weekend.

Just because you buy a say Ferrari but you fill in the wrong form to enter Saturdays race does not mean it’s not suddenly your Ferrari. The Welsh FA & FiFa both have said he was a Cardiff player and in fact Cardiff did for over a month till they then had to pay all facts


FC Nantes produced the documents to say he was a Cardiff player.


FIFA have already ruled that Cardiff must pay in full for the player or face a three-window transfer embargo. Cardiff's appeal against the decision has gone to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).



Those are the simple facts .

[Forever Blue]

Private footage

Emiliano Sala Signs 3 forms

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... r-row.html


The footage, obtained by Sportsmail, shows the player being presented with the forms in quick succession and signing each of them, three days before he died when a plane carrying him to Cardiff crashed.

FIFA have already ruled that Cardiff must pay in full for the player or face a three-window transfer embargo. Cardiff's appeal against the decision has gone to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).


The timing of the footage reveals Sala signed for Cardiff at 6.21pm on Friday, January 18 last year, hours after the team he was joining had left for Newcastle, where they lost 3-0.

[tubby1982]

He can have signed anything if their not valid it dont make differance

[grange_end1927]

Ere we go again more bad press due to the board continually arguing and never paying up what they owe, dragging the club through the dirt again

[Tony Blue Williams]

From the little I know the Premier League rejected the 'playing contract' due to the way some bonus was being paid. A transfer can't be complete until a playing contract is signed off as the player could up to that point change his mind. So Sala needed to sign an amended 'new' contract

If a player has the power to veto a transfer then by definition no contract exists between the club and player therefore CCFC are not obliged to pay Nantes FC the £15m that was due if the transfer had been fully completed.

Further it is my understanding that once Sala signed a fully legitimate playing contract with CCFC then that terminated his playing contract with Nantes FC. You would imagine that for the few days it took to sort out the playing contract he was still technically a Nantes FC player.

This is a perfectly arguable position for CCFC to hold but of course it is up to CAS or a French Court to decide.

[ReesWestonSuperMare]

So what would have happened if the governing body (the FA I presume) had turned around and said sorry - that contract is invalid because the player did not meet certain conditions, international clearance etc.

A contract lawyer would argue that the contract was not in place and complete until all relevant parties have accepted and approved it. The bone of contention was that the contract was invalid - therefore in legal terms he was neither a Nante or Cardiff player. No different to buying a house. You may sell sign to say you will buy and agree a price, but it normally says sold subject to contract

As for the bit of paper he was signing - it's a page filling story but has no relevance to the legal process - that I can see. But there again - I'm not a lawyer.

[skidemin]

So what would have happened if the governing body (the FA I presume) had turned around and said sorry - that contract is invalid because the player did not meet certain conditions, international clearance etc.

A contract lawyer would argue that the contract was not in place and complete until all relevant parties have accepted and approved it. The bone of contention was that the contract was invalid - therefore in legal terms he was neither a Nante or Cardiff player. No different to buying a house. You may sell sign to say you will buy and agree a price, but it normally says sold subject to contract

As for the bit of paper he was signing - it's a page filling story but has no relevance to the legal process - that I can see. But there again - I'm not a lawyer.

he was either our player or a Nantes player.. this no mans land would mean there is a point in every transfer where a player is a free agent...

[wez1927]

Well the premier league rejected the papers hes signed sadly he never got to sign a legal contract

[Blueboys1927]

Disgusting how we’ve dodged this. Take responsibility. If he hadn’t been our player the poor lad would still be in France

[pembroke allan]

Ere we go again more bad press due to the board continually arguing and never paying up what they owe, dragging the club through the dirt again

Here we go again people quike to trash the club again..... club as not said anything this is just papers re ashing a story we know about! The club have put away the transfer money awaiting acas ruling as reported recently! no one disputes he sighned something it's the legality of the contracts that are in dispute.

[oohahhPaulMillar]

The club have always admitted he signed a contract

The problem was that the structure of how the fee was to be paid and bonuses were outside the permitted rules so the contract he signed wasn’t legal

Whether it actually was or not I have no idea, although I very much doubt it

This is just rehashed old news... nothing to see here move along please!!

