FIFA GIVE 'OFFICIAL' NOTICE TO CITY TO PAY €6m INSTALMENT

I wish we would just pay it and move on and end this situation. It just doesn't sit right with me at all.

I wish we would just pay it and move on and end this situation. It just doesn't sit right with me at all.

Easy to say when it's not you're money though mate.

From a pure business angle I don't blame the Club one bit for taking it as far as they can if they feel (which they must) , that they have a valid case.

How would you or anybody else here know if there was insurance. Stop guessing and setting an agenda here or better still, feck off to planet swamp with the rest of the turds there

Because you cannot insure something you don’t own and Cardiff are saying they never owned him.

Had he been insured then they would just allow the cover to take care of it, the fact they are fighting this all the way clearly suggests no insurance was taken.

I have been 100% right on this and no doubt will be proven so again.

No it doesn't !!

As you claim to be so well informed you will also be well aware that at this level of business the insurance company (if there is one) will already be advising the club that they would need categorical proof that they are liable, rather than Nantes insurers. Hence why the question of when/whether the contract was completed is so important.

So, whilst to many of us this is all a bit distasteful, getting an unequivocal decision on whether Sala was a City or Nantes player is absolutely vital for either side of the argument.

If we do Appeal then there, at least, would have to be an arguable case even if ultimately we lose that case. Therefore we will have to exhaust all routes before knowing whether we (or our insurers) have to pay or not.

Of course, as with any civil litigation, there may come a time when the cost of defending this becomes disproportionate and one side may decide to throw their hand in but with £15m at stake I would guess we're nowhere near that stage yet !

How would you or anybody else here know if there was insurance. Stop guessing and setting an agenda here or better still, feck off to planet swamp with the rest of the turds there

Because you cannot insure something you don’t own and Cardiff are saying they never owned him.

Had he been insured then they would just allow the cover to take care of it, the fact they are fighting this all the way clearly suggests no insurance was taken.

I have been 100% right on this and no doubt will be proven so again.

No it doesn't !!

As you claim to be so well informed you will also be well aware that at this level of business the insurance company (if there is one) will already be advising the club that they would need categorical proof that they are liable, rather than Nantes insurers. Hence why the question of when/whether the contract was completed is so important.

So, whilst to many of us this is all a bit distasteful, getting an unequivocal decision on whether Sala was a City or Nantes player is absolutely vital for either side of the argument.

If we do Appeal then there, at least, would have to be an arguable case even if ultimately we lose that case. Therefore we will have to exhaust all routes before knowing whether we (or our insurers) have to pay or not.

Of course, as with any civil litigation, there may come a time when the cost of defending this becomes disproportionate and one side may decide to throw their hand in but with £15m at stake I would guess we're nowhere near that stage yet !

I think you are right piledriver64 although the troll will tell us differently. It's just a stick to beat us with and that from a fecking Jack who should know about not paying their way

Annis is right.

They said they would pay if it turns out they have to. FIFA have told them they have to... and they are still refusing.

I said from the start that the club will have to pay, even explained in great detail why. There is zero change FIFA's ruling will be overturned and it is only going to cost the club more money and drag it's name through the mus further.

Any fans backing this appeal are in cloud cuckoo land.

Mind your own business, this is too completed for blinkered thicko's, leave it to the grown-ups to sort out FFS

I wish we would just pay it and move on and end this situation. It just doesn't sit right with me at all.

Easy to say when it's not you're money though mate.

From a pure business angle I don't blame the Club one bit for taking it as far as they can if they feel (which they must) , that they have a valid case.

Exactly no one here would pay any of their own money, in similar circumstances, it's easy to shout just pay up it will be appealed and appealed and dealt with by Lawyers at the very end and will go on and on for years more yet !!!

I wish we would just pay it and move on and end this situation. It just doesn't sit right with me at all.

Easy to say when it's not you're money though mate.

From a pure business angle I don't blame the Club one bit for taking it as far as they can if they feel (which they must) , that they have a valid case.

Exactly no one here would pay any of their own money, in similar circumstances, it's easy to shout just pay up it will be appealed and appealed and dealt with by Lawyers at the very end and will go on and on for years more yet !!!

Nobody here would enter into an agreement to buy something for £15m either.

Moot point.

It most certainly will not go on for years. You have been watching too many movies.

No it doesn't !!

As you claim to be so well informed you will also be well aware that at this level of business the insurance company (if there is one) will already be advising the club that they would need categorical proof that they are liable, rather than Nantes insurers. Hence why the question of when/whether the contract was completed is so important.

So, whilst to many of us this is all a bit distasteful, getting an unequivocal decision on whether Sala was a City or Nantes player is absolutely vital for either side of the argument.

If we do Appeal then there, at least, would have to be an arguable case even if ultimately we lose that case. Therefore we will have to exhaust all routes before knowing whether we (or our insurers) have to pay or not.

Of course, as with any civil litigation, there may come a time when the cost of defending this becomes disproportionate and one side may decide to throw their hand in but with £15m at stake I would guess we're nowhere near that stage yet !

Nope.

No claim would have been processed from the time of the incident to claiming he wasn’t yours. I will personally guarantee you that the club has no insurance on him. They may have a broad insurance that covers a range of things that the may be able to claim a small portion of, but nowhere near 15m.

Put it this way. If you had insured Sala, that means the insurance company were more than happy with the documents provided to state that you owned him. Ring up Lloyd’s and see if you can get insurance on Cristiano Ronaldo, or even my house if you like... before you waste your time, you can’t.

So if there was insurance in place there would literally be no case. Because if you insure something then you own it by definition, there would be no debate on the ownership of the registration.

Lastly, why on earth do you believe that if it goes to an appeal then it must be an arguable case? You can go to CAS about anything, they don’t pick and choose the best ones. If you are in sport and want them to decide on something then they will. It is a costly process though.

I wish we would just pay it and move on and end this situation. It just doesn't sit right with me at all.

Easy to say when it's not you're money though mate.

From a pure business angle I don't blame the Club one bit for taking it as far as they can if they feel (which they must) , that they have a valid case.

We shouldn't have paraded Sala as our new signing if the paper work wasn't complete. Respect your opinion, this is just my opinion