Emiliano Sala

[TheReds]

13 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Thanks for posting this and I'm no lawyer but FFS there is no way xG would hold water in any court as an argument to get any level of compensation let alone 110 Million Euro. 

I guess the opposition would simply pull up 100s or thousands of games where xG has been wrong and say you have no evidence whatsoever that holds water. If that is their defence then they really are taking the pee, or the lawyers are taking the pee out of them. This will cost them massively in the long run, and deservedly so.

[supercidered]

1 minute ago, TheReds said:

I guess the opposition would simply pull up 100s or thousands of games where xG has been wrong and say you have no evidence whatsoever that holds water. If that is their defence then they really are taking the pee, or the lawyers are taking the pee out of them. This will cost them massively in the long run, and deservedly so.

Absolutely. Not only does it smack off desperation it just backs the club further in to a corner. I hope it drags on for ages and bankrupts the club.

The only people I feel sorry for is Sala himself and his poor family however, Cardiff won't have even considered their feelings.

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Thanks for posting this and I'm no lawyer but FFS there is no way xG would hold water in any court as an argument to get any level of compensation let alone 110 Million Euro. 

The club has and always will be a vile little turd lurking in the bowels of South Wales.

They will lose the case and will have a big f@ck off legal bill to find as well. 

Absolutely should lose the case. Odder things have happened but this seems like they should absolutely lose it. Costs and interest too.

Think they are arguing his goals and or assists would have kept them up and that Nantes were at fault for badly arranging the flight.

Therefore Nantes indirectly are at fault for their relegation therefore their negligence cost them the fee, PL money and one more year of Parachute Payments (3rd year only applies if a club stays up a second season these days) and Reputational Damage.

It's a laughable, ludicrous and disgusting claim by Cardiff hierarchy over a sadly deceased player, should be laughed out of court surely.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, TheReds said:

I guess the opposition would simply pull up 100s or thousands of games where xG has been wrong and say you have no evidence whatsoever that holds water. If that is their defence then they really are taking the pee, or the lawyers are taking the pee out of them. This will cost them massively in the long run, and deservedly so.

XG is best measured over longer periods tbh but even so I don't see how it has any validity in this sort of case.

[Bristol Rob]

10 minutes ago, TheReds said:

I guess the opposition would simply pull up 100s or thousands of games where xG has been wrong and say you have no evidence whatsoever that holds water. If that is their defence then they really are taking the pee, or the lawyers are taking the pee out of them. This will cost them massively in the long run, and deservedly so.

Especially because owing to the tragic circumstances, there is no way of knowing if he would have thrived in the prem or not.

[ExiledAjax]

15 minutes ago, TheReds said:

I guess the opposition would simply pull up 100s or thousands of games where xG has been wrong and say you have no evidence whatsoever that holds water. If that is their defence then they really are taking the pee, or the lawyers are taking the pee out of them. This will cost them massively in the long run, and deservedly so.

I don't even think you'd need to go so far as disproving the entire concept of xG. It would probably be enough to just pick holes in their method of calculating that, based on xG, he was personally going to earn them 2 points. 

We don't know the method or calculation they've used there but it's going to be pro-Cardiff and it's going to be based on a number of assumptions, extrapolations, and limitations. All are subject to attack and relatively easy statistical dismemberment.

I love xG, but it's not meant to be used like this, not at all.

[Major Isewater]

Being a bit dumb here but how is it Nantes’ fault that Sala died in an atrocious way? 
Above all they are trying to make money out of the tragedy which is pretty damn shoddy. 
I doubt any other club would stoop so low , even the Rovers. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Major Isewater

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Being a bit dumb here but how is it Nantes’ fault that Sala died in an atrocious way? 

Per the linked article:

"L’Équipe indicate that Cardiff are also critical of the role that agent Willie McKay reportedly played in the transfer, notably in organising the flight in question, while his son Mark held the mandate to sell Sala to a Premier League [club]. For the second-tier club [Cardiff], it was Willie McKay who was truly in charge, even though he could not act as an agent as part of his bankruptcy agreement – for Cardiff, what they consider to be “faults committed” by McKay are also Nantes’ responsibility, as a result of their “recklessness and negligence in executing the mandate […] and the duty of surveillance over their authorised representative.”"

Essentially Cardiff say that it was McKay and Nantes who organised everything, and that it was Nantes who should have made sure everything, including anything that McKay organised, was done properly.

Edited May 16, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[sephjnr]

If you want to get a job on the EFL board and revise the Fit and Proper qualifications, you start with Vincent Tan *way* before you get through Wigan, Blackburn, Blackpool etc. 