[ReesWestonSuperMare]

So what would have happened if the governing body (the FA I presume) had turned around and said sorry - that contract is invalid because the player did not meet certain conditions, international clearance etc.

A contract lawyer would argue that the contract was not in place and complete until all relevant parties have accepted and approved it. The bone of contention was that the contract was invalid - therefore in legal terms he was neither a Nante or Cardiff player. No different to buying a house. You may sell sign to say you will buy and agree a price, but it normally says sold subject to contract

As for the bit of paper he was signing - it's a page filling story but has no relevance to the legal process - that I can see. But there again - I'm not a lawyer.

he was either our player or a Nantes player.. this no mans land would mean there is a point in every transfer where a player is a free agent...

Correct (possibly) depends on the contract (which you or I havent seen). A contract is only a contract if it's a valid contract. Thus he is only a Cardiff city player if the contract was legal / accepted rather than being rejected.

When it goes to the hearing - I guess all they need is show the contact Sala signed (in it's entirety) and ask one simple question - would you have approved or rejected this player transfer request. If yes - contract valid - if no , then contract invalid - and player reverts back to his parent club.

It's the same system / logic the welsh fa use. For Welsh league clubs - a club has to request the registration transfer of a player - and provide all the relevant paperwork / signatures / meet the transfer criteria. If a club fails to do this - the welsh FA reject the transfer and you have to start the process again. When it's resubmitted correctly and approved - then the contract is in place.

[Forever Blue]

A question to everyone

If the next case once again says City should pay

What’s your opinion then should they?

If it’s yes I say without a doubt yes if it’s no the same no.

[llan bluebird]

I have always assumed we are working under the guidance of the clubs insurers. I have never known an insurer pay out until they have to.
Maybe he was not insured by our policy until he became a Cardiff City player and they say he is not a player. Whatever happens we would be working with the insurance company to reduce the loss, but the accounts stated that we have made a provision for the transfer.

[skidemin]

I have always assumed we are working under the guidance of the clubs insurers. I have never known an insurer pay out until they have to.
Maybe he was not insured by our policy until he became a Cardiff City player and they say he is not a player. Whatever happens we would be working with the insurance company to reduce the loss, but the accounts stated that we have made a provision for the transfer.

the mention of an insurance company is whats been missing from this saga from day one ..
we are acting under the guidance of our insurers or under the instructions of our insurers... would certainly have made the whole thing far more acceptable both to fans and media..? but its not once been mentioned. and strangely to my knowledge a question never asked by a journalist during the many interviews...yet if I could ask one question ,that's the one id want answered..
my personal view is we wouldn't have made provision if we have adequate insurance as should we lose and he is deemed to have been our player .. we claim..

[pembroke allan]

A question to everyone

If the next case once again says City should pay

What’s your opinion then should they?

If it’s yes I say without a doubt yes if it’s no the same no.

If referring to CAS whatever is verdict both clubs have to abide by it! No choice in matter

[Llantwit bluebird]

This isn't new news, it's common knowledge that one of the forms were refused and another didn't comply so why is this shit being circulated?

[skidemin]

So what would have happened if the governing body (the FA I presume) had turned around and said sorry - that contract is invalid because the player did not meet certain conditions, international clearance etc.

A contract lawyer would argue that the contract was not in place and complete until all relevant parties have accepted and approved it. The bone of contention was that the contract was invalid - therefore in legal terms he was neither a Nante or Cardiff player. No different to buying a house. You may sell sign to say you will buy and agree a price, but it normally says sold subject to contract

As for the bit of paper he was signing - it's a page filling story but has no relevance to the legal process - that I can see. But there again - I'm not a lawyer.

he was either our player or a Nantes player.. this no mans land would mean there is a point in every transfer where a player is a free agent...

Correct (possibly) depends on the contract (which you or I havent seen). A contract is only a contract if it's a valid contract. Thus he is only a Cardiff city player if the contract was legal / accepted rather than being rejected.

When it goes to the hearing - I guess all they need is show the contact Sala signed (in it's entirety) and ask one simple question - would you have approved or rejected this player transfer request. If yes - contract valid - if no , then contract invalid - and player reverts back to his parent club.

