' Sala Case Consolidated '

Lots of confusion surrounding this case, often due to posts being removed etc.

Lots of misunderstanding about what was or wasn't in the contract, what was or wasn't in the clauses that needed to be fulfilled. Here is the one thread with all there is to know about the case, why FIFA have ruled the club have to pay and the explanations behind it.

Some may know the details and read the case already, others clearly have not, so hopefully people can get the information here. Those that do want to read the FIFA 21 page document can do so here:-

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload ... ydvrzqrqdw

It will be updated with any news as and when it develops.



The timeline of events

- 18th of January - Sala successfully passes medical with Cardiff City FC and signs contact with club, agreeing to pay Nantes 17m Euros in 3 installments.

- 19th of January - Nantes and Sala sign a termination of the employment contract with Nantes which was then duly ratified by the LFP (French FA).

- 21st of January 10.00am GMT - FAW requested the ITC document (International clearance document) from the FFF (French Football Federation).

- 21st of January 16.17pm GMT - FAW recieve the ITC from the FFF and register the player with Cardiff in the TMS (Transfer matching system) making his registration with Cardiff final.

- 21st of January 17.50pm GMT - FAW entered the registration date into the ITMS (International Transfer Matching System) and confirmed receipt of the ITC.

- 21st of January 20:23pm GMT - Piper aircraft disappears from radar bound for Cardiff airport.


Who was involved in the FIFA hearing?

The following case was put to FIFA representatives making up the Bureau of the Players' Status Committee on the 29th September 2019.

The Committee was made up of; Raymond Hack (South Africa), Chairman Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member Anna Peniche (Mexico), member Castellar Guimaraes Neto (Brazil), member.

Nantes FC was represented by Mr J. Marsaudon, Mr L. Absil and Mr D. Casserly

Cardiff City FC was represented by Mr S. Demeulemeester and Mr G. Bouchat


Details of the much talked about club to club transfer contract clauses

There was 4 clauses that had to be met as per clause 2.1 in the transfer agreement prior to any transfer being made official. They were:-

2.1.1. The player completing a successful medical examination with Cardiff City FC;

2.1.2. FC Nantes and the Player agreeing all the terms of a mutual termination of FC Nantes contract of employment with the Player

2.1.3. The mutual termination of FC Nantes contract of employment with the Player is registered by the LFP;

2.1.4. The LFP and the FAW have confirmed to Cardiff City FC and FC Nantes that the Player has been registered as a Cardiff City FC player and that the Player’s International Transfer Certificate has been released






The two main arguments of Cardiff City

1) The players registration was rejected by the Premier League as the structure of the signing on fee in the contract (one lump sum) contravened its rules regarding these payments (Rule T17) where they must be spread over the length of the contact.

They cited an email from the Premier League which read:-

''Michelle, unfortunately we are unable to accept your submission as a “New Registration”. Please create a new application selecting “Permanent Transfer” as your original application cannot be edited due to the incorrect transaction type being used. Also, after reviewing the Contract we would require the signing-on fee to be amended. It is currently not being payable in equal installments as there appears to be no installment payable in the player’s final contract year (1 July 2021 – 30 June 2022)”.

ii) Adding to that, Cardiff recalled that its membership to the Premier League had been a fundamental term of the transfer agreement, as Nantes “was only prepared to sell the player to a Premier League club” and referred to clause 3.2.1. of the transfer agreement, which provided for the payment of “bonuses to Nantes if [Cardiff] “retains its Premier League Status”.




The bonus payment clauses were as follows:-

(i) EUR 1,000,000 if Cardiff “participate and retains its Premier League Status following the close of the football season 2018/2019”;

(ii) EUR 500,000 if Cardiff “participate and retains its Premier League Status following the close of the football season 2019/2020”

(iii) EUR 500,000 if Cardiff “participate and retains its Premier League Status following the close of the football season 2020/2021”.


2) Cardiff’s second main argument concerned Nantes’ alleged responsibility for the circumstances leading to the player’s death.