[alexukhc]

110 million buy the whole of Cardiff City FC for that couldn’t you? honestly should just cut losses, making themselves look like idiots and that guys poor family, said it before just let him sodding rest in peace 

[TinMan's left peg]

8 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Per the linked article:

"L’Équipe indicate that Cardiff are also critical of the role that agent Willie McKay reportedly played in the transfer, notably in organising the flight in question, while his son Mark held the mandate to sell Sala to a Premier League [club]. For the second-tier club [Cardiff], it was Willie McKay who was truly in charge, even though he could not act as an agent as part of his bankruptcy agreement – for Cardiff, what they consider to be “faults committed” by McKay are also Nantes’ responsibility, as a result of their “recklessness and negligence in executing the mandate […] and the duty of surveillance over their authorised representative.”"

Essentially Cardiff say that it was McKay and Nantes who organised everything, and that it was Nantes who should have made sure everything, including anything that McKay organised, was done properly.

So was McKay working for Nantes then? I’d assumed he was more closely associated with Cardiff as his son was playing for them at the time.   If he wasn’t employed by Nantes then I can’t see how they are responsible in any way.  Either way this is pretty disgusting behaviour from Cardiff.  I hope they go down and then bust next season.  
 

 

[ExiledAjax]

19 minutes ago, TinMan's left peg said:

So was McKay working for Nantes then? I’d assumed he was more closely associated with Cardiff as his son was playing for them at the time.   If he wasn’t employed by Nantes then I can’t see how they are responsible in any way.  Either way this is pretty disgusting behaviour from Cardiff.  I hope they go down and then bust next season.  

As I understand it (and I think the article is translated into English from French so some nuance may be lost) the argument is:

1. McKay (plus his son) was operating as Nantes' agent. McKay was unlicensed at the time.

2. McKay therefore organised everything. Cardiff had no direct involvement.

3. To the extent McKay failed to organise something, Nantes should have covered it.

4. So Cardiff say that it's McKay, and by extension his employer Nantes' fault that Sala died.

5. Nantes can't blame McKay as he was unlicensed and so they should not have used him (presumably ignoring the fact that had Nantes not used McKay, Cardiff could not have bought Sala and so presumably Cardiff were fine with McKay's involvement at the time).

In March this was summarised by the ever accurate, generous, and knowledgeable Mr. Tan who told Swiss media: “We were never able to use the very promising player we had bought. Emiliano Sala could have scored the few goals that would have saved us from demotion to the Championship (Cardiff finished 18th in the Premier League at the end of the 2018-2019 season). This resulted in a loss of £100 million, at least, for the club. With Sala, we could have avoided relegation. He didn’t play a single game for us. Why should we pay for his entire transfer? FC Nantes must be punished. He negotiated with an unlicensed agent.”

The word "could" is doing an awful lot of work in that monologue.

Note as well the admission "we had bought". To buy something implies paying for it. So ******* pay Mr. Tan!

Note also that this is Cardiff's fourth attempt, in the fourth court/tribunal, to weasel out of this whole mess. Cardiff have lost their argument three times – firstly before FIFA’s player status commitee, which ordered them to pay the first €6 million instalment to Nantes, then before CAS and then in the highest Swiss court.

Edited May 16, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

EA you are a bit of a legal expert here, @Hxj too.

Been meaning to ask, is there not something in the EFL regs about taking disputes outside of the relevant systems? I recall about 20 years back Sepp Blatter got very cross about the prospect, basically said it was not permitted under FIFA statute but said CAS was fine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3337713.stm

Article 55 of FIFA Statutes or was that only for typical Sports disputes. Seemed to say a club could be in extremis expelled.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

EA you are a bit of a legal expert here, @Hxj too.

Been meaning to ask, is there not something in the EFL regs about taking disputes outside of the relevant systems? I recall about 20 years back Sepp Blatter got very cross about the prospect, basically said it was not permitted under FIFA statute but said CAS was fine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3337713.stm

Article 55 of FIFA Statutes or was that only for typical Sports disputes. Seemed to say a club could be in extremis expelled.

I'm not really expert on the jurisdiction of different courts but yes Blatter was always keen on keeping disputes "in house" then allowing appeals to CAS.

My understanding here is that Cardiff have exhausted that route FIFA > CAS > Swiss Federal and are now trying something under the French 'criminal' court. So this case is of a different 'flavour' and so can be tried outside the FIFA track.

Very happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better though as this might not be quite right.

