BREAKING: ‘ CARDIFF FACE THREE- WINDOW TRANSFER BAN ‘

UPDATE:

Sky Sports


FIFA HAVE GIVEN CARDIFF CITY 45 DAYS TO PAY NANTES THE FIRST INSTALMENT OF £5.3MILL OR FACE A THREE TRANSFER WINDOW BAN FOR NON PAYMENT OF THE EMILIANO SALA TRANSFER FEE.

It’s being driven by the insurance companies not Cardiff City, if we pay up our insurance company won’t pay us simple.
The bun fight will be between all parties involved and there individual insurance companies Nantes, the owner of the plane, agaent and Cardiff City
It’s not straight forward and as simple as it sounds this will rumble on for months even years.

It’s being driven by the insurance companies not Cardiff City, if we pay up our insurance company won’t pay us simple.
The bun fight will be between all parties involved and there individual insurance companies Nantes, the owner of the plane, agaent and Cardiff City
It’s not straight forward and as simple as it sounds this will rumble on for months even years.

Due to the pilot not having a licence to fly a passenger there is No insurance, plus I did here City had not insured Sala till the Monday( that But is only what I was told).

There is No insurance being paid out.

I still think Nantes are getting away lightly by demanding the full sum. Nobody is saying anything about wether that is morally correct or not just that Cardiff are the bad guys for not paying.

It looks like We owe the money but a compromise can be made given the circumstances between all parties.

If we think we have a very good reason why it should not be paid just yet then we are well within our rights to withhold funds until everything is sorted out

Reply FB

Dean Freeman:
Maybe a good thing for City in that we have to get some young uns in.
Agree though that we should have paid up on day 1.

Pretty stupid thing we have done at this rate no player will want to play for us anyway

We should be bringing young hungry players in any way !! We have a severe lack of producing quality youngsters to match the quality of football we play

Why would not player want to play for us pretty stupid.

I don't see it being an issue, no doubt City will pay once appealed.

I thought that I was the only one thinking this

I doubt if this will have any bearing at all on transfers. If the money is right for player and club, then the deal will go ahead. This was an extraordinary set of circumstances, never happened before to the best of my knowledge, and almost certainly will never happen again. Players have joined the club since this tragic accident, and I have no doubt that if the right players become available at the right price in January, they will be signed just as they have in every other transfer window.

We shall see in January

Sky talking rubbish again, Fifa cannot demand anything until the court of arbitration has made their decision.

It’s being driven by the insurance companies not Cardiff City, if we pay up our insurance company won’t pay us simple.
The bun fight will be between all parties involved and there individual insurance companies Nantes, the owner of the plane, agaent and Cardiff City
It’s not straight forward and as simple as it sounds this will rumble on for months even years.

Due to the pilot not having a licence to fly a passenger there is No insurance, plus I did here City had not insured Sala till the Monday( that But is only what I was told).

There is No insurance being paid out.

Annis Only possible insurance is on nantes side if its proved that he is not city player ? And because city couldn't insure him until the Monday it was said that the powers to be through English fa that they could pay the money as a gesture due to circumstances but guess until CAS makes a ruling it's all speculation..

But its the club that bought player not tan even though he's owner ect ect! As been said before would you pay someone money if didn't have to? It hasn't affected signings since it happened.

How do you know of hasn’t affected signings since?

The last transfer window was a disaster. That may well have been due to clubs/players/agents not wanting to get involved with the club and Warnocks list shrinking as a result.

But you are right, this has nothing to do with Tan’s wealth - the club owe the money, not Tan.

Sky talking rubbish again, Fifa cannot demand anything until the court of arbitration has made their decision.

Yes they can.

CAB is an external process which has no implications on sanctions given. It can reverse or stop them if an appeal is successful, but it can’t do that beforehand.

I still think Nantes are getting away lightly by demanding the full sum. Nobody is saying anything about wether that is morally correct or not just that Cardiff are the bad guys for not paying.

It looks like We owe the money but a compromise can be made given the circumstances between all parties.

