CLAIM: VIDEO SHOWS EMILIANO SALA 'SIGNING' FOR CITY

You must have seen the contract then ?
What clauses were there that had to be met or else null and voided ?

As I would expect it to say (like any contract) the sale is dependent on the approval and authorisation of the relevant authorities etc

Otherwise as a purchaser you may well be purchasing something that is not as it seems. EG that's why players have medicals.
If the FA turned around and said sorry his work visa is invalid therefor he doesnt have international clearance etc - the club would then void the contract as stated in the terms and conditions (which no one has seen other than the club and their legal representatives - as far as I know) maybe the contract and its clauses have been published somewhere ?

It will be an interesting decision though and will set precedent on future transfers

Cant believe some people would fold so easily

That’s the point mate, it did have the approval of the relevant authorities and governing bodies. That’s why it went through. The contract was perfectly valid.

You need to seperate the Premier League from the FA/FAW. The Premier League has no say on whether a contract is valid or not, only whether the contract allows the player to play in its competition or not based on its own rules. They are hugely differing things. In the case of Sala, the way his (valid) contract was set up, it did not comply with its regulations that determine whether a player can compete in that competition or not. It means he cannot play in the PL, it doesn’t invalidate the contract and as a result is fully capable of playing in other games for the club.

He had a work permit, the contract was legal and binding, the TMS was complete and international clearance was finalised on the 21st at 5:30pm GMT. The transfer was complete.

It isn’t about folding easily, it’s about not having any cards whatsoever. The decision is a formality, I think it’s only been appealed to buy time in the hope the club may be promoted in the meantime and the financial hit can be absorbed easier. Reading the FIFA document and understanding both sides of the argument and also the facts behind the contract and timelines make it as clear cut a case as you would wish to see, truly. The club do not have a leg to stand on.

Well let's wait and see what comes back then shall we, I still stand by the point that there may very well have been a clause in the contract that states it is null and void in the event of 'situation A', 'situation B' etc etc , and is the equivalent of 'sold subject to contract' on a house. Unless one of us has seen the contract in full - then we wont know - until the decision. I just have a sneaky suspicion that is enough wriggle room for it to go in the clubs favour - just a personal opinion.

You must have seen the contract then ?
What clauses were there that had to be met or else null and voided ?

As I would expect it to say (like any contract) the sale is dependent on the approval and authorisation of the relevant authorities etc

Otherwise as a purchaser you may well be purchasing something that is not as it seems. EG that's why players have medicals.
If the FA turned around and said sorry his work visa is invalid therefor he doesnt have international clearance etc - the club would then void the contract as stated in the terms and conditions (which no one has seen other than the club and their legal representatives - as far as I know) maybe the contract and its clauses have been published somewhere ?

It will be an interesting decision though and will set precedent on future transfers

Cant believe some people would fold so easily

That’s the point mate, it did have the approval of the relevant authorities and governing bodies. That’s why it went through. The contract was perfectly valid.

You need to seperate the Premier League from the FA/FAW. The Premier League has no say on whether a contract is valid or not, only whether the contract allows the player to play in its competition or not based on its own rules. They are hugely differing things. In the case of Sala, the way his (valid) contract was set up, it did not comply with its regulations that determine whether a player can compete in that competition or not. It means he cannot play in the PL, it doesn’t invalidate the contract and as a result is fully capable of playing in other games for the club.

He had a work permit, the contract was legal and binding, the TMS was complete and international clearance was finalised on the 21st at 5:30pm GMT. The transfer was complete.

It isn’t about folding easily, it’s about not having any cards whatsoever. The decision is a formality, I think it’s only been appealed to buy time in the hope the club may be promoted in the meantime and the financial hit can be absorbed easier. Reading the FIFA document and understanding both sides of the argument and also the facts behind the contract and timelines make it as clear cut a case as you would wish to see, truly. The club do not have a leg to stand on.

Well let's wait and see what comes back then shall we, I still stand by the point that there may very well have been a clause in the contract that states it is null and void in the event of 'situation A', 'situation B' etc etc , and is the equivalent of 'sold subject to contract' on a house. Unless one of us has seen the contract in full - then we wont know - until the decision. I just have a sneaky suspicion that is enough wriggle room for it to go in the clubs favour - just a personal opinion.

yes its exactly like a house....your getting it... sold subject to contract ..and then the contract gets signed so it becomes...SOLD..