[Hxj]

CAS etc stated that they had no jurisdiction to deal with Cardiff’s damages claim.

So they are able to take that claim through the French commercial courts.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Hxj

[Major Isewater]

So , if Sala was officially a Cardiff player before the accident then they should pay Nantes the full amount. If he wasn’t ,then he was a Nantes player and Cardiff don’t owe anything. 

 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

So , if Sala was officially a Cardiff player before the accident then they should pay Nantes the full amount. If he wasn’t ,then he was a Nantes player and Cardiff don’t owe anything. 

 

I probably way to simple here, but pay Nantes what is due if you signed him, then sue whoever (even if that’s Nantes) for negligence.

[Open End Numb Legs]

The other alternative to this is that if the 2 clubs were to have split the fee and given it to the grieving family they would have received a huge amount of goodwill in return from football fans everywhere. Too late for that now.

[1960maaan]

11 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

In March this was summarised by the ever accurate, generous, and knowledgeable Mr. Tan who told Swiss media: “We were never able to use the very promising player we had bought. Emiliano Sala could have scored the few goals that would have saved us from demotion to the Championship

My take from that ...

11 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Note as well the admission "we had bought". To buy something implies paying for it. So ******* pay Mr. Tan!

Exactly this 

Why didn't Cardiff arrange transport ? 
Why just buy someone worth £13m and not take an interest in him from the moment of "purchase" ?
Seems very slapdash , doesn't seem like they even sent a representative from the club. 
A shit show of their own making it would seem.

[chinapig]

There is a podcast on BBC Sounds called Transfer: The Emiliano Sala Story that covers this whole tragic saga.

Though it could do with new episodes covering what has gone on since it was made.

[38MC]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I probably way to simple here, but pay Nantes what is due if you signed him, then sue whoever (even if that’s Nantes) for negligence.

But in the meantime Nantes could spend all of the money and whilst you may get an award of damages, you may not get the money - hence it's typical to be sued and then be counter-sued. 

Not that this justification in any way suggests I believe Cardiff have acted appropriately, 

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I probably way to simple here, but pay Nantes what is due if you signed him, then sue whoever (even if that’s Nantes) for negligence.

This is basically what they are doing now. CAS and the Swiss court have told them to pay. They're sueing Nantes for damages resulting from (and apologies for crass language) essentially not delivering what was bought.

[PHILINFRANCE]

8 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

My understanding here is that Cardiff have exhausted that route FIFA > CAS > Swiss Federal and are now trying something under the French 'criminal' court. So this case is of a different 'flavour' and so can be tried outside the FIFA track.

Very happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better though as this might not be quite right.

In essence, that is also my understanding, although the case will be heard in the French Commercial Court - essentially the same building, but a different judge.

What will happen is that both parties will present their written arguments (called Conclusions) and there will very likely be various amendments to both sides’ ´Conclusions’, hence my earlier suggestion that the actual Court hearing will very likely be postponed, probably several times, and not actually heard until after the summer holidays - as I am sure you are aware, institutions such as Courts close for summer in France.

[myol'man]

Nantes fans are still singing their Sala song every match

[Mr Popodopolous]

Looks like Cardiff are pushing ahead. €110m. Case estimated to take anything between 12-18 months.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Article albeit in French.

https://tribunenantaise.fr/actus-fcnantes/le-tribunal-de-commerce-de-nantes-fixe-le-calendrier-du-contentieux-opposant-le-fc-nantes-et-cardiff-city/

Cardiff seem to be arguing that the goals of the late Sala (RIP) would have kept them up and the €110m maybe a combination of another year in the PL and another year of Parachute Payments that such a verdict would be the revenue gap.

As staying up one year means 55 pct and 45 pct of central award in Parachute Payments, a 2nd year means a further 20 pct in the 3rd and final season.

As happened IRL:

PL money

Year 1 Parachute

Year 2 Parachute

Thereafter onto Solidarity Payments

In Cardiff scenario, can only assume:

PL money as was

PL money in 2nd year as Sala goals sees them stay up. (Less any Covid rebates).

Year 1 Parachute (Less any Covid rebates).

Year 2 Parachute

Year 3 Parachute which will supersede Solidarity Payments.

They're arguing on balance of probability that Sala and his goals would have been the difference and Nantes vicariously liable or similar. Possibly xG data was one of the argued for tools.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Article albeit in French.

https://tribunenantaise.fr/actus-fcnantes/le-tribunal-de-commerce-de-nantes-fixe-le-calendrier-du-contentieux-opposant-le-fc-nantes-et-cardiff-city/

Cardiff seem to be arguing that the goals of the late Sala (RIP) would have kept them up and the €110m maybe a combination of another year in the PL and another year of Parachute Payments that such a verdict would be the revenue gap.

