Confirmed: Emiliano Sala Verdict goes against City

As I posted earlier in the year I think FINANCIALLY this is the best outcome for the club.

I think this decision could actually have the capacity to put Nantes out of business.

The reason being that if CAS viewed Emiliano as a Nantes player then:

a) We wouldnt have to pay the £15m fee but also
b) We would not be able to sue Nantes for Loss of Revenue

As it is

a) Yes we will have to pay £15m but its money we had put aside
b) But, and this is very important, we will now be able to sue Nantes for:
(i) £15m loss of asset
(ii) £200m (in region of) for Loss of Revenue as a result of being relegated and predominantly as a result of their Employee, Servant or Agent failing to protect an asset of CCFC which resulted in ongoing losses

There will be some who argue that how can we put our relegation down to ES death.

The case for CCFC will be that we were signing a player who, at the time of his death, was 2nd top goalscorer in the French League (Behind Mbappe) and his goals (for CCFC) would have taken us up the table - bearing in mind we only got relegated by 1 pt.

"On the balance of Probabilities" had we had the use of him I believe a Court would find that we would not have been relegated and thus not lost the revenue that we did.


Nantes could find themselves with £15m in their pocket but they could also find themselves being sued for £200m

That's how I see it .

A terrible accident, an awful set of circumstances, the poor man died along with the pilot.
No matter how short the time since he signed but sign he did he was our man ,I think we should have paid up ,now it's gonna cost us more with costs etc .

Very informative post Paul, thank you.

As I posted earlier in the year I think FINANCIALLY this is the best outcome for the club.

I think this decision could actually have the capacity to put Nantes out of business.

The reason being that if CAS viewed Emiliano as a Nantes player then:

a) We wouldnt have to pay the £15m fee but also
b) We would not be able to sue Nantes for Loss of Revenue

As it is

a) Yes we will have to pay £15m but its money we had put aside
b) But, and this is very important, we will now be able to sue Nantes for:
(i) £15m loss of asset
(ii) £200m (in region of) for Loss of Revenue as a result of being relegated and predominantly as a result of their Employee, Servant or Agent failing to protect an asset of CCFC which resulted in ongoing losses

There will be some who argue that how can we put our relegation down to ES death.

The case for CCFC will be that we were signing a player who, at the time of his death, was 2nd top goalscorer in the French League (Behind Mbappe) and his goals (for CCFC) would have taken us up the table - bearing in mind we only got relegated by 1 pt.

"On the balance of Probabilities" had we had the use of him I believe a Court would find that we would not have been relegated and thus not lost the revenue that we did.


Nantes could find themselves with £15m in their pocket but they could also find themselves being sued for £200m

That'll never happen though

As I posted earlier in the year I think FINANCIALLY this is the best outcome for the club.

I think this decision could actually have the capacity to put Nantes out of business.

The reason being that if CAS viewed Emiliano as a Nantes player then:

a) We wouldnt have to pay the £15m fee but also
b) We would not be able to sue Nantes for Loss of Revenue

As it is

a) Yes we will have to pay £15m but its money we had put aside
b) But, and this is very important, we will now be able to sue Nantes for:
(i) £15m loss of asset
(ii) £200m (in region of) for Loss of Revenue as a result of being relegated and predominantly as a result of their Employee, Servant or Agent failing to protect an asset of CCFC which resulted in ongoing losses

There will be some who argue that how can we put our relegation down to ES death.

The case for CCFC will be that we were signing a player who, at the time of his death, was 2nd top goalscorer in the French League (Behind Mbappe) and his goals (for CCFC) would have taken us up the table - bearing in mind we only got relegated by 1 pt.

"On the balance of Probabilities" had we had the use of him I believe a Court would find that we would not have been relegated and thus not lost the revenue that we did.


Nantes could find themselves with £15m in their pocket but they could also find themselves being sued for £200m

I’m with you on this Paul. The law of agency is quite and strict. The Mckays were acting on behalf of Nantes and are liable for their agent’s actions. Plus, surely, case precedence has been set on balance of probabilities with the West Ham case.

As I posted earlier in the year I think FINANCIALLY this is the best outcome for the club.

I think this decision could actually have the capacity to put Nantes out of business.

