' Sala Case Consolidated '

Yes he was and no he wasn’t..get your facts right

I missed your first part that stated ''yes he was''.

Well, No he wasn't. I will explain.

Nantes gave a mandate to Mercato, to acquire a Premier League club to buy Sala. In return they would get 10% of the transfer fee. Willie McKay was not an employee of Mercato.

On the 19th, the deal between the two clubs was agreed and Nantes and Sala terminated their employment contract. From that moment Mercato and Nantes had completed their arrangement.

Sala who had returned home to say goodbye to family and friends after signing with Cardiff was stuck for a convenient option to travel. He spoke with Willie McKay who said there was an option to book a chartered flight (the same one used for Warnock at Cardiff), Sala agreed and told the Player Liaison Officer at Cardiff who responded with ''Ok that works''.

McKay was not representing anyone other than Sala when the flight was booked. He had no employment with Mercato or Nantes at the time. That is documented fact.

So if Sala had refused to sign the amended contract then your implying he would have been a free agent as he had terminated his contract with Nantes FC? This would mean Nantes FC would have released the player and he could have signed for us (or anyone) for nothing.

It is more probable that the termination of his playing contract with Nantes FC was subject to him signing an acceptable contract with CCFC. Until that was done he was both a Nantes FC player and Mercato were still involved in his transfer as it hadn't been completed.

So if Sala had refused to sign the amended contract then your implying he would have been a free agent as he had terminated his contract with Nantes FC? This would mean Nantes FC would have released the player and he could have signed for us (or anyone) for nothing.

It is more probable that the termination of his playing contract with Nantes FC was subject to him signing an acceptable contract with CCFC. Until that was done he was both a Nantes FC player and Mercato were still involved in his transfer as it hadn't been completed.

No, this has been explained to you before.

If he did not sign an amendment to the contract, he would be a Cardiff City player that was ineligible to play in the Premier League. Mercato's involvement ended after both contracts were signed (club to club and player to club). There were both done by the 19th of Jan.

The contract he signed with Cardiff was done prior to the termination of the Nantes employment.

Listening to the podcast with Dalman he spoke a lot of sense and was very honest.

None of the agents involved in the deal have spoken about not taking their fees (in the instance of a transfer fee being paid). This in my opinion is bad taste.

He suggested to all parties a deal that to me, probably through blue tinted specs, seemed extremely fair way of ending the whole saga...

Agents take nothing.
Clubs take a hit of half the fee each.
Out of this they each pay 2m to Sala's family.
Left about 4.5m euros per club to pay.

How is that fair to Nantes?

They sold their best player for 17m euros and only get 4.5m euros of it?

Roathy why are you obsessed with Cardiff city I am really interested as to why you have this unhealthy obsession

Listening to the podcast with Dalman he spoke a lot of sense and was very honest.

None of the agents involved in the deal have spoken about not taking their fees (in the instance of a transfer fee being paid). This in my opinion is bad taste.

He suggested to all parties a deal that to me, probably through blue tinted specs, seemed extremely fair way of ending the whole saga...

Agents take nothing.
Clubs take a hit of half the fee each.
Out of this they each pay 2m to Sala's family.
Left about 4.5m euros per club to pay.

How is that fair to Nantes?

They sold their best player for 17m euros and only get 4.5m euros of it?

I did say it's through blue tinted specs, I get your point. But this is a human being we're talking about.

I think it's all agreed, even by you, that there is no single party that can take complete blame for the tragedy.

To show empathy the 'cost' could be shared.

I did say it's through blue tinted specs, I get your point. But this is a human being we're talking about.

I think it's all agreed, even by you, that there is no single party that can take complete blame for the tragedy.

To show empathy the 'cost' could be shared.

There are other ways to show empathy than creating more unfairness and prejudicing a club by millions of euros.

The best way to show empathy would be the club not trying to disown him in an attempt to get out of the transfer fee they agreed for him when he signed for the club.

Dragging this on can’t be doing anything for anybody.

