Vincent Tan / Sala Court Case :

I am 100% certain that the Nantes court case has no bearing whatsoever on Tan selling the Club . Very simply the court case can be sectioned out and continue ….with any financial benefit still going to Tan .



The Case below is to get the Mckays to disclose everything


Will now be heard end of this July:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Co ... /1439.html



V THE MCKAY’S





This is a Civil Court Case now brought on by Vincent Tan under Cardiff City’s Name

But they are bankrupts and worthless


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Getting it over and done with for a sale?

Maybe reading to much into it being earlier??

On reading that judgment it looks like the defendants have been "purposely evasive" in their willingness to provide certain documents and the court is backing Cardiff here,

A contempt of court application is serious. It could result in prison.

These are UK proceedings. The Nantes case, from what I am aware, is taking place in France

On reading that judgment it looks like the defendants have been "purposely evasive" in their willingness to provide certain documents and the court is backing Cardiff here,

A contempt of court application is serious. It could result in prison.

These are UK proceedings. The Nantes case, from what I am aware, is taking place in France

Paul, you are a solicitor I believe? Apologies if I’m incorrect.

What is your opinion regarding the case itself?

And also, how many more times can the case be appealed?

Personally I feel it should be left as is, and should have been a long time ago.

Getting it over and done with for a sale?

Maybe reading to much into it being earlier??

I am 100% certain that the Nantes court case has no bearing whatsoever on Tan selling the Club . Very simply the court case can be sectioned out and continue ….with any financial benefit still going to Tan .

The Macay's are corrupt and should be put away for a long, long time for their part in Emilio's tragic death.

The fact that the main case has not been summararily dismissed just confirms that there is merit in this case. I'm not a solicitor but do have massive experience in the civil courts.

Those saying this should have been left years ago may have a valid point but in my opinion this is a lot of money that may benefit Tan/the club depending how this plays out. Tan will not get the £100m+ he is claiming but he may well get the transfer fee (or part of it) as well as his legal costs (millions). That may mean he's more likely to sell or, less likely !!, invest in the club.

So I really don't understand why people are still saying "leave it" just because it's the "right" thing to do Why haven't FC Nantes done the "right" thing by opening negotiations on maybe halving the transfer fee, etc., ? They have point blank refused any negotiation throughout but they were the ones using the dodgy agents.

We'll soon know as the judgment is likely to be in this calendar year, but the sooner the better whatever the outcome.

On reading that judgment it looks like the defendants have been "purposely evasive" in their willingness to provide certain documents and the court is backing Cardiff here,

A contempt of court application is serious. It could result in prison.

These are UK proceedings. The Nantes case, from what I am aware, is taking place in France

Paul, you are a solicitor I believe? Apologies if I’m incorrect.

What is your opinion regarding the case itself?

And also, how many more times can the case be appealed?

Personally I feel it should be left as is, and should have been a long time ago.

Hi Roath.

I am not allowed to call myself a solicitor as I have never taken the exams (and acquired the £30k university debt) but I can call myself a Legal Exec having spent 30 years in the legal field dealing with Civil Litigation, Personal Injury and car hire claims. I am perhaps more qualified (in experience) than many qualified solicitors.

In simple terms there are two aspects to many case "Negligence" and "Quantum" although perhaps in this case there is a 3rd "Vicarious Liability".

Keeping it simple (as I dont want to hijack the thread)) I think if they can prove a connection between Willie McKay and Nantes they will succeed in arguing that Nantes are Vicariously liable for the actions of W.Mackay - and as he has been proven guilty in the UK courts I think Nantes will be held liable in the French.

Once negligence has been proven I think its then a question of how much (Quantum).

I honestly think the case will be succesful - but I suspect we as a club will not see the money.

On reading that judgment it looks like the defendants have been "purposely evasive" in their willingness to provide certain documents and the court is backing Cardiff here,

A contempt of court application is serious. It could result in prison.

These are UK proceedings. The Nantes case, from what I am aware, is taking place in France

Paul, you are a solicitor I believe? Apologies if I’m incorrect.

What is your opinion regarding the case itself?

And also, how many more times can the case be appealed?

Personally I feel it should be left as is, and should have been a long time ago.

Hi Roath.

I am not allowed to call myself a solicitor as I have never taken the exams (and acquired the £30k university debt) but I can call myself a Legal Exec having spent 30 years in the legal field dealing with Civil Litigation, Personal Injury and car hire claims. I am perhaps more qualified (in experience) than many qualified solicitors.

In simple terms there are two aspects to many case "Negligence" and "Quantum" although perhaps in this case there is a 3rd "Vicarious Liability".