The reason being that if CAS viewed Emiliano as a Nantes player then:

a) We wouldnt have to pay the £15m fee but also
b) We would not be able to sue Nantes for Loss of Revenue

As it is

a) Yes we will have to pay £15m but its money we had put aside
b) But, and this is very important, we will now be able to sue Nantes for:
(i) £15m loss of asset
(ii) £200m (in region of) for Loss of Revenue as a result of being relegated and predominantly as a result of their Employee, Servant or Agent failing to protect an asset of CCFC which resulted in ongoing losses

There will be some who argue that how can we put our relegation down to ES death.

The case for CCFC will be that we were signing a player who, at the time of his death, was 2nd top goalscorer in the French League (Behind Mbappe) and his goals (for CCFC) would have taken us up the table - bearing in mind we only got relegated by 1 pt.

"On the balance of Probabilities" had we had the use of him I believe a Court would find that we would not have been relegated and thus not lost the revenue that we did.


Nantes could find themselves with £15m in their pocket but they could also find themselves being sued for £200m

That'll never happen though

This has a long way to go and I know that Mehmet is aware of some of the points I have raised in the post above.

The fact is that Nantes are Vicariously Liable for the actions of their Employee, Servant or Agent and CCFC can recover from Nantes any losses that have been sustained.

There is of course the £15m asset (and I do hate putting it like that because someone died - but in legal terms ....)

And the club is entitled to pursue recovery of losses that result.

The following data is from Companies House

Brighton were the side immediately above us that year and would be a good example to use to determine what would have happened had we stayed up.

2018/19 Brighton finished 17th - Turnover £147.9m Cardiff finished 18th - Turnover £122.5m

2019/20 Brighton finished 15th - Turnover £123.2m Cardiff = EFL - Turnover £44.9m (Difference £78.3m)
(Brighton stayed in Premier)

2020/21 Brighton finished 16th - Turnover £139.7m Cardiff = EFL - Turnover £55.1m (Difference £84.6m)
(Brighton stayed in Premier)

In 2018/19 Brighton were a club similar to us. We were seperated by 1 place in the Premier League and by 2 points. The Premier League turnovers were similar. Similar stadium and quality of playing staff (given league position)

Brighton continued to play in the Premier League for the following 2 years (3 once this years accounts are in) bringing in a turnover of £123m and £139m whereas, as a result of relegation, our turnover dropped to £44m and £55m

Lets be clear here. We have lost a lot of money. Had we been a Premier League side our Turnover would have been £150m more than it was over 2 years and probably £200-250m over a 3 year period.

It's not my money, but for the sake of your humanity pay up. If we don't have a new striker this year then so be it. this is a really difficult event, No way should Emiliano have been on that fateful flight. Do the right thing CCFC. God bless you Emiliano rest in peace......

Judging by the responses on here some people are just not reading what is put or do not understand the legal aspects of things... so easy to say should pay up ect ect but it was never that simple at the time and even less so now.

CAS ordered Cardiff City to pay the transfer fee to FC Nantes and sentenced Cardiff to a historically high sum, in respect of procedural costs and arbitration costs.

Wow, I said this would cost Cardiff City a lot more than just the transfer fee.

As I posted earlier in the year I think FINANCIALLY this is the best outcome for the club.

I think this decision could actually have the capacity to put Nantes out of business.

The reason being that if CAS viewed Emiliano as a Nantes player then:

a) We wouldnt have to pay the £15m fee but also
b) We would not be able to sue Nantes for Loss of Revenue

As it is

a) Yes we will have to pay £15m but its money we had put aside
b) But, and this is very important, we will now be able to sue Nantes for:
(i) £15m loss of asset
(ii) £200m (in region of) for Loss of Revenue as a result of being relegated and predominantly as a result of their Employee, Servant or Agent failing to protect an asset of CCFC which resulted in ongoing losses

There will be some who argue that how can we put our relegation down to ES death.

The case for CCFC will be that we were signing a player who, at the time of his death, was 2nd top goalscorer in the French League (Behind Mbappe) and his goals (for CCFC) would have taken us up the table - bearing in mind we only got relegated by 1 pt.

"On the balance of Probabilities" had we had the use of him I believe a Court would find that we would not have been relegated and thus not lost the revenue that we did.