Roathy why are you obsessed with Cardiff city I am really interested as to why you have this unhealthy obsession

If you can use the PM function for questions about me that would be much appreciated by the thread. Will be happy to discuss.

No, this has been explained to you before.

If he did not sign an amendment to the contract, he would be a Cardiff City player that was ineligible to play in the Premier League. Mercato's involvement ended after both contracts were signed (club to club and player to club). There were both done by the 19th of Jan.

The contract he signed with Cardiff was done prior to the termination of the Nantes employment.

Now your showing your ignorance of contract/employment law.

The fundamental part of the transfer was Sala being given the opportunity to play Premiership football. If we signed him on a contract which then prohibited him from doing so, then CCFC would have been in breach of contract and Sala would have had every right to have that contract torn up and return to Nantes FC. There is also the issue of how the signing on fee was to be paid. Sala might also have been unhappy with the amended terms and again CCFC would have been in breach of contract and the transfer would be null and void. The contract (and hence the transfer) was only valid once Sala signed the amended contract.

Mercato's involvement only ended when the amended contract was fully accepted by Sala's signature. The clue is in the way they arranged his return flight. Why would CCFC allow a third party who represented the selling club arrange a flight for a player they apparently owned?

Listening to the podcast with Dalman he spoke a lot of sense and was very honest.

None of the agents involved in the deal have spoken about not taking their fees (in the instance of a transfer fee being paid). This in my opinion is bad taste.

He suggested to all parties a deal that to me, probably through blue tinted specs, seemed extremely fair way of ending the whole saga...

Agents take nothing.
Clubs take a hit of half the fee each.
Out of this they each pay 2m to Sala's family.
Left about 4.5m euros per club to pay.

TBH This would be the honourable way to resolve the matter as the whole issue was a sad set of circumstances

Listening to the podcast with Dalman he spoke a lot of sense and was very honest.

None of the agents involved in the deal have spoken about not taking their fees (in the instance of a transfer fee being paid). This in my opinion is bad taste.

He suggested to all parties a deal that to me, probably through blue tinted specs, seemed extremely fair way of ending the whole saga...

Agents take nothing.
Clubs take a hit of half the fee each.
Out of this they each pay 2m to Sala's family.
Left about 4.5m euros per club to pay.

TBH This would be the honourable way to resolve the matter as the whole issue was a sad set of circumstances

Any normal person can see as much Tony.

No, this has been explained to you before.

If he did not sign an amendment to the contract, he would be a Cardiff City player that was ineligible to play in the Premier League. Mercato's involvement ended after both contracts were signed (club to club and player to club). There were both done by the 19th of Jan.

The contract he signed with Cardiff was done prior to the termination of the Nantes employment.

Now your showing your ignorance of contract/employment law.

The fundamental part of the transfer was Sala being given the opportunity to play Premiership football. If we signed him on a contract which then prohibited him from doing so, then CCFC would have been in breach of contract and Sala would have had every right to have that contract torn up and return to Nantes FC. There is also the issue of how the signing on fee was to be paid. Sala might also have been unhappy with the amended terms and again CCFC would have been in breach of contract and the transfer would be null and void. The contract (and hence the transfer) was only valid once Sala signed the amended contract.

Mercato's involvement only ended when the amended contract was fully accepted by Sala's signature. The clue is in the way they arranged his return flight. Why would CCFC allow a third party who represented the selling club arrange a flight for a player they apparently owned?

You have just made that up though. Nowhere in any agreement, verbal or written is that the case. It is also not the case the club are putting forward and this is saying something because they are really scraping the barrel with some of their points.

The fundamental part of the sale was to get as much money for their player as possible. Nantes were not selling Sala to benefit him and give him a nice treat to play in the Premier League. They wanted to “sell to a Premier League club” as due to the TV broadcasting money Premier League clubs have, sales are at a premium to Premier League based clubs.

What Cardiff signed him for is irrelevant, that is neither Sala or Nantes business.