It's the same system / logic the welsh fa use. For Welsh league clubs - a club has to request the registration transfer of a player - and provide all the relevant paperwork / signatures / meet the transfer criteria. If a club fails to do this - the welsh FA reject the transfer and you have to start the process again. When it's resubmitted correctly and approved - then the contract is in place.

its anything but simple...the FAW have confirmed the transfer and FIFA have told us to pay up or have a transfer embargo. which is why it is now at CAS.

[Forever Blue]

FIFA have ruled that Cardiff must pay in full for the player with the club appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport as they claim the transfer was invalid as the Premier League rejected the paperwork.

Daily Times

Thursday 29th May 2020


But now a video, as seen by the Daily Mail, could lend support to Nantes as it shows Sala being presented with forms at Cardiff and signing them.

Forms are seen being placed in front of Sala by Scott Dommett, an FA of Wales player registrations manager, who urges him several times to “sign there”.

A phone in front of Sala is thought to have linked him up to Meissa Ndiaye, one of his agents, who was advising him.



Cardiff's case against FIFA’s ruling, which would see them handed a three-window transfer embargo should they not pay, centres on their assertion that the paperwork was not completed.

A club spokesman said: “When the papers went up to the Premier League, they were rejected. There was a review of payment terms, which broke Premier League rules.

The Welsh FA have a completed contract saying Sala was a Cardiff City player and Nantes Fc also have one.

FIFA's ruling last September stated: “It was clear that it was always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself.

“The circumstances surrounding the player's tragic passing in a plane accident may activate criminal proceedings and civil actions regarding Nantes' possible liability before local courts.

“(We are) of the opinion that those proceedings should be settled by the local courts and not by FIFA.”

[ReesWestonSuperMare]

"FIFA's ruling last September stated: “It was clear that it was always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself."

An intention does not make a contract, only a signed and approved contract makes it a contract. Therefor as it stands - a valid contract was not in place. Will be very interesting what they decide and why.

[Tony Blue Williams]

"FIFA's ruling last September stated: “It was clear that it was always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself."

An intention does not make a contract, only a signed and approved contract makes it a contract. Therefor as it stands - a valid contract was not in place. Will be very interesting what they decide and why.

Very valid point of view. I'm sure we have many 'intentions' to sign players but that doesn't mean we have ownership of those players.

Our intention was also for Sala to play in the Premier League and Nantes FC had assigned an agent to sell the player to a 'Premier League Club' therefore an expressed clause existed that PL registration was fundamental part of the deal.

Further we were not signing Sala to play in the FA Cup/League Cup or reserve team his primary and effectively his only reason for signing was to save our Premier League status.

[stickywicket]

A question to everyone

If the next case once again says City should pay

What’s your opinion then should they?

If it’s yes I say without a doubt yes if it’s no the same no.

They should pay up.

[skidemin]

"FIFA's ruling last September stated: “It was clear that it was always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself."

An intention does not make a contract, only a signed and approved contract makes it a contract. Therefor as it stands - a valid contract was not in place. Will be very interesting what they decide and why.

you've squeezed in the word approved... a contract between an employer and employee certainly does not need to be approved by the EPL to be valid...it only has to be approved by them for EPL purposes...
the player contract was legal and accepted by governing bodies and has not once been called into question other than by a couple of message board posters..

[CcfcPete]

"FIFA's ruling last September stated: “It was clear that it was always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself."

An intention does not make a contract, only a signed and approved contract makes it a contract. Therefor as it stands - a valid contract was not in place. Will be very interesting what they decide and why.

you've squeezed in the word approved... a contract between an employer and employee certainly does not need to be approved by the EPL to be valid...it only has to be approved by them for EPL purposes...
the player contract was legal and accepted by governing bodies and has not once been called into question other than by a couple of message board posters..

You are spot on.

From FIFA’s ruling, the exact wording is as follows:-

41. In this respect, the members of the Bureau firstly observed that the clause at stake did not require the player’s employment contract to be registered with the Premier League as a condition precedent. What it is more, the Bureau held that it was clear that it was always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself.