Cardiff inferred that, since the player’s flight had been wrongfully organised by his agent Mr Willie McKay and his company ‘Mercato’ acting under Nantes’ mandate, the French club was to be considered “civilly liable for the legal consequences resulting from this accident as if it had organized it itself”. In this context, Cardiff held that, after having been declared ineligible to be a registered football agent due to bankruptcy, Mr Willie McKay had formed the company ‘Mercato’ “to operate as a football agency company”




How FIFA addressed those points

1) The members of the Bureau pointed out that the registration of an employment contract with the Premier League not only consists of an internal matter between Cardiff and the Premier League and/or the FAW, but also something of which Nantes had no influence.

As a result, whether or not Cardiff and the agents representing the player had carried out the required due diligence in drafting an employment contract that was in conformity with the Premier League’s specific rules or not, can in no way affect the validity of the transfer agreement concluded between Nantes and Cardiff. The ability to register a player with the Premier League does not make an employment contract invalid.

ii) Further to this, the clauses in the contract were team based and not player based, meaning the player's non registration to the league did not provide a barrier to fulfillment. This was also confirmed by the following stipulation in the transfer contract marked point 6:-


6. More specifically, the “promotion bonus” is due to Nantes even in case the player “has not been registered with Cardiff City FC during the season which Cardiff City FC participates and retains its Premier League Status”

Nantes stipulated they wished to sell to a Premier League club and that is what they did, Cardiff were a Premier League club.

2) At this point, the Bureau was eager to underline that, despite the tragic passing of the player as well as the criminal and civil liability developments it may possibly trigger, the dispute lodged before FIFA by Nantes remains of a purely contractual nature. Proceedings of a criminal nature is the mandate of local courts. If the local courts would determine any criminal or civil liability on the side of Nantes, it is also for the local courts to determine the consequences of such liability. The Bureau held that Cardiff had not been able to prove that the outcome of the those local proceedings would be relevant for the outcome of the dispute pertaining to whether or not a transfer fee is due.

Cardiff were ordered by FIFA to pay any outstanding monies (first installment) + 5% interest to Nantes. Cardiff refused and have taken the appeal to CAS.






Significant events since the ruling

- 28th January 2020 - Cardiff attempt to seek damages from Nantes via French authorities. But Nantes criticised the Bluebirds over the latest move, saying it was "absolutely stunned by Cardiff's umpteenth attempt to exploit this tragedy". Its statement added: "FC Nantes has always shown a very quiet attitude since the beginning of these events. "FC Nantes has always acted in good faith, while Cardiff has made repeated attempts to destabilise public opinion with falsehoods.''

- 11th March 2020 - No further action over manslaughter arrest. In June, Dorset Police arrested a 64-year-old man from North Yorkshire. The force said it would "not be seeking a formal charging decision by the CPS in relation to homicide offences". Det Insp Simon Huxter said: "We have carried out a detailed examination into the circumstances of Mr Sala's death, this has been a complex investigation involving the examination of a large amount of evidence and in liaison with a range of organisations.

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

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226


Forms are seen being placed in front of Sala by Scott Dommett, an FA of Wales player registrations manager, who urges him several times to “sign there”.





FIFA have ruled that Cardiff must pay in full for the player with the club appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport as they claim the transfer was invalid as the Premier League rejected the paperwork.

Daily Times

Thursday 29th May 2020


But now a video, as seen by the Daily Mail, could lend support to Nantes as it shows Sala being presented with forms at Cardiff and signing them.

Forms are seen being placed in front of Sala by Scott Dommett, an FA of Wales player registrations manager, who urges him several times to “sign there”.

A phone in front of Sala is thought to have linked him up to Meissa Ndiaye, one of his agents, who was advising him.



Cardiff's case against FIFA’s ruling, which would see them handed a three-window transfer embargo should they not pay, centres on their assertion that the paperwork was not completed.

A club spokesman said: “When the papers went up to the Premier League, they were rejected. There was a review of payment terms, which broke Premier League rules.

The Welsh FA have a completed contract saying Sala was a Cardiff City player and Nantes Fc also have one.

FIFA's ruling last September stated: “It was clear that it was always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself.

“The circumstances surrounding the player's tragic passing in a plane accident may activate criminal proceedings and civil actions regarding Nantes' possible liability before local courts.