Nantes could find themselves with £15m in their pocket but they could also find themselves being sued for £200m

That'll never happen though

This has a long way to go and I know that Mehmet is aware of some of the points I have raised in the post above.

The fact is that Nantes are Vicariously Liable for the actions of their Employee, Servant or Agent and CCFC can recover from Nantes any losses that have been sustained.

There is of course the £15m asset (and I do hate putting it like that because someone died - but in legal terms ....)

And the club is entitled to pursue recovery of losses that result.

The following data is from Companies House

Brighton were the side immediately above us that year and would be a good example to use to determine what would have happened had we stayed up.

2018/19 Brighton finished 17th - Turnover £147.9m Cardiff finished 18th - Turnover £122.5m

2019/20 Brighton finished 15th - Turnover £123.2m Cardiff = EFL - Turnover £44.9m (Difference £78.3m)
(Brighton stayed in Premier)

2020/21 Brighton finished 16th - Turnover £139.7m Cardiff = EFL - Turnover £55.1m (Difference £84.6m)
(Brighton stayed in Premier)

In 2018/19 Brighton were a club similar to us. We were seperated by 1 place in the Premier League and by 2 points. The Premier League turnovers were similar. Similar stadium and quality of playing staff (given league position)

Brighton continued to play in the Premier League for the following 2 years (3 once this years accounts are in) bringing in a turnover of £123m and £139m whereas, as a result of relegation, our turnover dropped to £44m and £55m

Lets be clear here. We have lost a lot of money. Had we been a Premier League side our Turnover would have been £150m more than it was over 2 years and probably £200-250m over a 3 year period.

But surely no court will award damages on the assumption that sala playing games for us keeps us up . It’s a complete ‘what if’ scenario

These are just a couple of hundreds of City fans fuming:

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

CAS ordered Cardiff City to pay the transfer fee to FC Nantes and sentenced Cardiff to a historically high sum, in respect of procedural costs and arbitration costs.

Wow, I said this would cost Cardiff City a lot more than just the transfer fee.

You are right Annis but, in footballing terms, I do think we are only at half time.

It is entirely correct that we pay Nantes the £15m. He was always our player. We told the world he was our player - and on that basis we should pay the £15m

But the fact is that Nantes failed to protect our asset (£15m) and in addition the club will have lost over £200m in revenue - and, in my legal opinion, it is entirely reasonable of them to seek recovery of that in addition to the £15m which they now owe.

In respect of the £15m it is a case of we owe it. So we pay it & recover it back - leaving a zero balance - (Which is why I think the club might refuse to pay it).

Cardiff presented their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland and the hearing took place in early March. A decision has now been reached and their appeal has been dismissed and it has been confirmed the transfer was completed before the striker's death. They will now have to pay the first installment of that fee - around €6million.

But surely no court will award damages on the assumption that sala playing games for us keeps us up . It’s a complete ‘what if’ scenario


In answer.....

In the UK Civil Courts deal with matters "on the balance of probabilities" and not "beyond reasonable doubt" as in the criminal courts

So all CCFC would need to do is suggest to the Court that they have signed someone who was number 2 in the French League behind Mbappe and that if he was scoring so many goals there "on the balance of probabilities" he would have scored a few in the Premier League

Actually "on the balance of probabilities" he would probably score more than a few

If a Court deems that he would have scored enough goals ("on the balance of probabilities") to take us above Brighton then a loss of revenue claim could succeed.

The costs will run in to £millions and we have already appealed.

Suing the others, you can’t get anything if they’ve got nothing.

Why were we not insured??

Cardiff presented their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland and the hearing took place in early March. A decision has now been reached and their appeal has been dismissed and it has been confirmed the transfer was completed before the striker's death. They will now have to pay the first installment of that fee - around €6million.

There are 2 legal battles here

1) Was Emiliano our player and do we owe the money. Answer=Yes. We owe the £15m first and foremost

2) The second battle is a civil matter where if we can prove Nantes were vicariously liable then we can pursue a civil action against them to have the £15m repaid to us plus a potential loss of revenue


We should sue Nantes as being vicariously liable for the actions of their Employee Servant or Agent and Nantes Insurers will have to pick up the tab

But surely no court will award damages on the assumption that sala playing games for us keeps us up . It’s a complete ‘what if’ scenario


In answer.....