As staying up one year means 55 pct and 45 pct of central award in Parachute Payments, a 2nd year means a further 20 pct in the 3rd and final season.

As happened IRL:

PL money

Year 1 Parachute

Year 2 Parachute

Thereafter onto Solidarity Payments

In Cardiff scenario, can only assume:

PL money as was

PL money in 2nd year as Sala goals sees them stay up. (Less any Covid rebates).

Year 1 Parachute (Less any Covid rebates).

Year 2 Parachute

Year 3 Parachute which will supersede Solidarity Payments.

They're arguing on balance of probability that Sala and his goals would have been the difference and Nantes vicariously liable or similar. Possibly xG data was one of the argued for tools.

It being a civil case the standard is on the balance of probabilities so they can make a hypothetical case I suppose.

I suspect that a key motive is to kick the can down the road again though.

[ExiledAjax]

19 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It being a civil case the standard is on the balance of probabilities so they can make a hypothetical case I suppose.

I suspect that a key motive is to kick the can down the road again though.

Is that the correct standard of proof in this type of French court? I honestly don't know, but you have to be careful. France used civil law as opposed to our common law system, so the courts system is quite different.

In England yes in this type of case it would be balance of probabilities, but in France I'm not so sure.

I really hope this case fails.

That's not just because Cardiff's behaviour has been abysmal ever since Sala died, it's because if a court, any court, allows a claim for hypothetical indirect and consequential loss based upon an expected and theoretical number of goals scored by a particular player generating a certain number of points...then we may as well just generate a table on day one of each season and never play another game of league football ever again.

xG is fun, it's useful, I like it and trust it, but it's not court evidence standard. It's just not that good and that's not what it should be used for. Honestly I'm angry this is even being entertained in court. Fingers, toes, and everything else crossed that this is laughed out of court (eventually).

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Is that the correct standard of proof in this type of French court? I honestly don't know, but you have to be careful. France used civil law as opposed to our common law system, so the courts system is quite different.

In England yes in this type of case it would be balance of probabilities, but in France I'm not so sure.

I really hope this case fails.

That's not just because Cardiff's behaviour has been abysmal ever since Sala died, it's because if a court, any court, allows a claim for hypothetical indirect and consequential loss based upon an expected and theoretical number of goals scored by a particular player generating a certain number of points...then we may as well just generate a table on day one of each season and never play another game of league football ever again.

xG is fun, it's useful, I like it and trust it, but it's not court evidence standard. It's just not that good and that's not what it should be used for. Honestly I'm angry this is even being entertained in court. Fingers, toes, and everything else crossed that this is laughed out of court (eventually).

Good point, I shouldn't default to the law in England & Wales. Certainly in criminal law the French system iirc is inquisitorial rather than adversarial. No idea about civil law though.

Otherwise I share your sentiments.

[downendcity]

I have to say that Cardiff's behaviour in all of this has been unedifying.

As far as I remember, the plane crash happened while Sala was on his way to Cardiff to train with his new team and  I can only presume Nantes would not have allowed this had the transfer not gone through.

If this was indeed the case, then the accident occurred while he was a Cardiff player so Cardiff could claim under their player insurance, but this seems to be where everything falls apart from Cardiff's point of view. IIRC the insurance had not been put on risk, so there was no cover in place, and I'm sure I've read that Cardiff argued that the "arrangement" with their broker was that cover to be "automatically" put on risk when a player signed.

This being the case, it would seem to reinforce the view that Sala's transfer was completed. Why else would the club say that the cover should  have been started if the transfer had not completed? 

It also seems to me that it was only when the lack of insurance cover was discovered that Cardiff looked elsewhere for  someone else to take the blame, and thereby responsibility for their financial suffering.

They looked to claim on the insurance because he was their player, but when the insurance "cock up" came to light they decided he was not their player so that Nantes were at fault.

There may be other factors of which I am not aware, but based on my understanding the people Cardiff should be looking to are their broker, for failing to get the player insurance on risk,  or the player's agent for employing an unregulated and unauthorised light aircraft captain to carry Sala across the Channel. The cynic in me guesses that neither the broker or the pilot's estate have the financial means to pay Cardiff the  sort of money they are looking to extort

That is of course on the assumption that their is no fault on Cardiff's part!