Mercato have no interest in an internal matter between the club and the player, whether he gets to play in the Premier League doesn’t affect Mercato at all, their concern was that they facilitated the deal, which they did as confirmed by the timeline and reaffirmed by FIFA.

If Sala did not sign the amended contract, once again, Sala would be a Cardiff City player that could not play in the Premier League. His employment contract was already valid and would remain so until it expired. However it would be in both the club and players interests to amend that to allow him to play in the league. However once again amendment or not would of course not make the original any more valid than it already was.

I refer you to point 42. Which states:-

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, 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.

The four clauses that were to be in place before a deal was finalised were met and also the verbal agreement that Nantes wished to sell to a Premier League club.

Any normal person can see as much Tony.

Again, why is it fair that Nantes sell their best player for 17m and receive 4.5m of it because the other team doesn’t want to pay?

What you mean is it would be a great result for Cardiff. But that isn’t what is important here, what is important is that the integrity of football is upheld and contracts and transfers are honoured.

Tony, I forgot to reply to your point about the club “allowing” Sala’s transport to be arranged by someone else and you concluding that it must mean he wasn’t their player (??).

They have no authority to allow or disallow; over their employees choice of transport in their private life. Do you think the club has to book every taxi their employees take if they decide to go for a meal out?

Cardiff tried and failed to arrange an appropriate flight back for their player. Sala instead decided to decline and make his own arrangements due to Cardiff’s budget option being extremely inconvenient. It involved a 4 hour drive to get there.

Roathy why are you obsessed with Cardiff city I am really interested as to why you have this unhealthy obsession

If you can use the PM function for questions about me that would be much appreciated by the thread. Will be happy to discuss.

Start a conversation with a weirdo on private messaging let me think for one tenth of a second umm No thanks

No, this has been explained to you before.

If he did not sign an amendment to the contract, he would be a Cardiff City player that was ineligible to play in the Premier League. Mercato's involvement ended after both contracts were signed (club to club and player to club). There were both done by the 19th of Jan.

The contract he signed with Cardiff was done prior to the termination of the Nantes employment.

Now your showing your ignorance of contract/employment law.

The fundamental part of the transfer was Sala being given the opportunity to play Premiership football. If we signed him on a contract which then prohibited him from doing so, then CCFC would have been in breach of contract and Sala would have had every right to have that contract torn up and return to Nantes FC. There is also the issue of how the signing on fee was to be paid. Sala might also have been unhappy with the amended terms and again CCFC would have been in breach of contract and the transfer would be null and void. The contract (and hence the transfer) was only valid once Sala signed the amended contract.

Mercato's involvement only ended when the amended contract was fully accepted by Sala's signature. The clue is in the way they arranged his return flight. Why would CCFC allow a third party who represented the selling club arrange a flight for a player they apparently owned?

He hasn't got a fecking clue, he's just one of those annoying twats you sometimes meet in a pub that will think they know about everything.

All he is trying to do is keep the thread going forever saying, your club is terrible and they have to pay, no matter what the facts are or what you reply, he will keep just trying to justify the stance he has taken, which is always anti-Cardiff, pro-Swansea.

I haven't wasted any time reading his shit, or the thread, I'm just trying to stop you wasting yours, it's always the same

Everyone just ignore him, no one knows what will happen, it will go on for years and be appealed time and time again.

Start a conversation with a weirdo on private messaging let me think for one tenth of a second umm No thanks

So you would rather start one in the middle of a thread about something else?

You have been given the option.

He hasn't got a fecking clue, he's just one of those annoying twats you sometimes meet in a pub that will think they know about everything.

All he is trying to do is keep the thread going forever saying, your club is terrible and they have to pay, no matter what the facts are or what you reply, he will keep just trying to justify the stance he has taken, which is always anti-Cardiff, pro-Swansea.

I haven't wasted any time reading his shit, or the thread, I'm just trying to stop you wasting yours, it's always the same

Everyone just ignore him, no one knows what will happen, it will go on for years and be appealed time and time again.