Can't believe this is being dragged out of the blue we will all know soon enough wether the club has or has not to pay,all the rest in between is speculation by all,including ccfc? Pete! The club has set aside the funds to pay,if ordered to,we have waited this long,so a delay with what's been happening, was always going to be likely. I know there isn't much to talk about,but this is not news .

Can't believe this is being dragged out of the blue we will all know soon enough wether the club has or has not to pay,all the rest in between is speculation by all,including ccfc? Pete! The club has set aside the funds to pay,if ordered to,we have waited this long,so a delay with what's been happening, was always going to be likely. I know there isn't much to talk about,but this is not news .

he didn't start the thread and has only printed facts taken from FIFA... there is lots of speculation on the thread but he is the only one that's actually bothered taking things of the FIFA site ...

Can't believe this is being dragged out of the blue we will all know soon enough wether the club has or has not to pay,all the rest in between is speculation by all,including ccfc? Pete! The club has set aside the funds to pay,if ordered to,we have waited this long,so a delay with what's been happening, was always going to be likely. I know there isn't much to talk about,but this is not news .

he didn't start the thread and has only printed facts taken from FIFA... there is lots of speculation on the thread but he is the only one that's actually bothered taking things of the FIFA site ...[/quote


No he didn't start thread but he is the only person in the world who will go to ends of the world to try prove he's right and us mere mortals are wrong... fact is only CAS will decide who is correct no matter what fifa have said or what documents are put out on here!
anyone's view is just that a viewpoint and opinion nothing else.

Can't believe this is being dragged out of the blue we will all know soon enough wether the club has or has not to pay,all the rest in between is speculation by all,including ccfc? Pete! The club has set aside the funds to pay,if ordered to,we have waited this long,so a delay with what's been happening, was always going to be likely. I know there isn't much to talk about,but this is not news .

he didn't start the thread and has only printed facts taken from FIFA... there is lots of speculation on the thread but he is the only one that's actually bothered taking things of the FIFA site ...[/quote


No he didn't start thread but he is the only person in the world who will go to ends of the world to try prove he's right and us mere mortals are wrong... fact is only CAS will decide who is correct no matter what fifa have said or what documents are put out on here!
anyone's view is just that a viewpoint and opinion nothing else.

its not the ends of the earth Allan.. its only whats been put on here numerous times...and is accurate .
i just wish we had insurance and this was all in the past..
or at least our club have something more solid than what they seem to have..because id much rather us not have to pay out 15 million pounds too..
but i cant get past the fact he was only in that plane on that night to come back here to train having signed a few days earlier..
im sure if our club had contacted him and said all this prem lge forms needing sorting meant the deal was off or on hold .he wouldn't have bothered coming back that night

Can't believe this is being dragged out of the blue we will all know soon enough wether the club has or has not to pay,all the rest in between is speculation by all,including ccfc? Pete! The club has set aside the funds to pay,if ordered to,we have waited this long,so a delay with what's been happening, was always going to be likely. I know there isn't much to talk about,but this is not news .

he didn't start the thread and has only printed facts taken from FIFA... there is lots of speculation on the thread but he is the only one that's actually bothered taking things of the FIFA site ...[/quote


No he didn't start thread but he is the only person in the world who will go to ends of the world to try prove he's right and us mere mortals are wrong... fact is only CAS will decide who is correct no matter what fifa have said or what documents are put out on here!
anyone's view is just that a viewpoint and opinion nothing else.

its not the ends of the earth Allan.. its only whats been put on here numerous times...and is accurate .
i just wish we had insurance and this was all in the past..
or at least our club have something more solid than what they seem to have..because id much rather us not have to pay out 15 million pounds too..
but i cant get past the fact he was only in that plane on that night to come back here to train having signed a few days earlier..
im sure if our club had contacted him and said all this prem lge forms needing sorting meant the deal was off or on hold .he wouldn't have bothered coming back that night

Yes its accurate but you missed my point but it doesn't matter! Like said we all know what fifa as said and put out on internet for all to read if want to? But at end day unless you think club is fcking about for no reason there is a possibility that despite paper work apparently being sighned it does not mean it is valid no matter what anyone says on here .... CAS will decide if it is valid and if they do club as said the money as been put aside to pay nante...so this is a non story that as been debated thoroughly and nothing new to report...