“(We are) of the opinion that those proceedings should be settled by the local courts and not by FIFA.”

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

Trying to wriggle out of paying on a contract technicality by us is out of order

We all know that that would have been “sorted” with a few minor alterations to the original contract. (I would imagine many contracts have to be amended slightly after going to the Premier League for final approval)

However, I do believe we have a case with the ill fated flight.

This was organised by the representatives of Nantes and there are serious questions as to whether it was safe for this flight to ever take place

No wonder Nantes have kept a so called “dignified silence about this flight” they arranged it through a dodgy unlicensed agent who was acting under their instructions

Just highlights the “murky world “ many of these agents and clubs work in. Unfortunately an innocent young man lost his life because of it and people like the loathsome parasite McKay get to walk away and carry on with their dodgy dealings

For me mate this is what stands out to me


2.1.3. The mutual termination of FC Nantes contract of employment with the Player is registered by the LFP;

2.1.4. The LFP and the FAW have confirmed to Cardiff City FC and FC Nantes that the Player has been registered as a Cardiff City FC player and that the Player’s International Transfer Certificate has been released

Absolutely. He was a city player end of.

Dreadful episode especially for his poor family.

Let’s be honest here. It’s an insurance issue that has caused the club to refuse to pay and look for technicalities (that don’t exist), nothing else. A club cannot insure a player that isn’t theirs and they have done everything they can to refuse ownership, so if they think they never owned him then surely they can’t have insured him.

Further to that, If he was insured then Dalman would not have said, “It is obvious we cannot hand over £15million ,  without heading toward bankruptcy”.

The amount of money wasted on this is unbelievable. The interest is building on that €17m plus legal fees that must be staggering on a case that is essentially flogging a dead horse.

I said it before and maintain it, I think they just want to delay it as long as possible before sanctions are handed down on the off chance the club will gain promotion and be able to absorb the hit better. But that’s a huge gamble.

Trying to wriggle out of paying on a contract technicality by us is out of order

We all know that that would have been “sorted” with a few minor alterations to the original contract. (I would imagine many contracts have to be amended slightly after going to the Premier League for final approval)

However, I do believe we have a case with the ill fated flight.

This was organised by the representatives of Nantes and there are serious questions as to whether it was safe for this flight to ever take place

No wonder Nantes have kept a so called “dignified silence about this flight” they arranged it through a dodgy unlicensed agent who was acting under their instructions

Just highlights the “murky world “ many of these agents and clubs work in. Unfortunately an innocent young man lost his life because of it and people like the loathsome parasite McKay get to walk away and carry on with their dodgy dealings

Willie McKay was not a representative of Nantes. The deal was completed days previous, why would Nantes or their representatives arrange a flight for another clubs player?

On completion of the contract McKay had fulfilled his role in brokering the deal and Sala was no longer a Nantes player. Willie McKay was acting on behalf of Emiliano Sala himself at that stage, not Nantes.

Let’s be honest here. It’s an insurance issue that has caused the club to refuse to pay and look for technicalities (that don’t exist), nothing else. A club cannot insure a player that isn’t theirs and they have done everything they can to refuse ownership, so if they think they never owned him then surely they can’t have insured him.

Further to that, If he was insured then Dalman would not have said, “It is obvious we cannot hand over £15million ,  without heading toward bankruptcy”.

The amount of money wasted on this is unbelievable. The interest is building on that €17m plus legal fees that must be staggering on a case that is essentially flogging a dead horse.

I said it before and maintain it, I think they just want to delay it as long as possible before sanctions are handed down on the off chance the club will gain promotion and be able to absorb the hit better. But that’s a huge gamble.

White Dragon ....Rothie.

Let’s be honest here. It’s an insurance issue that has caused the club to refuse to pay and look for technicalities (that don’t exist), nothing else. A club cannot insure a player that isn’t theirs and they have done everything they can to refuse ownership, so if they think they never owned him then surely they can’t have insured him.

Further to that, If he was insured then Dalman would not have said, “It is obvious we cannot hand over £15million ,  without heading toward bankruptcy”.