If we think we have a very good reason why it should not be paid just yet then we are well within our rights to withhold funds until everything is sorted out

Why shouldn’t Nantes expect to be paid in full?

They sold his registration in full. I can’t fathom why anyone would think Nantes should settle for less than what they sold him for.

It’s being driven by the insurance companies not Cardiff City, if we pay up our insurance company won’t pay us simple.
The bun fight will be between all parties involved and there individual insurance companies Nantes, the owner of the plane, agaent and Cardiff City
It’s not straight forward and as simple as it sounds this will rumble on for months even years.

Nope. It’s straightforward.

Clearly no insurance on either side. Nantes insurance would have ended the second they sold ownership (you can’t insure something you don’t own) and Cardiff clearly didn’t insure him as they are claiming he was never theirs (again, can’t insure something you don’t own).

Owner of the plane is irrelevant to this particular case. You are talking about the legal case not the business one. The business one is easy, hence why FIFA have given the club 45 days to pay. The legal case, if there is one, pay rumble on yes - but that will have little to no affect on the club itself or it’s duty to pay.

Can some of you who just want hand £15 m over lend me a few quid please?
'** clubs won't do business with us **, * clubs won't loan us players **. Etc etc, what a load of crap !! Does anyone actually believe that if a club want shot of someone they won't sell to us if we're interested?

PS. Proud jack...... You stupid comments are unhelpful.

It’s not a case of that Jules. Those people wanting the club to pay what it owes also wouldn’t have agreed to pay £15m in the first place. This hasn’t come out of nowhere, the club WANTED to pay it... but have since decided not to.

As for the affect it will have on transfers. You are right, in terms of loans or players clubs want rid of then I don’t suppose it will matter much. However when a club has received 2 offers for a player of the same value, there is no doubt in my mind that they would prefer the player to go to the club with a better record of recent historical transfer conduct.

Some clubs may demand that the money is structured a certain way which affects cashflow and options, especially on larger signings. Some clubs may decide to reject your offer in preference to a club they know for sure will honour it. It’s not just about death on travel, could be anything, major injury etc I know if I was a business owner I would certainly accept another clubs offer or indeed make the club pay a majority up front, especially if I have other offers.

My guess here and that’s all it is a guess

Basically FIFA have ruled out making a legal decision on this and have just said we signed him officially and need to pay the bill.

We believe we have grounds to appeal, rumour has it that insurance is likely void as the tragic death of Sala is down to serious negligence, insurance companies very rarely pay for negligence.

This means we are left with the bill, from what I gather we are unhappy with this insurance won’t pay £15m bill hence why the legal team have suggested that we can effectively sue Nantes or whoever organised the flight over this negligence that resulted in the death of Sala

Now if this is the case again it’s only really speculation but we should pay the first instalment and pursue damages for negligence against Nantes if they were the ones who arranged the players travel however the issue is whether or not this can be proved, lots suggest this is down to McKay and you can’t sue a bankrupt man can you.

In the end I feel our pursuit even if proven it was not city’s fault I see us ending up as a club not getting the money back, do I like the whole situation not at all it makes the club look bad however it is not a small sum of money and the club clearly beehive they have some form of legal angle to purse hence why they are doing so

I don’t think the dispute is over who’s player he was I genuinely believe it’s down to insurance purposes and the fact that our insurance probably won’t pay if the death is considered to be negligence

My guess here and that’s all it is a guess

Basically FIFA have ruled out making a legal decision on this and have just said we signed him officially and need to pay the bill.

We believe we have grounds to appeal, rumour has it that insurance is likely void as the tragic death of Sala is down to serious negligence, insurance companies very rarely pay for negligence.

This means we are left with the bill, from what I gather we are unhappy with this insurance won’t pay £15m bill hence why the legal team have suggested that we can effectively sue Nantes or whoever organised the flight over this negligence that resulted in the death of Sala

Now if this is the case again it’s only really speculation but we should pay the first instalment and pursue damages for negligence against Nantes if they were the ones who arranged the players travel however the issue is whether or not this can be proved, lots suggest this is down to McKay and you can’t sue a bankrupt man can you.