From FIFA’s ruling, the exact wording is as follows:-

41. In this respect, the members of the Bureau firstly observed that the clause at stake did not require the player’s employment contract to be registered with the Premier League as a condition precedent. What it is more, the Bureau held that 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.

42. Moreover, 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 it is also a formal requirement over which Nantes has no influence. As a result, from the Bureau’s point of view, 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.

Essentially saying what we are. It’s simply an internal matter between Sala and the club, but regardless of outcome of that internal matter he would still be a Cardiff player. He would either be a Cardiff player ineligible to play in the Premier League or he would be a Cardiff player that could play in the Premier League, and that would depend on if Sala would be happy complying with the competitions rules and having his signing on fee over the length of his contract.

Whether he would have agreed or not is neither here nor there however when discussing the validity of the contract or the transfer itself, that was a done deal and completely valid.

I'm sorry but the holes in FIFA's logic is astonishing! How can they possibly know for certain that Sala would have signed the amended contract? In any case the fact he may have intended to sign (as they claim) the amended contract doesn't make it legally binding.

They also unaware of UK contract law as it doesn't matter if the original delay was caused by Cardiff submitting a wrongly drafted contract to the PL unless there was a specific expressed clause on a time completion. Therefore the contract was only valid when all clauses had been completed.

Emiliano Sala was bought to play in the PL and Nantes FC wanted to sell to a PL club. Therefore an expressed clause (which doesn't need to be written it just needs to exist on the balance of probabilities). So until ES was registered to play in the competition the contract (& therefore the transfer) was incomplete and his ownership remained with Nantes FC.

Finally UK contract law easily overrides a FIFA finding

From FIFA’s ruling, the exact wording is as follows:-

41. In this respect, the members of the Bureau firstly observed that the clause at stake did not require the player’s employment contract to be registered with the Premier League as a condition precedent. What it is more, the Bureau held that 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.

42. Moreover, 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 it is also a formal requirement over which Nantes has no influence. As a result, from the Bureau’s point of view, 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.

Essentially saying what we are. It’s simply an internal matter between Sala and the club, but regardless of outcome of that internal matter he would still be a Cardiff player. He would either be a Cardiff player ineligible to play in the Premier League or he would be a Cardiff player that could play in the Premier League, and that would depend on if Sala would be happy complying with the competitions rules and having his signing on fee over the length of his contract.

Whether he would have agreed or not is neither here nor there however when discussing the validity of the contract or the transfer itself, that was a done deal and completely valid.

I'm sorry but the holes in FIFA's logic is astonishing! How can they possibly know for certain that Sala would have signed the amended contract? In any case the fact he may have intended to sign (as they claim) the amended contract doesn't make it legally binding.

They also unaware of UK contract law as it doesn't matter if the original delay was caused by Cardiff submitting a wrongly drafted contract to the PL unless there was a specific expressed clause on a time completion. Therefore the contract was only valid when all clauses had been completed.

Emiliano Sala was bought to play in the PL and Nantes FC wanted to sell to a PL club. Therefore an expressed clause (which doesn't need to be written it just needs to exist on the balance of probabilities). So until ES was registered to play in the competition the contract (& therefore the transfer) was incomplete and his ownership remained with Nantes FC.

Finally UK contract law easily overrides a FIFA finding

That was my take on it as well re contract law - but was sort of shouted down and derided a bit by a couple on here.
There was a poster that seems to think he knew what was in the contract and that in law that contract had been formed etc. From what I remember about contract law (maybe not that much) and I dont pretend to be a lawyer but well let's see what happens

I'm sorry but the holes in FIFA's logic is astonishing! How can they possibly know for certain that Sala would have signed the amended contract? In any case the fact he may have intended to sign (as they claim) the amended contract doesn't make it legally binding.