The amount of money wasted on this is unbelievable. The interest is building on that €17m plus legal fees that must be staggering on a case that is essentially flogging a dead horse.

I said it before and maintain it, I think they just want to delay it as long as possible before sanctions are handed down on the off chance the club will gain promotion and be able to absorb the hit better. But that’s a huge gamble.

White Dragon ....Rothie.

Yep I spotted it was him straight away, all he does is come on and try and slag the club off, same old boring shit about this case, over and over and over again.

Ignore the prick, if we owe it we will pay it if we don't we won't, it's too complicated for him or anyone else on here to decide, and anyone making comments like we should pay it hasn't got a clue, the same as me and you.

Feck off Roathy

Nobody is slagging anybody off. This is the facts of the case after a merry go round of confused discussions with people not understanding key parts of the case. The case is far from complicated as I have shown, I even broke it down into manageable pieces so you could understand it.

Keep this on topic please chaps. My PM is there if you want to talk about me, happy to answer them.

Nobody is slagging anybody off. This is the facts of the case after a merry go round of confused discussions with people not understanding key parts of the case. The case is far from complicated as I have shown, I even broke it down into manageable pieces so you could understand it.

Keep this on topic please chaps. My PM is there if you want to talk about me, happy to answer them.

Don't waste our time it's been done to death, some people think we owe it some don't, 99.9% haven't got a fecking clue, and 100% don't give a feck what you think.

Courts will decide end of the thread, anything else is just talking bollox for the sake of it.

Don't waste our time it's been done to death, some people think we owe it some don't, 99.9% haven't got a fecking clue, and 100% don't give a feck what you think.

Courts will decide end of the thread, anything else is just talking bollox for the sake of it.

You don’t have to click on the thread. As has been stated many people have not read the document and don’t understand key aspects of the case. You have even said yourself you find it complicated - this thread will help some people with that.

If you don’t like it then you don’t have to contribute.

It's not about the rights or wrongs of the case - I doubt many City fans would argue that the club have a moral argument not to pay. However because of the large fee and the probability of insurance claims/counter-claims, the evidence has to be scrutinized and clinically examined 100%. It could be the difference, for example, between the club paying Nantes £13million or the insurance paying up.

Don't waste our time it's been done to death, some people think we owe it some don't, 99.9% haven't got a fecking clue, and 100% don't give a feck what you think.

Courts will decide end of the thread, anything else is just talking bollox for the sake of it.

You don’t have to click on the thread. As has been stated many people have not read the document and don’t understand key aspects of the case. You have even said yourself you find it complicated - this thread will help some people with that.

If you don’t like it then you don’t have to contribute.

You've made up your mind, which is of course against Cardiff City, as it always is because you are biased, and painted a timeline as a case for the prosecution.

You haven't got a clue and nor does anyone else, the courts will decide not you!

Any comments mine included are totally irrelevant on the outcome, other than no one has a clue and the lawyers will settle this one way or another

You've made up your mind, which is of course against Cardiff City, as it always is because you are biased, and painted a timeline as a case for the prosecution.

You haven't got a clue and nor does anyone else, the courts will decide not you!

Any comments mine included are totally irrelevant on the outcome, other than no one has a clue and the lawyers will settle this one way or another

I haven’t painted any timeline. The timeline of the case is a real-life documented version of events, dated and timed as they happened. I have had zero input into any of the events in the time-line - they are what they are.

I am not biased at all. I have nothing against Cardiff whatsoever, but you are correct, the timeline and the facts of the case obviously do back the “prosecution”. Which is why FIFA ordered Cardiff to pay.

I’m not sure what you mean by nobody has any clue. Everyone who has read it knows the details of the contract, the details of the transfer, the timeline and the rules and regulations that make up transfers. What else is there to wish to know?

Yes of course CAS will be the ones to deliver the verdict but that doesn’t stop people discussing the details of the case now that they are public knowledge.