In the UK Civil Courts deal with matters "on the balance of probabilities" and not "beyond reasonable doubt" as in the criminal courts

So all CCFC would need to do is suggest to the Court that they have signed someone who was number 2 in the French League behind Mbappe and that if he was scoring so many goals there "on the balance of probabilities" he would have scored a few in the Premier League

Actually "on the balance of probabilities" he would probably score more than a few

If a Court deems that he would have scored enough goals ("on the balance of probabilities") to take us above Brighton then a loss of revenue claim could succeed.

Ok, thanks Paul , I was missing the legal intricacies. If we end up chasing an individual though it feels like a lost cause . It’s like someone suing me for £15m.

Cardiff can really only sue the pilot , the air company, the agents but they had virtually nothing . Our costs are over £3mill and Nantes costs we have to pay, plus interest, plus interest on the non payments which is massive. A deal should of been done. We have lost the appeal. Sala was registered as our player

Cardiff can really only sue the pilot , the air company, the agents but they had virtually nothing . Our costs are over £3mill and Nantes costs we have to pay, plus interest, plus interest on the non payments which is massive. A deal should of been done. We have lost the appeal. Sala was registered as our player

You are quite right. A deal should have been done. The lawyers will be making a fortune out of this.

Vicarious liability is a very important part of law. It means if someone is acting as your agent (i.e. Willie McKay is acting as an agent of Nantes) then Nantes become liable (or vicariously liable) for his actions. And, where an individual has been found guilty in a criminal action, they are deemed to be automatically liable in a civil action.

So if Willie McKay was acting as an agent for Nantes the fact that he has been found guilty means he is automatically liable in a civil action and if he was acting as an agent for Nantes then it is they (or their insurers) who will ultimately have to pay out

I would suspect CCFC issue an action as follows:

CCFC (Claimant) -v- W.Mckay (1st Defendant) Nantes FC (2nd Defendant) Mr Henderson (3rd Defendant) or something like that.

Cardiff presented their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland and the hearing took place in early March. A decision has now been reached and their appeal has been dismissed and it has been confirmed the transfer was completed before the striker's death. They will now have to pay the first installment of that fee - around €6million.

There are 2 legal battles here

1) Was Emiliano our player and do we owe the money. Answer=Yes. We owe the £15m first and foremost

2) The second battle is a civil matter where if we can prove Nantes were vicariously liable then we can pursue a civil action against them to have the £15m repaid to us plus a potential loss of revenue


We should sue Nantes as being vicariously liable for the actions of their Employee Servant or Agent and Nantes Insurers will have to pick up the tab

Can of worms

Cardiff presented their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland and the hearing took place in early March. A decision has now been reached and their appeal has been dismissed and it has been confirmed the transfer was completed before the striker's death. They will now have to pay the first installment of that fee - around €6million.

There are 2 legal battles here

1) Was Emiliano our player and do we owe the money. Answer=Yes. We owe the £15m first and foremost

2) The second battle is a civil matter where if we can prove Nantes were vicariously liable then we can pursue a civil action against them to have the £15m repaid to us plus a potential loss of revenue


We should sue Nantes as being vicariously liable for the actions of their Employee Servant or Agent and Nantes Insurers will have to pick up the tab

Can of worms

If we dont pursue it - We get nothing anyway

If we do pursue it - We could be awarded anything between £0 - £200m plus

Are the Sala Family litigating against those responsible for the illegal flight?

If not then the club should be very careful in doing so.

Especially as they may find it difficult to find FC Nantes liable as the deal has now been proved to have been completed.

Mackay's actions, after the fact, could be seen as his alone and nothing to do with FC Nantes.

There’s no way we can blame Nantes for loss of earnings. There’s no guarantee Sala would have kept us up or even scored a goal? Obviously I don’t know the laws but that seems ridiculously far fetched to me.

There’s no way we can blame Nantes for loss of earnings. There’s no guarantee Sala would have kept us up or even scored a goal? Obviously I don’t know the laws but that seems ridiculously far fetched to me.