You misunderstand. The contract is legally binding as it is, it only needed an amendment if Sala was to be allowed to play in league matches that season. Whether he signed an amendment or not isn’t anything to do with making the contract legally binding, it’s an issue of making it league compliant. Had it not been amended then Cardiff would have a player that was unable to play in the Premier league... not an null and void contract. The amendment was simply an internal matter between Sala, Cardiff and essentially the Premier League. .

They also unaware of UK contract law as it doesn't matter if the original delay was caused by Cardiff submitting a wrongly drafted contract to the PL unless there was a specific expressed clause on a time completion. Therefore the contract was only valid when all clauses had been completed.

The clauses had been completed. The stipulation was that Nantes sell to a Premier League club, they did that.

Emiliano Sala was bought to play in the PL and Nantes FC wanted to sell to a PL club. Therefore an expressed clause (which doesn't need to be written it just needs to exist on the balance of probabilities). So until ES was registered to play in the competition the contract (& therefore the transfer) was incomplete and his ownership remained with Nantes FC.

That is not true at all. Nantes wanted to sell to a PL club for financial reasons, they did that. What Cardiff bought him for is irrelevant to anything, they structured his signing on fee in such a way that prevented them from using him as they wanted. That is their issue.

Finally UK contract law easily overrides a FIFA finding

Nothing in this deal contravenes UK contract law.

That was my take on it as well re contract law - but was sort of shouted down and derided a bit by a couple on here.
There was a poster that seems to think he knew what was in the contract and that in law that contract had been formed etc. From what I remember about contract law (maybe not that much) and I dont pretend to be a lawyer but well let's see what happens

You weren’t shouted down, it was explained why you were incorrect. Your point was that there “may have been a clause in there that we don’t know about”. The replies were deleted because some people hate the truth when it comes to this subject but I’ll try again...

What was in the contract, or at least the parts that are relevant to the case, are public knowledge and documented fact. That contract of course had formed and completed which is why Cardiff were able to sign him.

The part many are getting confused about is the Premier League. The Premier League is a competition; not a governing body, they cannot tell anyone a contract is invalid. What they said was, the way the perfectly legal employment contract is set out, that player won’t be able to play league games until there is a change to his signing in structure.

Until that time Cardiff would have a perfectly valid signing - that couldn’t play league football yet. That doesn’t make the transfer void, it’s ludicrous to suggest it would. Hence why the club lost the case emphatically.

Can't believe this is being dragged out of the blue we will all know soon enough wether the club has or has not to pay,all the rest in between is speculation by all,including ccfc? Pete! The club has set aside the funds to pay,if ordered to,we have waited this long,so a delay with what's been happening, was always going to be likely. I know there isn't much to talk about,but this is not news .

he didn't start the thread and has only printed facts taken from FIFA... there is lots of speculation on the thread but he is the only one that's actually bothered taking things of the FIFA site ...

?? Where have I stated he started the thread,I was merely pointing out that fifa decision is old news,I was hoping it would have been heard by cas by now,and the saga can be put to bed (either way!) But it was obvious with covid,that a delay was inevitable.although now I realise who HE is,ill leave the topic well alone

?? Where have I stated he started the thread,I was merely pointing out that fifa decision is old news,I was hoping it would have been heard by cas by now,and the saga can be put to bed (either way!) But it was obvious with covid,that a delay was inevitable.although now I realise who HE is,ill leave the topic well alone

It seems like you are happy to get accurate information... but only if it is from certain posters. Others providing you with that same information and it’s too hard to take? Similar to someone else on this thread. No names mentioned.

The sooner people drop their own egos and allow themselves to understand the case the better, regardless of WHO it is from. My track record of accuracy speaks for itself - which I assume is the problem.

This misinformation peddled is scary, not to mention the sheer amount of people too proud to accept they were mistaken in their understanding.

Can't believe this is being dragged out of the blue we will all know soon enough wether the club has or has not to pay,all the rest in between is speculation by all,including ccfc? Pete! The club has set aside the funds to pay,if ordered to,we have waited this long,so a delay with what's been happening, was always going to be likely. I know there isn't much to talk about,but this is not news .

he didn't start the thread and has only printed facts taken from FIFA... there is lots of speculation on the thread but he is the only one that's actually bothered taking things of the FIFA site ...

Exactly right Skidemin, it’s the facts of the case that people find hard to swallow... so they make up their own. It’s utterly crazy.