So what you are trying to say is that it’s too complicated for you to understand and because it seems like the club will lose its appeal and you cannot defend it against the sheer weight of evidence presented - you want everyone to ignore it and hope it goes away?

Makes sense I guess.

As has been said many times. There is a 21 page document to solve your assertion of “nobody having a clue” in order to form an opinion and reach a conclusion and have a discussion. II have also broken it down into manageable chunks for you. If you haven’t bothered doing either then I am not sure exactly what you are bringing to the thread.

These are THE facts of the case, they aren’t my facts.

He hasn't got a fecking clue, he's just one of those annoying twats you sometimes meet in a pub that will think they know about everything.

All he is trying to do is keep the thread going forever saying, your club is terrible and they have to pay, no matter what the facts are or what you reply, he will keep just trying to justify the stance he has taken, which is always anti-Cardiff, pro-Swansea.

I haven't wasted any time reading his shit, or the thread, I'm just trying to stop you wasting yours, it's always the same

Everyone just ignore him, no one knows what will happen, it will go on for years and be appealed time and time again.

So what you are trying to say is that it’s too complicated for you to understand and because it seems like the club will lose its appeal and you cannot defend it against the sheer weight of evidence presented - you want everyone to ignore it and hope it goes away?

Makes sense I guess.

As has been said many times. There is a 21 page document to solve your assertion of “nobody having a clue” in order to form an opinion and reach a conclusion and have a discussion. II have also broken it down into manageable chunks for you. If you haven’t bothered doing either then I am not sure exactly what you are bringing to the thread.

These are THE facts of the case, they aren’t my facts.

bore off you haven't got a clue what will happen

bore off you haven't got a clue what will happen

Anyone who reads the facts of the case will have a clue what will happen.

It’s documented there for every single person to read.

If you refuse to read it then yes, you won’t have a clue. But that’s your choice and I can’t help you with that.

You have just made that up though. Nowhere in any agreement, verbal or written is that the case. It is also not the case the club are putting forward and this is saying something because they are really scraping the barrel with some of their points.

The fundamental part of the sale was to get as much money for their player as possible. Nantes were not selling Sala to benefit him and give him a nice treat to play in the Premier League. They wanted to “sell to a Premier League club” as due to the TV broadcasting money Premier League clubs have, sales are at a premium to Premier League based clubs.

What Cardiff signed him for is irrelevant, that is neither Sala or Nantes business.

Mercato have no interest in an internal matter between the club and the player, whether he gets to play in the Premier League doesn’t affect Mercato at all, their concern was that they facilitated the deal, which they did as confirmed by the timeline and reaffirmed by FIFA.

If Sala did not sign the amended contract, once again, Sala would be a Cardiff City player that could not play in the Premier League. His employment contract was already valid and would remain so until it expired. However it would be in both the club and players interests to amend that to allow him to play in the league. However once again amendment or not would of course not make the original any more valid than it already was.

I refer you to point 42. Which states:-

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, 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.

The four clauses that were to be in place before a deal was finalised were met and also the verbal agreement that Nantes wished to sell to a Premier League club.

Again you are showing your ignorance of contract/employment law and your lateral thinking (and I'm being generous there!).

I am not making things up I am interpreting the law based on precedent. If someone is enticed to sign a contract and one party doesn't deliver then that party is in breach of contract and if it is fundamental then they can withdraw from the contract without penalty. They also must be put back into the position they were in before they entered into the contract which in Sala's case would have been playing for Nantes FC in the French league. CCFC might be liable for some reasonable costs but that's it.

Of course Sala was brought to club to play in the Premier League and that was an expressed clause. It doesn't need to be actually written down only implied on the balance of probabilities.

That fact that a bonus system for PL survival, PL wages, a relegation clause and his public expression of wanting to play in the PL existed would be more than enough Also it would need proof on the balance of probabilities that Sala would have been happy to not play any competitive games for 8 months (we were out of both cups).