It's not about the rights or wrongs of the case - I doubt many City fans would argue that the club have a moral argument not to pay. However because of the large fee and the probability of insurance claims/counter-claims, the evidence has to be scrutinized and clinically examined 100%. It could be the difference, for example, between the club paying Nantes £13million or the insurance paying up.

there was a rumour..i heard it, others heard it and its been on here a few times about us not having insurance..
the longer its gone on the more I think the rumour was correct.. both our FA and FIFA have confirmed we owned his contract. so this really should then be an insurance case and not us spending a fortune on legal fees taking it from one court to the next, employing French as well as UK lawyers and PIs? isn't that what insurance is for ..
plus its been said a number of times that money has been put one side should the CAS outcome go against us...

in my life ive seen innocent men go to jail and guilty men be found not guilty most courts and tribunals throw these decisions up from time to time but its hard to see this as anything more than rolling the dice in hope..

It's not about the rights or wrongs of the case - I doubt many City fans would argue that the club have a moral argument not to pay. However because of the large fee and the probability of insurance claims/counter-claims, the evidence has to be scrutinized and clinically examined 100%. It could be the difference, for example, between the club paying Nantes £13million or the insurance paying up.

Exactly - it will be the lawyers and insurance companies holding this up. Nantes May be entitled to the money from us, but we’re probably due compensation from the owners of the plane, or the insurers of the pilot, or both. Until all of these legal issues concerning the crash are settled, no money will be going anywhere. Unfortunately, this is likely to take years.

It's not about the rights or wrongs of the case - I doubt many City fans would argue that the club have a moral argument not to pay. However because of the large fee and the probability of insurance claims/counter-claims, the evidence has to be scrutinized and clinically examined 100%. It could be the difference, for example, between the club paying Nantes £13million or the insurance paying up.

there was a rumour..i heard it, others heard it and its been on here a few times about us not having insurance..
the longer its gone on the more I think the rumour was correct.. both our FA and FIFA have confirmed we owned his contract. so this really should then be an insurance case and not us spending a fortune on legal fees taking it from one court to the next, employing French as well as UK lawyers and PIs? isn't that what insurance is for ..
plus its been said a number of times that money has been put one side should the CAS outcome go against us...

in my life ive seen innocent men go to jail and guilty men be found not guilty most courts and tribunals throw these decisions up from time to time but its hard to see this as anything more than rolling the dice in hope..

You can sure that if the paperwork was not correct at the Premier League, then insurance companies won’t be paying anything. It’s a legal mess.

It's not about the rights or wrongs of the case - I doubt many City fans would argue that the club have a moral argument not to pay. However because of the large fee and the probability of insurance claims/counter-claims, the evidence has to be scrutinized and clinically examined 100%. It could be the difference, for example, between the club paying Nantes £13million or the insurance paying up.

there was a rumour..i heard it, others heard it and its been on here a few times about us not having insurance..
the longer its gone on the more I think the rumour was correct.. both our FA and FIFA have confirmed we owned his contract. so this really should then be an insurance case and not us spending a fortune on legal fees taking it from one court to the next, employing French as well as UK lawyers and PIs? isn't that what insurance is for ..
plus its been said a number of times that money has been put one side should the CAS outcome go against us...

in my life ive seen innocent men go to jail and guilty men be found not guilty most courts and tribunals throw these decisions up from time to time but its hard to see this as anything more than rolling the dice in hope..

You can sure that if the paperwork was not correct at the Premier League, then insurance companies won’t be paying anything. It’s a legal mess.

We all know this, Roathy just likes to keep saying we have to pay it when he knows feck all, just ignore him and he'll go away,! This won't be fully resolved for five seasons, even if we did ever have to pay anything, the next legal case would start with whoever was negligent.

It's not about the rights or wrongs of the case - I doubt many City fans would argue that the club have a moral argument not to pay. However because of the large fee and the probability of insurance claims/counter-claims, the evidence has to be scrutinized and clinically examined 100%. It could be the difference, for example, between the club paying Nantes £13million or the insurance paying up.

there was a rumour..i heard it, others heard it and its been on here a few times about us not having insurance..
the longer its gone on the more I think the rumour was correct.. both our FA and FIFA have confirmed we owned his contract. so this really should then be an insurance case and not us spending a fortune on legal fees taking it from one court to the next, employing French as well as UK lawyers and PIs? isn't that what insurance is for ..
plus its been said a number of times that money has been put one side should the CAS outcome go against us...

in my life ive seen innocent men go to jail and guilty men be found not guilty most courts and tribunals throw these decisions up from time to time but its hard to see this as anything more than rolling the dice in hope..