Keeping it simple (as I dont want to hijack the thread)) I think if they can prove a connection between Willie McKay and Nantes they will succeed in arguing that Nantes are Vicariously liable for the actions of W.Mackay - and as he has been proven guilty in the UK courts I think Nantes will be held liable in the French.

Once negligence has been proven I think its then a question of how much (Quantum).

I honestly think the case will be succesful - but I suspect we as a club will not see the money.

That’s 100% Guaranteed Paul if Successful, Our Club won’t see a penny.

It’s all been separated the final case and it’s Civil.

Yet Our Club has lost £millions fighting it.

On reading that judgment it looks like the defendants have been "purposely evasive" in their willingness to provide certain documents and the court is backing Cardiff here,

A contempt of court application is serious. It could result in prison.

These are UK proceedings. The Nantes case, from what I am aware, is taking place in France

Paul, you are a solicitor I believe? Apologies if I’m incorrect.

What is your opinion regarding the case itself?

And also, how many more times can the case be appealed?

Personally I feel it should be left as is, and should have been a long time ago.

Hi Roath.

I am not allowed to call myself a solicitor as I have never taken the exams (and acquired the £30k university debt) but I can call myself a Legal Exec having spent 30 years in the legal field dealing with Civil Litigation, Personal Injury and car hire claims. I am perhaps more qualified (in experience) than many qualified solicitors.

In simple terms there are two aspects to many case "Negligence" and "Quantum" although perhaps in this case there is a 3rd "Vicarious Liability".

Keeping it simple (as I dont want to hijack the thread)) I think if they can prove a connection between Willie McKay and Nantes they will succeed in arguing that Nantes are Vicariously liable for the actions of W.Mackay - and as he has been proven guilty in the UK courts I think Nantes will be held liable in the French.

Once negligence has been proven I think its then a question of how much (Quantum).

I honestly think the case will be succesful - but I suspect we as a club will not see the money.

That’s 100% Guaranteed Paul if Successful, Our Club won’t see a penny.

It’s all been separated the final case and it’s Civil.

Yet Our Club has lost £millions fighting it.

I thought the costs were absent from the published accounts or have I got that wrong !?

I am 100% certain that the Nantes court case has no bearing whatsoever on Tan selling the Club . Very simply the court case can be sectioned out and continue ….with any financial benefit still going to Tan .



Will now be heard end of this July:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Co ... /1439.html



V THE MCKAY’S

This is a Civil Court Case now brought on by Vincent Tan under Cardiff City’s Name

But they are bankrupts and worthless


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

It's in the clubs name and has been accounted for in the previous accounts for ffp so im not sure it is seperate .

I am 100% certain that the Nantes court case has no bearing whatsoever on Tan selling the Club . Very simply the court case can be sectioned out and continue ….with any financial benefit still going to Tan .



Will now be heard end of this July:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Co ... /1439.html



V THE MCKAY’S

This is a Civil Court Case now brought on by Vincent Tan under Cardiff City’s Name

But they are bankrupts and worthless


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

It's in the clubs name and has been accounted for in the previous accounts for ffp so im not sure it is seperate .

1,000% it was announced about 5mths ago Tam has a company now that have taken the Court Case over and are now paying the lawyers

The Case above is to get the Mckays to disclose everything:


How on earth can Nantes be responsible is beyond me .

The deal was done and finished …100% ….he was Our player .

Any role for McKay as an agent was 100% finished as much as I dislike them and know they are corrupt.

If he was indeed guilty (which is very very hard to prove) ….at that point …he most defiantly was not acting for Nantes and Nantes had nothing to do with Sala’s travel .

Anyway ….McKay was supposed to know about the plane’s worthiness to fly ?? He was supposed to know that the pilot was 100% qualified ?

Very simply the Sala thing was a tragedy .

Sala wanted to go to Nantes …to wrap up dome personal loose ends ….and was desperate and pushing to get back for training with his new teammates ….in order to play the next day in a scheduled league game .

Like I did so msny times ….something is wrong eighth Tan’s psyche ….he has been in more courts than Raphael Nadal

I hope I am wrong and Tan can succeed . The bottom line is this has cost our clubs £millions in fines, interest and lawyers.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

The fact that the main case has not been summararily dismissed just confirms that there is merit in this case. I'm not a solicitor but do have massive experience in the civil courts.

Those saying this should have been left years ago may have a valid point but in my opinion this is a lot of money that may benefit Tan/the club depending how this plays out. Tan will not get the £100m+ he is claiming but he may well get the transfer fee (or part of it) as well as his legal costs (millions). That may mean he's more likely to sell or, less likely !!, invest in the club.