You can point to FIFA interpretation all you want UK law overrides any finding they might make. FIFA might think it was an internal matter but a Judge might think it was part of the transfer processes and as the contract had been dismissed by the PL Sala wasn't obliged to honour his side and therefore no legal contract existed and the transfer failed until he signed an amended contract.

A Judge also has discretion & might deem that the transfer was influx and due to exceptional circumstances both sides should bare the losses on a 50/50 basis.

Personally I think this is best outcome with part of this money paid to the family and nothing to the agents involved.

You have just made that up though. Nowhere in any agreement, verbal or written is that the case. It is also not the case the club are putting forward and this is saying something because they are really scraping the barrel with some of their points.

The fundamental part of the sale was to get as much money for their player as possible. Nantes were not selling Sala to benefit him and give him a nice treat to play in the Premier League. They wanted to “sell to a Premier League club” as due to the TV broadcasting money Premier League clubs have, sales are at a premium to Premier League based clubs.

What Cardiff signed him for is irrelevant, that is neither Sala or Nantes business.

Mercato have no interest in an internal matter between the club and the player, whether he gets to play in the Premier League doesn’t affect Mercato at all, their concern was that they facilitated the deal, which they did as confirmed by the timeline and reaffirmed by FIFA.

If Sala did not sign the amended contract, once again, Sala would be a Cardiff City player that could not play in the Premier League. His employment contract was already valid and would remain so until it expired. However it would be in both the club and players interests to amend that to allow him to play in the league. However once again amendment or not would of course not make the original any more valid than it already was.

I refer you to point 42. Which states:-

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, 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.

The four clauses that were to be in place before a deal was finalised were met and also the verbal agreement that Nantes wished to sell to a Premier League club.

Again you are showing your ignorance of contract/employment law and your lateral thinking (and I'm being generous there!).

I am not making things up I am interpreting the law based on precedent. If someone is enticed to sign a contract and one party doesn't deliver then that party is in breach of contract and if it is fundamental then they can withdraw from the contract without penalty. They also must be put back into the position they were in before they entered into the contract which in Sala's case would have been playing for Nantes FC in the French league. CCFC might be liable for some reasonable costs but that's it.

Of course Sala was brought to club to play in the Premier League and that was an expressed clause. It doesn't need to be actually written down only implied on the balance of probabilities.

That fact that a bonus system for PL survival, PL wages, a relegation clause and his public expression of wanting to play in the PL existed would be more than enough Also it would need proof on the balance of probabilities that Sala would have been happy to not play any competitive games for 8 months (we were out of both cups).

You can point to FIFA interpretation all you want UK law overrides any finding they might make. FIFA might think it was an internal matter but a Judge might think it was part of the transfer processes and as the contract had been dismissed by the PL Sala wasn't obliged to honour his side and therefore no legal contract existed and the transfer failed until he signed an amended contract.

A Judge also has discretion & might deem that the transfer was influx and due to exceptional circumstances both sides should bare the losses on a 50/50 basis.

Personally I think this is best outcome with part of this money paid to the family and nothing to the agents involved.

UK contract law only overrides FIFA if its relevant.. as do the Brecon darts league rules override FIFA where relevant...
its not relevant here... if it was relevant our club would be going down that route...
reword it again why don't you...

UK contract law only overrides FIFA if its relevant.. as do the Brecon darts league rules override FIFA where relevant...
its not relevant here... if it was relevant our club would be going down that route...
reword it again why don't you...

UK contract law only overrides FIFA if its relevant.. as do the Brecon darts league rules override FIFA where relevant...
its not relevant here... if it was relevant our club would be going down that route...
reword it again why don't you...

Spot on again. Very refreshing to have someone, a Cardiff fan presumably, understand the case.

I think the majority of Cardiff fans know that the club is in the wrong, even if it’s just a feeling from those who aren’t familiar with the case. That’s why they refuse to discuss or read it and just back the club blindly. Annis for example, is an example of a Cardiff fan that has stated from day 1 the club should pay and there are a small minority of others, but that’s all they seem to be is a small minority.