You can sure that if the paperwork was not correct at the Premier League, then insurance companies won’t be paying anything. It’s a legal mess.

so players not included in premier league squads 25 players are not insured...
if he was insured ,he would be insured full stop.. to train.to travel to play to have an accident.. what COMPETITIONS he is or is not registered for wouldnt effect that.. as for no money going anywhere..if we lose and dont cough up it will be a transfer ban for starters followed very sharpish with other sanctions..

Trying to wriggle out of paying on a contract technicality by us is out of order

We all know that that would have been “sorted” with a few minor alterations to the original contract. (I would imagine many contracts have to be amended slightly after going to the Premier League for final approval)

However, I do believe we have a case with the ill fated flight.

This was organised by the representatives of Nantes and there are serious questions as to whether it was safe for this flight to ever take place

No wonder Nantes have kept a so called “dignified silence about this flight” they arranged it through a dodgy unlicensed agent who was acting under their instructions

Just highlights the “murky world “ many of these agents and clubs work in. Unfortunately an innocent young man lost his life because of it and people like the loathsome parasite McKay get to walk away and carry on with their dodgy dealings

Willie McKay was not a representative of Nantes. The deal was completed days previous, why would Nantes or their representatives arrange a flight for another clubs player?

On completion of the contract McKay had fulfilled his role in brokering the deal and Sala was no longer a Nantes player. Willie McKay was acting on behalf of Emiliano Sala himself at that stage, not Nantes.

Yes he was and no he wasn’t..get your facts right

Trying to wriggle out of paying on a contract technicality by us is out of order

We all know that that would have been “sorted” with a few minor alterations to the original contract. (I would imagine many contracts have to be amended slightly after going to the Premier League for final approval)

However, I do believe we have a case with the ill fated flight.

This was organised by the representatives of Nantes and there are serious questions as to whether it was safe for this flight to ever take place

No wonder Nantes have kept a so called “dignified silence about this flight” they arranged it through a dodgy unlicensed agent who was acting under their instructions

Just highlights the “murky world “ many of these agents and clubs work in. Unfortunately an innocent young man lost his life because of it and people like the loathsome parasite McKay get to walk away and carry on with their dodgy dealings

Willie McKay was not a representative of Nantes. The deal was completed days previous, why would Nantes or their representatives arrange a flight for another clubs player?

On completion of the contract McKay had fulfilled his role in brokering the deal and Sala was no longer a Nantes player. Willie McKay was acting on behalf of Emiliano Sala himself at that stage, not Nantes.

Yes he was and no he wasn’t..get your facts right

Roathy wrong? Never

Trying to wriggle out of paying on a contract technicality by us is out of order

We all know that that would have been “sorted” with a few minor alterations to the original contract. (I would imagine many contracts have to be amended slightly after going to the Premier League for final approval)

However, I do believe we have a case with the ill fated flight.

This was organised by the representatives of Nantes and there are serious questions as to whether it was safe for this flight to ever take place

No wonder Nantes have kept a so called “dignified silence about this flight” they arranged it through a dodgy unlicensed agent who was acting under their instructions

Just highlights the “murky world “ many of these agents and clubs work in. Unfortunately an innocent young man lost his life because of it and people like the loathsome parasite McKay get to walk away and carry on with their dodgy dealings

Willie McKay was not a representative of Nantes. The deal was completed days previous, why would Nantes or their representatives arrange a flight for another clubs player?

On completion of the contract McKay had fulfilled his role in brokering the deal and Sala was no longer a Nantes player. Willie McKay was acting on behalf of Emiliano Sala himself at that stage, not Nantes.

Yes he was and no he wasn’t..get your facts right

Roathy wrong? Never

Trying to wriggle out of paying on a contract technicality by us is out of order

We all know that that would have been “sorted” with a few minor alterations to the original contract. (I would imagine many contracts have to be amended slightly after going to the Premier League for final approval)

However, I do believe we have a case with the ill fated flight.