In the end I feel our pursuit even if proven it was not city’s fault I see us ending up as a club not getting the money back, do I like the whole situation not at all it makes the club look bad however it is not a small sum of money and the club clearly beehive they have some form of legal angle to purse hence why they are doing so

I don’t think the dispute is over who’s player he was I genuinely believe it’s down to insurance purposes and the fact that our insurance probably won’t pay if the death is considered to be negligence

I don't think anyone has suggested Nantes arranged the flight, its more an attempt to tie mckays favour to ES { its well documented } into him being an agent of Nantes.

He was our player ,it's unfortunate but we have to pay ,I guess Tan doesn't want to pay for something he doesn't have .,, Just pay up now there s no wriggle room

He was our player ,it's unfortunate but we have to pay ,I guess Tan doesn't want to pay for something he doesn't have .,, Just pay up now there s no wriggle room

Hes only our player if CAS makes decision to that effect? Tan is the owner but its the club who buy players and who registers player with efl/fa tan doesn't pay out of his pocket even though he bank rolls club

My guess here and that’s all it is a guess

Basically FIFA have ruled out making a legal decision on this and have just said we signed him officially and need to pay the bill.

We believe we have grounds to appeal, rumour has it that insurance is likely void as the tragic death of Sala is down to serious negligence, insurance companies very rarely pay for negligence.

This means we are left with the bill, from what I gather we are unhappy with this insurance won’t pay £15m bill hence why the legal team have suggested that we can effectively sue Nantes or whoever organised the flight over this negligence that resulted in the death of Sala

Now if this is the case again it’s only really speculation but we should pay the first instalment and pursue damages for negligence against Nantes if they were the ones who arranged the players travel however the issue is whether or not this can be proved, lots suggest this is down to McKay and you can’t sue a bankrupt man can you.

In the end I feel our pursuit even if proven it was not city’s fault I see us ending up as a club not getting the money back, do I like the whole situation not at all it makes the club look bad however it is not a small sum of money and the club clearly beehive they have some form of legal angle to purse hence why they are doing so

I don’t think the dispute is over who’s player he was I genuinely believe it’s down to insurance purposes and the fact that our insurance probably won’t pay if the death is considered to be negligence

I don't think anyone has suggested Nantes arranged the flight, its more an attempt to tie mckays favour to ES { its well documented } into him being an agent of Nantes.

It looks like fifa are basing the fact hes our player on faw putting in some paper work to them? the ambiguity is with the contract it needed to be sighned by player after it was amended but apparently it wasn't! Fifa are opting out of things by saying clubs could go to CAS! if CAS side with city that's that it will be down to lawyers probably ..

He was our player ,it's unfortunate but we have to pay ,I guess Tan doesn't want to pay for something he doesn't have .,, Just pay up now there s no wriggle room

Hes only our player if CAS makes decision to that effect? Tan is the owner but its the club who buy players and who registers player with efl/fa tan doesn't pay out of his pocket even though he bank rolls club

I think Tan has had a massive say in how our club are handling this mate..

He was our player ,it's unfortunate but we have to pay ,I guess Tan doesn't want to pay for something he doesn't have .,, Just pay up now there s no wriggle room

Hes only our player if CAS makes decision to that effect? Tan is the owner but its the club who buy players and who registers player with efl/fa tan doesn't pay out of his pocket even though he bank rolls club

No, he was your player now as FIFA have ruled that.

CAS may overturn it if they deem it necessary but FIFA’s ruling doesn’t go in limbo until they say otherwise. What FIFA says goes UNTIL CAS say otherwise.

It’s important you understand that as you seem to keep saying that nothing is decided or can happen until the CAS appeal decision. That’s incorrect.

Not that I believe it will be appealed anyway.

Chelsea are appealing their transfer embargo with CAS too. However they are still under that embargo as of now.

I think we are in a bad place, as we stand at present we could face a transfer ban for not paying the fee ( I know the CAS will be involved next) however if we pay it we could also be in transfer ban by the Club falling foal of FFP rules