People mistakenly believe it is their duty somehow to stand by the club regardless of what decision the owner is making. However the ironic thing is, I don’t think there would be a greater way to back the club than to vocally back the club to honour the transfer.

The financial damage that prolonging settling the bill is doing is no doubt equating to millions. 5% has been added on as we speak for interest alone and that could well be rolling interest that will be entitled not just on the first instalment but ALL overdue instalments.

You then add in 2 years worth of legal fees and expenses that no doubt have been charged to the club , Nantes no doubt will have the freedom to charge their legal fees to Cardiff - and a 17m euro signing has become a something like a 22m+ euro signing which is no small amount for a club post COVID in the Championship. That’s without touching upon reputation damage it will have done globally.

Anyone of balanced mind who reads the case, takes time to understand it and then look at the points Cardiff are trying to argue will only come to one conclusion, and sharing liability is only fanciful and wishful thinking

Again you are showing your ignorance of contract/employment law and your lateral thinking (and I'm being generous there!).

I am not making things up I am interpreting the law based on precedent. If someone is enticed to sign a contract and one party doesn't deliver then that party is in breach of contract and if it is fundamental then they can withdraw from the contract without penalty. They also must be put back into the position they were in before they entered into the contract which in Sala's case would have been playing for Nantes FC in the French league. CCFC might be liable for some reasonable costs but that's it.

Of course Sala was brought to club to play in the Premier League and that was an expressed clause. It doesn't need to be actually written down only implied on the balance of probabilities.

That fact that a bonus system for PL survival, PL wages, a relegation clause and his public expression of wanting to play in the PL existed would be more than enough Also it would need proof on the balance of probabilities that Sala would have been happy to not play any competitive games for 8 months (we were out of both cups).

You can point to FIFA interpretation all you want UK law overrides any finding they might make. FIFA might think it was an internal matter but a Judge might think it was part of the transfer processes and as the contract had been dismissed by the PL Sala wasn't obliged to honour his side and therefore no legal contract existed and the transfer failed until he signed an amended contract.

A Judge also has discretion & might deem that the transfer was influx and due to exceptional circumstances both sides should bare the losses on a 50/50 basis.

Personally I think this is best outcome with part of this money paid to the family and nothing to the agents involved.

roathie as you are contantly repeating the same thing all the time and clogging up the board, I have banned you again, you can't help yourself

roathie as you are contantly repeating the same thing all the time and clogging up the board, I have banned you again, you can't help yourself

This thread is extension on the previous one he contributed to about the fifa ruling! so why make a new thread on same subject he is already controlling? Surprised he as time to contribute what with being employed by fifa... ccfc ... tans lawyers.... premier league.... and others who are involved in this case

roathie as you are contantly repeating the same thing all the time and clogging up the board, I have banned you again, you can't help yourself

This thread is extension on the previous one he contributed to about the fifa ruling! so why make a new thread on same subject he is already controlling? Surprised he as time to contribute what with being employed by fifa... ccfc ... tans lawyers.... premier league.... and others who are involved in this case

well you might not like him....might not like what he is saying.... but nine thousand views across the 2 threads he has got most involved in while half the threads on the first page struggle to get 300 is not clogging the board up...?

roathie as you are contantly repeating the same thing all the time and clogging up the board, I have banned you again, you can't help yourself

This thread is extension on the previous one he contributed to about the fifa ruling! so why make a new thread on same subject he is already controlling? Surprised he as time to contribute what with being employed by fifa... ccfc ... tans lawyers.... premier league.... and others who are involved in this case

well you might not like him....might not like what he is saying.... but nine thousand views across the 2 threads he has got most involved in while half the threads on the first page struggle to get 300 is not clogging the board up...?

