Jump to content
IGNORED

Emiliano Sala


Negan

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, reddogkev said:

I don't think this disgusting situation should be added to the Sala tribute thread - but BBC and Sky Sports now reporting Cardiff are trying to get out of paying Nantes the transfer fee, saying he was not a properly registered player.

Why else did he tragically lose his life, if not to play for Cardiff City?

If Cardiff are really trying to find a way not to pay the transfer fee, I find this revolting.  Would confirm them as the most vile club in the world.

Just hope they see sense and pay the transfer fee accordingly.

I don’t know what the arrangements for payment were. It’s highly doubtful that the whole fee is due now, and a proportion of it is probably based on appearances etc etc, however, whatever is actually due to Nantes at this time, should be paid, without question. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I genuinely don’t know what to reply that accurately conveys the disgust I have for Cardiff City at the moment. 

‘Once a bluebird...’ yeh right until we can weasel out of paying for the lad. 

*apologies for associating innocent  weasels with Cardiff. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to play devil's advocate...

If they player was/is insured, but the insurance company won't pay out because in their view, he wasn't correctly registered with Cardiff and therefore not yet a player, would it not be down to his old club to claim on their insurance?

Whatever the reasons are for this payment being disputed, no one is going to come away from this situation with any credit. It really shouldn't be played out in public, not when two families are grieving.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

I don't wish to take anything away from the tragedy of the player and the pilot losing their lives, that is much more important than anything else.

There are a lot of things around the transfer itself that don't make sense and now Cardiff are claiming that he wasn't registered to play which sounds somewhat bizarre.

And without wishing in any way to be disrespectful, I am surprised that Cardiff did not have an insurance policy to cover anything that might befall the poor lad. He was, registration put aside, an expensive acquisition.

Quite so.

You would have thought Nantes would have had the lad insured too - most of us insure ourselves also.

All very sad but as I said in another thread I bet Cardiff are acting no differently from the majority of other clubs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

They didn't used to do so because the likelihood of being out with injury was so high that the premium was sent high accordingly; so clubs "self insure" meaning they don't insure. I'm not aware of that having changed.

Way back I was working for a company that amongst other things insured against pop concerts not happening.  The offered premium for Guns and Roses, owing to Axl Rose being such a spoilt brat he kept throwing gigs, was one third of the ticket sales equating to missing one concert in three. As that was typical.

What about life insurance or career ending though Eddie as a matter of interest did they bother with that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Just to play devil's advocate...

If they player was/is insured, but the insurance company won't pay out because in their view, he wasn't correctly registered with Cardiff and therefore not yet a player, would it not be down to his old club to claim on their insurance?

Whatever the reasons are for this payment being disputed, no one is going to come away from this situation with any credit. It really shouldn't be played out in public, not when two families are grieving.

I agree with your summary. The insurers won't pay out because of the irregularities around him being registered so Cardiff are following a course of action that any other club would follow.

This clears it up for me.

BBC Sport has also learned arrangements for a signing-on fee did not meet Premier League rules and so had been rejected by the league.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

What about life insurance or career ending though Eddie as a matter of interest did they bother with that ?

If the player was not officially theirs they may not have had life insurance in place for the club to draw on. 

That could be what this is about. If the club had no life insurance then they would be relying on Nantes policy, but if their insurance says he was not Nantes player at the time then they will all be fighting over who pays. 

However Nantes policy would probably only have a value before the sale anyway (even if it exists). Rule change coming up for transfers I reckon. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, GlastonburyRed said:

Morally - most definitely in the wrong. Legally - very much arguable that they are in the right (given how far away they were from a fully ratified transfer).

If you spend 15 mill on anything you insure it. It’s going to be a matter of was it (the player) insurable until all the registrations are done. And if he was not is Nantes insurance liable. If neither has insurance then Cardiff will probably win if the terms state he is not their player until all registrations are complete. 

Thing is though it means there is a never World in transfers that this guy fell between and the club secretary at Cardiff and Nantes and the players agent are all knobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 1950's City signed Sid Thomas from Fulham. After just a few games though, Sid retired due to Tuberculosis!

Harry Dolman accepted the situation and paid the full transfer fee, but suggested Fulham give a reserve team player to City as compensation. Fulham refused though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, GlastonburyRed said:

As we saw with Metab, doesn’t really matter what was announced.

Not quite, this could be a very interesting court case, and who knows if French or UK law will govern - that would be part of the contract. 

Essentially it seems - if under UK law -  Cardiff are saying there were what’s called conditions precedent; contract terms which must be fulfilled before a contract can be concluded. They say they weren’t. However, certainly under U.K. law there is case law confirming a contract can be concluded by conduct, even if some terms aren’t complied with. This is a summary of a recent decision - https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/disputes-matter-may-2015/contract-by-conduct-a-cautionary-tale/

Edit - appreciate ‘interesting’ is callous and heartless. RIP to Sala. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not on any firm ground here, but FA / PL is immaterial here.  That only covers whether a player is legitimately allowed to play or not.

What will matter is any documents relating to the sale.  Those might be one in the same thing as the registration.  But if both clubs have signed a “contract” to transfer him, then he’s Cardiff’s player, whether registered or not.

Brum signed Perderson without him being registered....was still Brum’s player!!!

Tragic whatever the truth.  And assuming he was Cardiff’s “asset”, then anyone with any morals associated with the club should resign and hold their heads up high.  Will they though!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...