BTRFTG

Invoices are a red herring. Was there a 'consideration' - clearly there was as the fees were disclosed. Was there 'mutuality of understanding', well the two contracting parties exchanged signed-contract copies and sent them for registration which, er, suggests there was. Matters not the UEFA amended contract wasn't signed, the intention was clearly had Sala lived it would have been and that's an enforceable contract. Unless the reason for variation related to capability (i.e. he wasn't Nantes' to trade,) else the contract contained or induced illegality (standardisation of reporting fees are not likely a legal requirement rather they are likely to have tax implication,) then the signed and unsigned versions, for the purpose of intent, are moot.

There was widespread reporting in the French press, from Sala's family and Cardiff were somewhat unguarded with their initial, posturing statements post his demise. Statements on which they've subsequently backtracked ( the great things Ng about social media and the internet is once it's out there it's out thete..... Cardiff went public as to why they thought they should not be liable though few, if any, appear to agree with their position.

You've conflated a number of distinct legal issues. The prime issue discussed here is whether Cardiff had entered into contract with Nantes for Sala's services. It seems pretty clear they had, hence owe Nantes. Whether Cardiff insured the player's contract, life or travel is a matter for them and I suspect such insurances differ. I understand Cardiff hold generic travel insurance for all their employees (not specific individuals) whilst on official business. Could be Sala's personal injury, life or contract cover wouldn't commence until UEFA had ratified the deal, but that would be Cardiff's risk and is partly of their own making in the way they attempted to misdirect agents fees. I rather hope Cardiff are hoist by their own petard. That by arguing he wasn't their player (despite having contracted for him) insurers who decline 'agreed' cover on the basis the revised contract wasn't signed argue Cardiff had no intention of enacting the insurance and therefore no cover was in place.....

You agreed terms and exchanged contracts on the Friday. Once filed UEFA's diligence team spotted both yourselves and Nantes were seeking not to include agent payment fees in the agreed form and thus that element of the contract was requested to be revised into the correct form which was due to be signed once Sala returned to Cardiff. You hired the private plane to bring him over for his medical and offered to take him to the match Saturday. Sala wished to return to Nantes to say his goodbyes over the weekend prior to being required to report for training on the Tuesday. As he was your player Cardiff offered Sala a fly-be ticket Cardiff to Paris but to return for the Tuesday it required him routing Paris to London on the Monday. As Paris/Nantes is around a 4 hour drive this would have left little time for him in Nantes, hence he opted for a private, direct flight that he paid for. Cardiff should have, but didn't, undertake due diligence to show liability cover was in place for the transport their employee had booked. That's why although Sala would have been covered by Cardiff's insurance for approved forms of transport he wasn't covered for this direct, non-commercial charter. There's no doubt had Sala returned the revised agents fee amendment would have been signed, so for Cardiff to argue that element 'wasn't signed' and thus negates the contract is beneath the lowest of the low. That has nothing to do with insurance or liability. Cardiff agreed, had every intent and that constitutes a contract and you owe Nantes for the player you purchased from them.

Cardiff bought Sala, pronounced as much and cried crocodile tears when he died. That they now seek to argue the deal hadn't been completed in accordance with UEFA regulation when, so far as I understand, the loophole they seek to exploit relates to Nantes, Agents and Cardiff attempting to circumvent some of the reportable costs associated with transactions shows them to be the utter scumbags they've always been.

I thought this had already been reported? From memory I believe the generic insurance policy Cardiff hold for all their players and staffs cover them when travelling on official business. You'll recall Cardiff did offer him a cheap flight which he declined preferring instead to pay for his own private service to nip home to say his goodbyes. The flight was booked via his agent, not the club, hence the club's insurance wasn't applicable, it being private and not official business.

Cost me an ACCA but worth every penny....

Doubtless listening to Mark and the Mysterians on the coach home ?