Not getting involved in a discussion about him done that worn hundreds of T.SHIRTS ! It's more to do with him only need to look at contents to see why and it's been going on for years.. did you know he books user names in advance so that when he gets banned he just comes back day or two later to do same things again must have used hundreds ... anyway your welcome to feed his self righteousness in threads.... as Arnie says he will be back.
So that's me done in this thread

Right, where were we. Sorry about the messy thread Tony, it’s due to all the posts being deleted for whatever reason.

Anyway, the reply to your first post was:-



Again you are showing your ignorance of contract/employment law and your lateral thinking (and I'm being generous there!).

I am not making things up I am interpreting the law based on precedent. If someone is enticed to sign a contract and one party doesn't deliver then that party is in breach of contract and if it is fundamental then they can withdraw from the contract without penalty. They also must be put back into the position they were in before they entered into the contract which in Sala's case would have been playing for Nantes FC in the French league. CCFC might be liable for some reasonable costs but that's it.

Of course Sala was brought to club to play in the Premier League and that was an expressed clause. It doesn't need to be actually written down only implied on the balance of probabilities.

That fact that a bonus system for PL survival, PL wages, a relegation clause and his public expression of wanting to play in the PL existed would be more than enough Also it would need proof on the balance of probabilities that Sala would have been happy to not play any competitive games for 8 months (we were out of both cups).

You can point to FIFA interpretation all you want UK law overrides any finding they might make. FIFA might think it was an internal matter but a Judge might think it was part of the transfer processes and as the contract had been dismissed by the PL Sala wasn't obliged to honour his side and therefore no legal contract existed and the transfer failed until he signed an amended contract.

A Judge also has discretion & might deem that the transfer was influx and due to exceptional circumstances both sides should bare the losses on a 50/50 basis.

Personally I think this is best outcome with part of this money paid to the family and nothing to the agents involved.

You are making things up though Tony. As has been pointed out to you, you have a misguided interpretation of contract law, one which is not relevant to the case. Cardiff currently do not have any barriers when it comes to thinking of angles of argument, they are trying anything and everything...: yet even they aren’t resorting to the point you are trying to, that’s because:-

1) it’s ludicrous
2) it isn’t true or relevant

The motivation of the sale was to bring money into the club. Why Cardiff bought him is irrelevant, they weren’t enticed to - they wanted the goods from another club and made an offer for them which was duly accepted.

If Cardiff were about to play the Cup Final and got their striker injured in training. They then go out and buy another clubs striker on a contract until the end of the season - however after signing him they go and try and register him with the competition - only to find that he is cup tied. The transfer would not be null and void, it would be a horrendous example of lack of due diligence on the buying club where they now have a player that can’t play in a competition they wanted him to play in.

To be in breach of contract (argued by the buyer), the selling party would have to be at fault. The lack of due diligence by Cardiff led to their error, you cannot sue someone for breach of contract for your own error - and you certainly can’t sue someone for breach of contract when all contractual clauses have been satisfied fully.

The clauses and bonuses within the contract are club performance based, they are not player based. Sala not being able to play in the Premier League is no barrier to completion - so much so that it actually states this in the contract if you had read it.

Within the contract (signed by both clubs) it specifically states in point 6:-

6. More specifically, the “promotion bonus” is due to Nantes even in case the player “has not been registered with Cardiff City FC during the season which Cardiff City FC participates and retains its Premier League Status”

That is the beauty of contracts, there isn’t any interpretation here, this is contract law and FIFA’s own rules that govern world football - the clauses are specifically worded and signed by both clubs.

It’s very important for you to understand the contract was not “dismissed by the PL”, they have no power or remit to “dismiss” a contact. Just like a player being cup tied in the FA cup, it doesn’t comply with the competition’s rules of registration. That is not dismissing a players validity to play for that club or be owned by that club.

No judge on the planet would come to that conclusion and again the only suggestion I have ever read of that being the case is within your posts on this forum. It does not represent reality or indeed possibility.

Thoughts of sharing liability are extremely wishful and again not realistic, there aren’t any grounds for this.