NANTES BEING PAID ON WEDNESDAY

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

Is that the full amount, or just the $5 million installment?

An interesting statement, where did you hear/read that??

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

Good news IF true, but I'd be very surprised if the EFL can actually stop us recalling our own player.

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

Good news IF true, but I'd be very surprised if the EFL can actually stop us recalling our own player.

Can't register him back to play apparently coz it's call back clause .

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

Is that the full amount, or just the $5 million installment?

All I was told being paid and ban lifted .

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

Is that the full amount, or just the $5 million installment?

All I was told being paid and ban lifted .

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

I think you are right. However I hope we start going after legitimate avenues such as those actually responsible

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

Can see us suing people .

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

Can see us suing people .

Yep. That’s what we should have done from the start or at least following the end of the criminal case

Good news day, nice one Wez.

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

Can see us suing people .

Yep. That’s what we should have done from the start or at least following the end of the criminal case

We don't know all the details; while the club claimed Sala wasn't ours, what these cases have verified is that he was. So nobody can opt out of paying based on him not being a Cardiff player. This may have been needed to pursue those other avenues, but I am not sure.

I'm glad we will do our part and pay up. And if any avenues are legitimate, then I have no problem with us pursuing those after paying what we owe (for now).

So maybe getting a few players out was to free up spaces for some loans to come in smd get us out of trouble, like Hugill etc did last year.

Great news if true

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

Can see us suing people .

Yep. That’s what we should have done from the start or at least following the end of the criminal case

We don't know all the details; while the club claimed Sala wasn't ours, what these cases have verified is that he was. So nobody can opt out of paying based on him not being a Cardiff player. This may have been needed to pursue those other avenues, but I am not sure.

I'm glad we will do our part and pay up. And if any avenues are legitimate, then I have no problem with us pursuing those after paying what we owe (for now).

EMILIANO SALA WAS 1,000% a CARDIFF CITY PLAYER.

One case was bad enough , but fir this Hierarchy to drag us through 3 cases , disgusting, disgraceful and costly to OUR CLUB.

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

Can see us suing people .

Yep. That’s what we should have done from the start or at least following the end of the criminal case

We don't know all the details; while the club claimed Sala wasn't ours, what these cases have verified is that he was. So nobody can opt out of paying based on him not being a Cardiff player. This may have been needed to pursue those other avenues, but I am not sure.

I'm glad we will do our part and pay up. And if any avenues are legitimate, then I have no problem with us pursuing those after paying what we owe (for now).

EMILIANO SALA WAS 1,000% a CARDIFF CITY PLAYER.

One case was bad enough , but fir this Hierarchy to drag us through 3 cases , disgusting, disgraceful and costly to OUR CLUB.

Zzzzzz give it a rest misery gutts

If the embargo is lifted can we still go in for the other player we were linked with?

If the embargo is lifted can we still go in for the other player we were linked with?

Sign anyone then .

It’s unbelievable, they have cost our club £5mill in costs etc and embarrassment.

But finally yet again Tan has to pay.

Glad it’s all over

Payment or not, I don't think this will be the end of this saga.

Can see us suing people .

Yep. That’s what we should have done from the start or at least following the end of the criminal case

We don't know all the details; while the club claimed Sala wasn't ours, what these cases have verified is that he was. So nobody can opt out of paying based on him not being a Cardiff player. This may have been needed to pursue those other avenues, but I am not sure.

I'm glad we will do our part and pay up. And if any avenues are legitimate, then I have no problem with us pursuing those after paying what we owe (for now).

EMILIANO SALA WAS 1,000% a CARDIFF CITY PLAYER.

One case was bad enough , but fir this Hierarchy to drag us through 3 cases , disgusting, disgraceful and costly to OUR CLUB.

We know this. What I am saying is while I don't know the facts and why we tried to claim he wasn't ours when we knew he was, this may have been required to prevent insurers or other entities from claiming he wasn't. Now there is no doubt this may have opened other avenues.

I may be wrong, and the club could be clueless. Although I hope a qualified and knowledgeable legal team is advising them.