Ah! Was the assumption they'd pay upfront in full, or monthly by Direct Debit as that massively impacts the investment? I note you neither confirmed or denied your involvement in preparing attendance returns at The Mem...? Perhaps you also do their away figures?

I believe The Gas are looking for an accountant and you appear well qualified. Investment appears not to benefit from growth, or be eroded by inflation and only using Gas Logic does the comparative growth over the defined period in transfer spend mirror that of growth in investment ( to achieve your outcome fans would only cough up £900k each in year one, after which they'd be digging deeper.) Excuse me for asking but you're not currently involved in auditing their attendances, are you?

Not necessarily so stupid. Failing to realise that the whole funding for infrastructure projects should be secured prior to letting contracts (including any costs associated with servicing said funding,) could lead to the scenario whereby the club stumps up a sizeable chunk of cash to start works only for the fans contribution to quickly dry up leaving them in limbo, having to service two unbuilt wastelands..... I see nothing stupid should that transpire.

Unless they've changed the rules recently weddings might only be conducted in venues that were permanent structures with solid roofs that were publicly accessible - which if still true rules out most of the House of Tents.....

You do realise Bury's 'owner' supposedly made his money via a company that made and hired 'temporary structures'? And before The Gas get all excited about a 'tent renting' windfall..... (He liquidated them as well....)

I recall their Smoking Stadium

Criticise them all you like but in the diversity stakes they're light years in front of us - R to L lining up as The Transgender, BAME, Hearing Impaired, The Hysterical Dissociative & ( as the Telegraph would put it,) the "bloke who never married but was devoted to his cats...." Unless that is the've excluded them from the premises - surely even The Gas wouldn't stoop so low?

Seriously, if they've installed a system that's unable to detect whether or not a ticket's already been used then they deserve all that's coming to them. Please, please, please let it be so....????

Love the bit about 10-15% drop in racecourse attendance because you're unable to pay at the turnstile.... Well I'm a regular racegoer and whilst crowds are slightly down the problem signally identified by the racing industry is advance ticket sales are pretty much non-existent compared with other sports. Most footfall is people punting up on the day and paying, er, by cash or card at the entrance..... Wonder what excuse they'll come up with next time?

Wael's fruit market future relying on a line of Qumquats and he's come up with The last win line doesn't lie.......

As one lucky enough to have spent time in the Middle East I assure you 'The Fake Sheikh' would consider use of a chamber pot an irrelevance given there's so much scrubland and wasteland at the Mem. When in and with the Roma, as they say....

Utter irrelevance as The Gas have never been in Europe so being out of it would be business as usual ( or did you mean FLexit..?)

Or: They'll fund in cash They've won El Gordo They'll plan on the basis that Islamic banks don't charge interest (per se) Or: They expect somebody else to pay for it...... I know which option I think they'll play....

A couple of technical points for those commenting on the 'actions' of The Fake Sheikh. It's not unusual, or illegal, to apply for planning or pre-planning consents on freehold one doesn't own. Proposals don't have to be delivered and if the owner isn't happy presumably they'll note an objection. Ditto technical planning surveys and development, providing they aren't intrusive they may be done without the owner's consent. As for the rest of the criticisms fair points all, though I hear after this week's deluges there was espied a gert ? on the Muller Road and legend has it there's bound to be a crock of something at the end of it.....

On a small site, say 6 acres, the Community Infrastructure Levy is likely to be at minimum £1.8 - £2.0m, if not higher from the grasping City Council. I'd have thought with his deep pockets / shirt arms that he'd had spoken with them upfront about that at least.

The Gift....on their new marquee signing tonight Gaschat gone crazy with quotes of the form: " he's a good goals to appearances ratio..." - that for a 4 from 31 striker last season. If he nets another 4 in a season of appearances I'll be delighted....

No amount of money can justify visiting that desolate, barren wasteland devoid of atmosphere. The moon landings on the other hand were worth every last cent......