I wonder how many discussing this subject on here now (and continually do when it gets brought up) - have actually bothered to read the details of the case and the document itself. Judging from the posts and the constant never ended fantasy scenarios - I’m going to wager not many.

From FIFA’s ruling, the exact wording is as follows:-

41. In this respect, the members of the Bureau firstly observed that the clause at stake did not require the player’s employment contract to be registered with the Premier League as a condition precedent. What it is more, the Bureau held that 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.

42. Moreover, 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 it is also a formal requirement over which Nantes has no influence. As a result, from the Bureau’s point of view, 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.

Essentially saying what we are. It’s simply an internal matter between Sala and the club, but regardless of outcome of that internal matter he would still be a Cardiff player. He would either be a Cardiff player ineligible to play in the Premier League or he would be a Cardiff player that could play in the Premier League, and that would depend on if Sala would be happy complying with the competitions rules and having his signing on fee over the length of his contract.

Whether he would have agreed or not is neither here nor there however when discussing the validity of the contract or the transfer itself, that was a done deal and completely valid.

I'm sorry but the holes in FIFA's logic is astonishing! How can they possibly know for certain that Sala would have signed the amended contract? In any case the fact he may have intended to sign (as they claim) the amended contract doesn't make it legally binding.

They also unaware of UK contract law as it doesn't matter if the original delay was caused by Cardiff submitting a wrongly drafted contract to the PL unless there was a specific expressed clause on a time completion. Therefore the contract was only valid when all clauses had been completed.

Emiliano Sala was bought to play in the PL and Nantes FC wanted to sell to a PL club. Therefore an expressed clause (which doesn't need to be written it just needs to exist on the balance of probabilities). So until ES was registered to play in the competition the contract (& therefore the transfer) was incomplete and his ownership remained with Nantes FC.

Finally UK contract law easily overrides a FIFA finding

knowing whether ES would sign an alternative contract or not is not relevant to the legality of the contract he had signed or his transfer.
the contract that he had signed was legal . nobody has ever suggested it was not legal under UK contract law or FIFA rules .
the fact that the breakdown of payments to him was outside EPL REGISTRATION { not contract } regulations has nothing what so ever to do with the contracts legality...
as for the point that the compensation contract between ourselves and Nantes depended on him playing in the EPL .. what if he got injured in training before ever playing ? what if having been injured he returns to training and like Jazz { plus many others } gets injured again and only recovers after the season ends and we are relegated { so therefore unable to play for us in the EPL } ? or worse its career ending.. what if he had a massive falling out with NW / Tan who then refuses to pick him ..or gets arrested in town and locked up ? etc etc..
few other things....not all contracted players are registered for every competition a club enters... but to play in a competition that requires registration { most } you have to be registered.. not being registered doesn't mean its because of contract issues..it could be for a number of reasons.. most often a limit on allowed squad size . or clerical errors at clubs..
our club had the registration returned by the EPL prior to ES returning from France ,which suggests no major issues .
our club had set up the first bank transfer which was stopped only after the crash, not when the EPL registration was returned...
and many players have been transferred to clubs where they are then unable to play in certain competitions...including the EPL

knowing whether ES would sign an alternative contract or not is not relevant to the legality of the contract he had signed or his transfer.
the contract that he had signed was legal . nobody has ever suggested it was not legal under UK contract law or FIFA rules .
the fact that the breakdown of payments to him was outside EPL REGISTRATION { not contract } regulations has nothing what so ever to do with the contracts legality...
as for the point that the compensation contract between ourselves and Nantes depended on him playing in the EPL .. what if he got injured in training before ever playing ? what if having been injured he returns to training and like Jazz { plus many others } gets injured again and only recovers after the season ends and we are relegated { so therefore unable to play for us in the EPL } ? or worse its career ending.. what if he had a massive falling out with NW / Tan who then refuses to pick him ..or gets arrested in town and locked up ? etc etc..
few other things....not all contracted players are registered for every competition a club enters... but to play in a competition that requires registration { most } you have to be registered.. not being registered doesn't mean its because of contract issues..it could be for a number of reasons.. most often a limit on allowed squad size . or clerical errors at clubs..
our club had the registration returned by the EPL prior to ES returning from France ,which suggests no major issues .
our club had set up the first bank transfer which was stopped only after the crash, not when the EPL registration was returned...
and many players have been transferred to clubs where they are then unable to play in certain competitions...including the EPL

Excellent summary.