Didn't
Sheff u sue a club for loss of premier league money over the signing of tevis who's goal kept a club up at their expense? Not same obviously but loss of income was proven due to tevis scoring goals to keep his club up.

Paul has explained it probably three times in this thread..

As I posted earlier in the year I think FINANCIALLY this is the best outcome for the club.

I think this decision could actually have the capacity to put Nantes out of business.

The reason being that if CAS viewed Emiliano as a Nantes player then:

a) We wouldnt have to pay the £15m fee but also
b) We would not be able to sue Nantes for Loss of Revenue

As it is

a) Yes we will have to pay £15m but its money we had put aside
b) But, and this is very important, we will now be able to sue Nantes for:
(i) £15m loss of asset
(ii) £200m (in region of) for Loss of Revenue as a result of being relegated and predominantly as a result of their Employee, Servant or Agent failing to protect an asset of CCFC which resulted in ongoing losses

There will be some who argue that how can we put our relegation down to ES death.

The case for CCFC will be that we were signing a player who, at the time of his death, was 2nd top goalscorer in the French League (Behind Mbappe) and his goals (for CCFC) would have taken us up the table - bearing in mind we only got relegated by 1 pt.

"On the balance of Probabilities" had we had the use of him I believe a Court would find that we would not have been relegated and thus not lost the revenue that we did.


Nantes could find themselves with £15m in their pocket but they could also find themselves being sued for £200m

That'll never happen though

This has a long way to go and I know that Mehmet is aware of some of the points I have raised in the post above.

The fact is that Nantes are Vicariously Liable for the actions of their Employee, Servant or Agent and CCFC can recover from Nantes any losses that have been sustained.

There is of course the £15m asset (and I do hate putting it like that because someone died - but in legal terms ....)

And the club is entitled to pursue recovery of losses that result.

The following data is from Companies House

Brighton were the side immediately above us that year and would be a good example to use to determine what would have happened had we stayed up.

2018/19 Brighton finished 17th - Turnover £147.9m Cardiff finished 18th - Turnover £122.5m

2019/20 Brighton finished 15th - Turnover £123.2m Cardiff = EFL - Turnover £44.9m (Difference £78.3m)
(Brighton stayed in Premier)

2020/21 Brighton finished 16th - Turnover £139.7m Cardiff = EFL - Turnover £55.1m (Difference £84.6m)
(Brighton stayed in Premier)

In 2018/19 Brighton were a club similar to us. We were seperated by 1 place in the Premier League and by 2 points. The Premier League turnovers were similar. Similar stadium and quality of playing staff (given league position)

Brighton continued to play in the Premier League for the following 2 years (3 once this years accounts are in) bringing in a turnover of £123m and £139m whereas, as a result of relegation, our turnover dropped to £44m and £55m

Lets be clear here. We have lost a lot of money. Had we been a Premier League side our Turnover would have been £150m more than it was over 2 years and probably £200-250m over a 3 year period.

It's a long interesting post , am I'm certainly not trying to discredit your point. But there's no way the figure you're quoting will ever be agreed in court, and even if it were they couldn't pay it anyway.

And even if we were successful, you're talking years and years down the road ( while we would have to pay up first as well as the insane lawyer fees)

As I posted earlier in the year I think FINANCIALLY this is the best outcome for the club.

I think this decision could actually have the capacity to put Nantes out of business.

The reason being that if CAS viewed Emiliano as a Nantes player then:

a) We wouldnt have to pay the £15m fee but also
b) We would not be able to sue Nantes for Loss of Revenue

As it is

a) Yes we will have to pay £15m but its money we had put aside
b) But, and this is very important, we will now be able to sue Nantes for:
(i) £15m loss of asset
(ii) £200m (in region of) for Loss of Revenue as a result of being relegated and predominantly as a result of their Employee, Servant or Agent failing to protect an asset of CCFC which resulted in ongoing losses

There will be some who argue that how can we put our relegation down to ES death.

The case for CCFC will be that we were signing a player who, at the time of his death, was 2nd top goalscorer in the French League (Behind Mbappe) and his goals (for CCFC) would have taken us up the table - bearing in mind we only got relegated by 1 pt.