So I really don't understand why people are still saying "leave it" just because it's the "right" thing to do Why haven't FC Nantes done the "right" thing by opening negotiations on maybe halving the transfer fee, etc., ? They have point blank refused any negotiation throughout but they were the ones using the dodgy agents.

We'll soon know as the judgment is likely to be in this calendar year, but the sooner the better whatever the outcome.

Tan has lost all cases so far against Nantes FC

So he has had to take a private/ civil case as the the law courts etc are finished with it all.

The Case above is to get the Mckays to disclose everything

27 June 2025


Cardiff lose Sala appeal in Swiss courts but now open a criminal case against Nantes
10th May 2023

May 10 – The ongoing and ugly dispute over the transfer to Cardiff City of Emiliano Sala from Nantes saw another loss to Cardiff in the in the Swiss Federal Court in Lausanne.

The Federal Court rejected Cardiff’s appeal against a CAS judgement that ordered the Welsh club that plays in the English leagues to pay the €17 million transfer fee even though Sala tragically died in a plane crash before he could play a game.

The Swiss court also ordered Cardiff to pay the legal costs (CHF 47,000) in court costs, as well as “compensation of 57,000 Swiss francs for costs” to Nantes.

Remember you argued this Wez and once again agreed with Tan and said Sala was not our player and I said 100% he was:


Cardiff City did initially deny that Emiliano Sala was their player following his death in a plane crash, claiming the transfer was not finalized. However, FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled against Cardiff, stating the transfer was validly concluded and Cardiff was liable for the transfer fee.


Here's a more detailed explanation:
Initial Denial:


Cardiff City argued that Emiliano Sala was not officially their player at the time of his death because certain contractual details had not been completed.


FIFA Ruling:
FIFA, the world's football governing body, disagreed with Cardiff's stance and ruled that the transfer was valid.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Remember you argued this Wez and once again agreed with Tan and said Sala was not our player and I said 100% he was:


Cardiff City did initially deny that Emiliano Sala was their player following his death in a plane crash, claiming the transfer was not finalized. However, FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled against Cardiff, stating the transfer was validly concluded and Cardiff was liable for the transfer fee.


Here's a more detailed explanation:
Initial Denial:


Cardiff City argued that Emiliano Sala was not officially their player at the time of his death because certain contractual details had not been completed.


FIFA Ruling:
FIFA, the world's football governing body, disagreed with Cardiff's stance and ruled that the transfer was valid.

Premier league still says he wasn't our player sadly the updated contract was never signed the Premier league didn't pay out to sala family for death in service but tbh im sick of death of it all now that ship had sailed ,the insurance company has paid out and this case isn't if he was or wasn't our player its if Nantes are liable through there selling agent mckay , we will wait and see ,

The fact that the main case has not been summararily dismissed just confirms that there is merit in this case. I'm not a solicitor but do have massive experience in the civil courts.

Those saying this should have been left years ago may have a valid point but in my opinion this is a lot of money that may benefit Tan/the club depending how this plays out. Tan will not get the £100m+ he is claiming but he may well get the transfer fee (or part of it) as well as his legal costs (millions). That may mean he's more likely to sell or, less likely !!, invest in the club.

So I really don't understand why people are still saying "leave it" just because it's the "right" thing to do Why haven't FC Nantes done the "right" thing by opening negotiations on maybe halving the transfer fee, etc., ? They have point blank refused any negotiation throughout but they were the ones using the dodgy agents.

We'll soon know as the judgment is likely to be in this calendar year, but the sooner the better whatever the outcome.

Tan has lost all cases so far against Nantes FC

So he has had to take a private/ civil case as the the law courts etc are finished with it all.

There hasn't been a case against Nantes other than the latest one being heard in September, the club won against the insurance company and have had a payout, also they've won against the Mckays so we will wait and see .

Remember you argued this Wez and once again agreed with Tan and said Sala was not our player and I said 100% he was:


Cardiff City did initially deny that Emiliano Sala was their player following his death in a plane crash, claiming the transfer was not finalized. However, FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled against Cardiff, stating the transfer was validly concluded and Cardiff was liable for the transfer fee.


Here's a more detailed explanation:
Initial Denial:


Cardiff City argued that Emiliano Sala was not officially their player at the time of his death because certain contractual details had not been completed.


FIFA Ruling:
FIFA, the world's football governing body, disagreed with Cardiff's stance and ruled that the transfer was valid.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

From what I can understand in the text, McKay has been told to reveal a considerable amount of documents relating to his work with Nantes. It includes both McKay Snr and Jnr as well as his wife.