I would also like to add that in no way were the extra payments dependent on Sala playing in the Premier League. They were all club based not player based.

Also worth noting that the agreement specifically stated that Sala doesn’t even have to be registered with the club let alone be able to play for them. The clauses are 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”.

6. More specifically, the “promotion bonus” was 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” [...] on 31 August following the football season in which the Promotion Bonus is due”.

knowing whether ES would sign an alternative contract or not is not relevant to the legality of the contract he had signed or his transfer.
the contract that he had signed was legal . nobody has ever suggested it was not legal under UK contract law or FIFA rules .
the fact that the breakdown of payments to him was outside EPL REGISTRATION { not contract } regulations has nothing what so ever to do with the contracts legality...
as for the point that the compensation contract between ourselves and Nantes depended on him playing in the EPL .. what if he got injured in training before ever playing ? what if having been injured he returns to training and like Jazz { plus many others } gets injured again and only recovers after the season ends and we are relegated { so therefore unable to play for us in the EPL } ? or worse its career ending.. what if he had a massive falling out with NW / Tan who then refuses to pick him ..or gets arrested in town and locked up ? etc etc..
few other things....not all contracted players are registered for every competition a club enters... but to play in a competition that requires registration { most } you have to be registered.. not being registered doesn't mean its because of contract issues..it could be for a number of reasons.. most often a limit on allowed squad size . or clerical errors at clubs..
our club had the registration returned by the EPL prior to ES returning from France ,which suggests no major issues .
our club had set up the first bank transfer which was stopped only after the crash, not when the EPL registration was returned...
and many players have been transferred to clubs where they are then unable to play in certain competitions...including the EPL

Excellent summary.

I would also like to add that in no way were the extra payments dependent on Sala playing in the Premier League. They were all club based not player based.

Also worth noting that the agreement specifically stated that Sala doesn’t even have to be registered with the club let alone be able to play for them. The clauses are 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”.

6. More specifically, the “promotion bonus” was 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” [...] on 31 August following the football season in which the Promotion Bonus is due”.

we signed him to play ,that's obvious 15mill wasn't for our under23s
but as football fans we all know there is no guarantee that any given player will play in the next game or at all this season... we should know this better than most the amount of injured players we have signed and players that arrive and get immediately injured... this hasn't gone over the heads of clubs , agents and legal advisors drawing up contracts surely ?

we signed him to play ,that's obvious 15mill wasn't for our under23s
but as football fans we all know there is no guarantee that any given player will play in the next game or at all this season... we should know this better than most the amount of injured players we have signed and players that arrive and get immediately injured... this hasn't gone over the heads of clubs , agents and legal advisors drawing up contracts surely ?

Indeed, which is why there would almost certainly have been an amendment to the original contract (not a new one drawn up).

But as you say regardless of whether the amendment was made or not, it would make no difference to the validity of the contract.

If Cardiff signed him with the intention of playing in the Premier League then it was on them to ensure the signing on fee was structured in a way that could allow that to happen. Nantes (or Sala) aren't responsible for Cardiff's lack of awareness of the stipulations to register a player to the very league they play in.

Quite why this is being drawn out we can only guess. My best guess is that it is a delaying tactic as the club can absorb the hit easier if they manage to get promotion in the meantime. But its a gamble because interest is accruing and so are the legal fees.

Was this poor lad insured by club?

You cannot insure a player that does not belong to you. The fact the club are claiming they didn’t have ownership suggests they did not take out the necessary insurance which is probably the reason behind this fuss they have kicked up initially.

Comments made by the club also regarding being made to pay would bankrupt the club and comments contrary to that saying money has been put aside - also leans towards no insurance. Neither of those scenarios would make sense if there was a policy in place - and neither would the initial defiance to pay to be frank.

Was this poor lad insured by club?

ive not seen insurance mentioned by the club
and I haven't seen the question asked by a journalist.. which is very strange as it gets brought up in every thread regarding this on all boards... if fans are wondering , why arnt the journalists.