"On the balance of Probabilities" had we had the use of him I believe a Court would find that we would not have been relegated and thus not lost the revenue that we did.


Nantes could find themselves with £15m in their pocket but they could also find themselves being sued for £200m

That'll never happen though

This has a long way to go and I know that Mehmet is aware of some of the points I have raised in the post above.

The fact is that Nantes are Vicariously Liable for the actions of their Employee, Servant or Agent and CCFC can recover from Nantes any losses that have been sustained.

There is of course the £15m asset (and I do hate putting it like that because someone died - but in legal terms ....)

And the club is entitled to pursue recovery of losses that result.

The following data is from Companies House

Brighton were the side immediately above us that year and would be a good example to use to determine what would have happened had we stayed up.

2018/19 Brighton finished 17th - Turnover £147.9m Cardiff finished 18th - Turnover £122.5m

2019/20 Brighton finished 15th - Turnover £123.2m Cardiff = EFL - Turnover £44.9m (Difference £78.3m)
(Brighton stayed in Premier)

2020/21 Brighton finished 16th - Turnover £139.7m Cardiff = EFL - Turnover £55.1m (Difference £84.6m)
(Brighton stayed in Premier)

In 2018/19 Brighton were a club similar to us. We were seperated by 1 place in the Premier League and by 2 points. The Premier League turnovers were similar. Similar stadium and quality of playing staff (given league position)

Brighton continued to play in the Premier League for the following 2 years (3 once this years accounts are in) bringing in a turnover of £123m and £139m whereas, as a result of relegation, our turnover dropped to £44m and £55m

Lets be clear here. We have lost a lot of money. Had we been a Premier League side our Turnover would have been £150m more than it was over 2 years and probably £200-250m over a 3 year period.

It's a long interesting post , am I'm certainly not trying to discredit your point. But there's no way the figure you're quoting will ever be agreed in court, and even if it were they couldn't pay it anyway.

And even if we were successful, you're talking years and years down the road ( while we would have to pay up first as well as the insane lawyer fees)

May not get a penny but the club can use the realistic amounts mentioned as template for their case? What is not in doubt is several entities are liable in some form for what happened so do we want club to say sod it dont want to recoup some of our losses or do we persue nante McKay ect for the money we lost? I know what I would do.

For ALL those having a pop at our club for not doing a deal should get facts right as Nantes were offered but refused.
☆ a deal over two men's lives ffs☆

Very quiet about NW on here.

Paul's legal advice in this has been valuable, the club revealed its potential direction of travel on the FIFA report and it's been confirmed today in the statement. A warning shot to Nantes that they will come off worse from a separate civil case where we will recover the transfer fee, costs and loss of earnings based on Vicarious responsibility and balance of probabilities, as Nantes are ultimately responsible for the tragedy.

It's complex though. What I don't understand is this. If we do have to pay the transfer fee, why isn't this from insurance as opposed from our own funds, which have been ringfenced for this? That's what insurance is for. So if we were sufficiently insured, why did we ringfence funds?

As said it is complex and when it is, always follow the money, it always leads to the truth. And the only truth I see here is that we can potentially sue Nantes for a lot of money as ultimately, it was their neglect that caused the crash.

Paul's legal advice in this has been valuable, the club revealed its potential direction of travel on the FIFA report and it's been confirmed today in the statement. A warning shot to Nantes that they will come off worse from a separate civil case where we will recover the transfer fee, costs and loss of earnings based on Vicarious responsibility and balance of probabilities, as Nantes are ultimately responsible for the tragedy.

It's complex though. What I don't understand is this. If we do have to pay the transfer fee, why isn't this from insurance as opposed from our own funds, which have been ringfenced for this? That's what insurance is for. So if we were sufficiently insured, why did we ringfence funds?

As said it is complex and when it is, always follow the money, it always leads to the truth. And the only truth I see here is that we can potentially sue Nantes for a lot of money as ultimately, it was their neglect that caused the crash.

Perhaps insurance couldn't be done until club recieved paper work back from League ? Remember this started because documents went back to premier league to be signed off and city didn't get them back before the accident.... football insurance is not like any other insurance as there must be several aspects of signing that needs insurance... what is clear is insurance couldn't
be automatically envoked
Otherwise we wouldn't be in this situation.