McKay is refusing to provide the info, knowing it’ll heavily implicate him in the case, and likely lead to further sanction, as from memory he was banned from being an agent at the time. The linked judgement appears purely a delaying tactic to avoid sharing the info, given they were trying to suggest we’ve been overly aggressive in our requests. He’s missed numerous dates to provide it.

It seems likely he will still refuse, if the Nantes judgement comes in before he needs to, then he’ll likely then try to settle. Contempt of court would only likely lead to a suspended sentence at worst, and more likely a fine. It depends on how keen Tan is to keep pushing I guess, once the next case is settled.

Not sure why we are still getting hung up about player ownership.

FIFA said we had ownership, so then Cardiff City complied and paid Nantes.

Done and dusted.

Now we are onto who was at fault for the death of poor, poor, Sala. A player we owned so no one else should have been arranging flights for him.

Just to clarify that our case against Nantes is not about the ownership of Sala.

If we didn't own E. Sala we wouldn't be able to pursue this claim. The only way we can pursue this claim is if E. Sala was our asset

The case against W.Mckay and Nantes is purely over the transport of our asset from one place to another

It’s vicarious liability, I’m guessing Paul?

McKay arranged transport, he was working for Nantes and therefore we hold them fundamentally responsible for the accident due to a lack of diligence with their employees?

I would have confidence, in a UK court at least, we’d have a fairly strong argument and Nantes l (or their insurers if they have any) would likely settle to avoid risk. In France and given the Nantes ownership, that seems far less likely so we hope things go our way.

In terms of Mckay, we’ve obviously got the judgement in our favour, it’s now whether he agrees to honour it or takes the pain of contempt.

It’s vicarious liability, I’m guessing Paul?

McKay arranged transport, he was working for Nantes and therefore we hold them fundamentally responsible for the accident due to a lack of diligence with their employees?

I would have confidence, in a UK court at least, we’d have a fairly strong argument and Nantes l (or their insurers if they have any) would likely settle to avoid risk. In France and given the Nantes ownership, that seems far less likely so we hope things go our way.

In terms of Mckay, we’ve obviously got the judgement in our favour, it’s now whether he agrees to honour it or takes the pain of contempt.

Yes vicarious liability is the reason for pursuing this action and people seem to think we have case despite Mckays being bankrupt .. surely the company who are willing to take case on and are taking burden of costs on a no win no fee basis must believe club as a strong case otherwise wouldn't part with their cash to take case on

Just to clarify that our case against Nantes is not about the ownership of Sala.

If we didn't own E. Sala we wouldn't be able to pursue this claim. The only way we can pursue this claim is if E. Sala was our asset

The case against W.Mckay and Nantes is purely over the transport of our asset from one place to another

And that’s exactly the point that some people are refusing to recognise.

If it was as simple as some are saying this case would have been dismissed well before now.

There is more mileage in this and whilst I appreciate we/Tan may still lose this case I fail to see why some on here think that FC Nantes are blame/responsibility free.

I think I am right that they haven’t contributed a single penny to the family trust fund of a player who gave everything to their club for a number of seasons and who generated a £15m windfall for their club !!

Quite bizarre if you take the blinkers off !!

It’s vicarious liability, I’m guessing Paul?

McKay arranged transport, he was working for Nantes and therefore we hold them fundamentally responsible for the accident due to a lack of diligence with their employees?

I would have confidence, in a UK court at least, we’d have a fairly strong argument and Nantes l (or their insurers if they have any) would likely settle to avoid risk. In France and given the Nantes ownership, that seems far less likely so we hope things go our way.

In terms of Mckay, we’ve obviously got the judgement in our favour, it’s now whether he agrees to honour it or takes the pain of contempt.

Yes vicarious liability is the reason for pursuing this action and people seem to think we have case despite Mckays being bankrupt .. surely the company who are willing to take case on and are taking burden of costs on a no win no fee basis must believe club as a strong case otherwise wouldn't part with their cash to take case on

Exactly

Just to clarify that our case against Nantes is not about the ownership of Sala.

If we didn't own E. Sala we wouldn't be able to pursue this claim. The only way we can pursue this claim is if E. Sala was our asset

The case against W.Mckay and Nantes is purely over the transport of our asset from one place to another

Agreed it’s not:

That’s in the past when Tan denied Sala was our player backed up by Wez.

But Sala was always our player from 12pm that Friday.

Thus little case is to make the agents reveal all the paper work which they have failed to do so.

Sala was NO longer Nantes player when he went back to France and returned again and they are not responsible.

Sala went back for his own personal reasons:

Sala wanted to say goodbye to his team mates and arrange for his dog to join him in Cardiff