42. Moreover, the members of the Bureau pointed out that the registration of an employment contract with the Premier League not only consists of an internal matter between Cardiff and the Premier League and/or the FAW, but it is also a formal requirement over which Nantes has no influence. As a result, from the Bureau’s point of view, whether or not Cardiff and the agents representing the player had carried out the required due diligence in drafting an employment contract that was in conformity with the Premier League’s specific rules or not, can in no way affect the validity of the transfer agreement concluded between Nantes and Cardiff.

Essentially saying what we are. It’s simply an internal matter between Sala and the club, but regardless of outcome of that internal matter he would still be a Cardiff player. He would either be a Cardiff player ineligible to play in the Premier League or he would be a Cardiff player that could play in the Premier League, and that would depend on if Sala would be happy complying with the competitions rules and having his signing on fee over the length of his contract.

Whether he would have agreed or not is neither here nor there however when discussing the validity of the contract or the transfer itself, that was a done deal and completely valid.

[ReesWestonSuperMare]

You must have seen the contract then ?
What clauses were there that had to be met or else null and voided ?

As I would expect it to say (like any contract) the sale is dependent on the approval and authorisation of the relevant authorities etc

Otherwise as a purchaser you may well be purchasing something that is not as it seems. EG that's why players have medicals.
If the FA turned around and said sorry his work visa is invalid therefor he doesnt have international clearance etc - the club would then void the contract as stated in the terms and conditions (which no one has seen other than the club and their legal representatives - as far as I know) maybe the contract and its clauses have been published somewhere ?

It will be an interesting decision though and will set precedent on future transfers

Cant believe some people would fold so easily

[skidemin]

You must have seen the contract then ?
What clauses were there that had to be met or else null and voided ?

As I would expect it to say (like any contract) the sale is dependent on the approval and authorisation of the relevant authorities etc

Otherwise as a purchaser you may well be purchasing something that is not as it seems. EG that's why players have medicals.
If the FA turned around and said sorry his work visa is invalid therefor he doesnt have international clearance etc - the club would then void the contract as stated in the terms and conditions (which no one has seen other than the club and their legal representatives - as far as I know) maybe the contract and its clauses have been published somewhere ?

It will be an interesting decision though and will set precedent on future transfers

Cant believe some people would fold so easily

but no FA has said sorry because he had passed a medical , did have international clearance. and had been fully registered..
. the contracts to my knowledge have not been published . but our clubs reasons for appealing have and medicals, work permits and international clearance are not the reasons..

[CcfcPete]

You must have seen the contract then ?
What clauses were there that had to be met or else null and voided ?

As I would expect it to say (like any contract) the sale is dependent on the approval and authorisation of the relevant authorities etc

Otherwise as a purchaser you may well be purchasing something that is not as it seems. EG that's why players have medicals.
If the FA turned around and said sorry his work visa is invalid therefor he doesnt have international clearance etc - the club would then void the contract as stated in the terms and conditions (which no one has seen other than the club and their legal representatives - as far as I know) maybe the contract and its clauses have been published somewhere ?

It will be an interesting decision though and will set precedent on future transfers

Cant believe some people would fold so easily

That’s the point mate, it did have the approval of the relevant authorities and governing bodies. That’s why it went through. The contract was perfectly valid.

You need to seperate the Premier League from the FA/FAW. The Premier League has no say on whether a contract is valid or not, only whether the contract allows the player to play in its competition or not based on its own rules. They are hugely differing things. In the case of Sala, the way his (valid) contract was set up, it did not comply with its regulations that determine whether a player can compete in that competition or not. It means he cannot play in the PL, it doesn’t invalidate the contract and as a result is fully capable of playing in other games for the club.

He had a work permit, the contract was legal and binding, the TMS was complete and international clearance was finalised on the 21st at 5:30pm GMT. The transfer was complete.

It isn’t about folding easily, it’s about not having any cards whatsoever. The decision is a formality, I think it’s only been appealed to buy time in the hope the club may be promoted in the meantime and the financial hit can be absorbed easier. Reading the FIFA document and understanding both sides of the argument and also the facts behind the contract and timelines make it as clear cut a case as you would wish to see, truly. The club do not have a leg to stand on.