This was organised by the representatives of Nantes and there are serious questions as to whether it was safe for this flight to ever take place

No wonder Nantes have kept a so called “dignified silence about this flight” they arranged it through a dodgy unlicensed agent who was acting under their instructions

Just highlights the “murky world “ many of these agents and clubs work in. Unfortunately an innocent young man lost his life because of it and people like the loathsome parasite McKay get to walk away and carry on with their dodgy dealings

Willie McKay was not a representative of Nantes. The deal was completed days previous, why would Nantes or their representatives arrange a flight for another clubs player?

On completion of the contract McKay had fulfilled his role in brokering the deal and Sala was no longer a Nantes player. Willie McKay was acting on behalf of Emiliano Sala himself at that stage, not Nantes.

Yes he was and no he wasn’t..get your facts right

Roathy wrong? Never

Hes never wrong hes never right he's just not all there......

Yes he was and no he wasn’t..get your facts right

No he wasn’t what?

He asked Sala if he had flights booked, he said no and offered to book one on his behalf. This is documented fact. Not sure what you are disputing.

Roathy wrong? Never

Very very rarely as I look into the subject and form my position prior to posting. This however is documented fact and not opinion based.

It shows the need for such a thread as so many people are clearly confused about the situation.

Hes never wrong hes never right he's just not all there......

Feel free to tell us if there is anything you disagree with in the thread? Or are you just trying to derail it because my posts are containing facts again? You don’t like that, I know from past experience.

Try and keep this on topic chaps and not troll your own site. This is a thread about a very important part of the clubs immediate future and not so distant past.

If you disagree with something then feel free to express it. Trolling isn’t helping anybody.

Yes he was and no he wasn’t..get your facts right

I missed your first part that stated ''yes he was''.

Well, No he wasn't. I will explain.

Nantes gave a mandate to Mercato, to acquire a Premier League club to buy Sala. In return they would get 10% of the transfer fee. Willie McKay was not an employee of Mercato.

On the 19th, the deal between the two clubs was agreed and Nantes and Sala terminated their employment contract. From that moment Mercato and Nantes had completed their arrangement.

Sala who had returned home to say goodbye to family and friends after signing with Cardiff was stuck for a convenient option to travel. He spoke with Willie McKay who said there was an option to book a chartered flight (the same one used for Warnock at Cardiff), Sala agreed and told the Player Liaison Officer at Cardiff who responded with ''Ok that works''.

McKay was not representing anyone other than Sala when the flight was booked. He had no employment with Mercato or Nantes at the time. That is documented fact.

Yes he was and no he wasn’t..get your facts right

I missed your first part that stated ''yes he was''.

Well, No he wasn't. I will explain.

Nantes gave a mandate to Mercato, to acquire a Premier League club to buy Sala. In return they would get 10% of the transfer fee. Willie McKay was not an employee of Mercato.

On the 19th, the deal between the two clubs was agreed and Nantes and Sala terminated their employment contract. From that moment Mercato and Nantes had completed their arrangement.

Sala who had returned home to say goodbye to family and friends after signing with Cardiff was stuck for a convenient option to travel. He spoke with Willie McKay who said there was an option to book a chartered flight (the same one used for Warnock at Cardiff), Sala agreed and told the Player Liaison Officer at Cardiff who responded with ''Ok that works''.

McKay was not representing anyone other than Sala when the flight was booked. He had no employment with Mercato or Nantes at the time. That is documented fact.

Bye bye
Decided to pop along again have you? Bored eh?

Listening to the podcast with Dalman he spoke a lot of sense and was very honest.

None of the agents involved in the deal have spoken about not taking their fees (in the instance of a transfer fee being paid). This in my opinion is bad taste.

He suggested to all parties a deal that to me, probably through blue tinted specs, seemed extremely fair way of ending the whole saga...

Agents take nothing.
Clubs take a hit of half the fee each.
Out of this they each pay 2m to Sala's family.
Left about 4.5m euros per club to pay.