It's a lot of money, and I think people need to acknowledge we're not playing with monopoly money, and if we have a legal leg to stand on, I hope we pursue that. However, until then, paying is the correct thing to do.

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

No such thing said at today`s meeting and the Disabled Supporters Chair Keiran Jones ,who is being tweeted as the source of this quote, was there.

Are we just going to pay the £5m to get the embargo lifted or pay Nantes the full £15m?

So I’m doing the math here and clearly it’s all linked.

1) we pay 15 million to Nantes.
2) we get McGuinness back
3) Newcastle are paying 12 million for McGuinness after his performance against them.

Heard it here first.

Are we just going to pay the £5m to get the embargo lifted or pay Nantes the full £15m?

15 million was the whole deal so i doubt we owe all that ,3 million was in agents fees.

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

No such thing said at today`s meeting and the Disabled Supporters Chair Keiran Jones ,who is being tweeted as the source of this quote, was there.

This hasnt come from him

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

No such thing said at today`s meeting and the Disabled Supporters Chair Keiran Jones ,who is being tweeted as the source of this quote, was there.

This hasnt come from him

The Tweet , which someone sent me a photo of, clearly states that it was the Chair of the DSA which Keiran is. So either he is being misquoted or someone else is claiming to be him or to have his role at the DSA.

Nantes to be paid Wednesday..FIFA are going to lift ban .EFL won't let McGuinness come back until sorted.

No such thing said at today`s meeting and the Disabled Supporters Chair Keiran Jones ,who is being tweeted as the source of this quote, was there.

This hasnt come from him

The Tweet , which someone sent me a photo of, clearly states that it was the Chair of the DSA which Keiran is. So either he is being misquoted or someone else is claiming to be him or to have his role at the DSA.

I'm saying that I've not seen the tweet my info was not from a tweet or the meeting or the guy your on about its from someone else who I trust he was bang on about the players signing medicals , kit delays and other things in the past.the club probably never told you today in your meeting this was said to him a few days back apparently.

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

This is a good move by City. The 1st Court Action did us a favour by proving ES was our player. I say did us a favour because had we pursued the 2nd action Nantes could have argued he wasnt our player.

I know many have disagreed with what has happened but there are some benefits to us in getting a final decision by the Courts.

And if that has cost VT (Not necessarily the city) an extra £5m then it could be money well spent.

We rightfully pay the £15m to Nantes

Then in my opinion we should pursue a 2nd action against Nantes for being Vicariously Liable for the actions of the Employee, Servant or Agent in (a) allowing him to transport a CCFC asset on an unregulated flight (b) failing to make adequate checks etc etc etc

and that breach of negligence caused the following losses to CCFC which Nantes are ultimately liable for as being Vicariously liable namely:

a) £15m - The loss of a CCFC Asset
b) £80m - Potential loss of revenue

I really do believe in this 2nd claim. Let me put it in more simpler terms.

Lets assume I was giving you a lift to the stadium and on my way to the ground my negligent driving caused an accident which caused (a) your iphone and laptop to fall to the floor and break (b) you to fracture your leg and arm which (c) caused you 1 year off work.

You would want to sue me right?

The losses that sustained from that accident could be (for example)

a) £1000 - IPhone
b) £1000 - Laptop
c) £25000 - Loss of Salary
d) £8000 - Fractured Leg

Obviously I would be insured but your solcicitor would sue me (as that is the legally right thing to do in the UK) and my insurers would settle the bill.

Now we already know Nantes will be found liable (if a link can be proven against Henderson) because he has already been found guilty in a criminal court and if you are found guilty in a criminal court you are automatically negligent in a civil action.

So being found negligent it is just a matter of working out what the losses sustained will be and for CCFC that is (a) Loss of an Asset and (b) Potential Loss of Revenue (c) plus maybe some smaller losses.

That seems a really plausible and well written summary. Our counter claim will likely be millions more than Emeliano cost as I have no doubt City's claim will include loss of Premier League status. This could get every messy but if successful could give VT the opportunity to recoup a huge amount of what he has lost.