CARDIFF CITY AND NANTES GIVEN TRANSFER FEE DEADLINE

I’m not misinformed either. I don’t believe that is the reason the deal is being backed out of, had he have turned up when he should have there would not be a problem and there would be nobody from CCFC claiming he wasn’t their player. Nobody. That line is now only being followed after he dies commuting to your place of work.

I am not trying to make out anything. It is my absolute belief that most clubs would have paid Nantes by now, in fact I am struggling to think of one that wouldn’t have. I would be utterly shocked if that wasn’t the case.

more idiotic drivel

Which part exactly? And why?

Remember my theory about exposing rubbish.....

seeing as you've turned the thread into it being about YOU I don't suppose it is off topic.
its just your user name put me in mind of the Lott family. my Aunt lived with some bloke up there for a few years when I was a kid , we used to visit about once a month .

Where do you believe I have turned it about me? That's some weird powers of deduction you have there.

I was asked about me, I answered.

what weird powers of deduction ?

The part where you seem to suggest that it was me that started talking about me.

Read the thread.

You’ve been called out on it by a few people in this thread. So I am with the majority of people who think you’re just using the topic to have go at the club. By your logic that makes me automatically correct. It has nothing to do with me reading something I don’t want to face, I can’t wait for it to be put to bed to be honest, regardless of the outcome.

Regarding the sala case itself, if you have read anything about it you’d know that it was greedy agents and the owner of Nantes that manufactured and forced his transfer and organised that flight. Cardiff are not a club who can afford to privately fly players to run personal errands, he was offered a commercial flight and he declined. In hindsight I bet Cardiff wish they had arranged a private flight or Warnock had insisted he travelled with the team to Newcastle, rather letting him go back to France to say his goodbyes.if they had he would still be here, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. And if you believe the words of the agent that fabricated interest from other clubs to force the transfer for personal gain, who is currently in and out of court for fraud and who has been banned from the CCS for threatening to kill staff then you are extremely naive and shows you are willing to ignore FACTS because they go against your own agenda.

In any other scenario sala would have made it across the channel and the paperwork would have been finalised/corrected and there would have been no issues. Which will be the case for any other future transfers. Paperwork will be completed (probably more thoroughly) and Cardiff will pay the money that is owed. There are not many situations that a club can not honour a legally binding contract. But this is a legal dispute, most probably an insurance dispute, between Cardiff, Nantes and the people who organised the flight, once it is concluded Cardiff will pay any money they owe; which they’ve said from day 1. Whether you think that is moral or not, it’s just another meaningless opinion. I doubt Swansea or any other club would pay the £15mill if they weren’t legally obliged to just because it is deemed the moral thing to do.

You are just being silly now. Nobody is “calling me out” about anything, we have a group of Cardiff fans not wanting to face the reality by sticking their fingers in their ears saying “la la la la” and pretending I’m winding them up as opposed to holding a majority and common sense opinion. You are taking a small select group of people with a vested interest as opposed to taking a wider spectrum, so no, that’s not my logic at all.

I am fully aware of the Sala transfer. The agents manufacturing interest to secure a move is common practice, I would imagine that has happened with many of our transfers both in and out. Yet that is only now being cited as a deal breaker because it suits. An agent arranging a flight has nothing to do with anything, you still need to pay Nantes. If you were unwilling to spend £2000 for a flight for a £15m player then that’s your own lookout and run the risk of him making his own travel arrangements.

As I said, I don’t think this situation would have arisen with many, or indeed any, other club.

An agent arranging the flight has everything to do with it as it is clear negligence from a third party and just further complicates the case as who is liable to pay the transfer. Why should a club pay millions of pounds due to the negligence of someone else? Especially when they could potentially not be legally obliged to do so. The issues with the contract are clearly important enough for them to holdup in court, if they weren't it would have been thrown out already and we would have paid the money. That is not reneging on the contract at all, if it is not correctly completed then it is simply not complete and therefore not legally binding. No doubt the issues would have been quickly resolved if he was still alive but the club never got the opportunity to do so. No insurance company will payout on something that the insurance doesn't legally cover. Personally, I think a flight should have been arranged for him but that was the clubs financial decision not to and like I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. No one could have foreseen what happened as it is not common for planes carrying footballers to crash into the sea. It was a personal trip he was making and without sounding disrespectful he was a grown man and perfectly capable of arranging his own transport given the money footballers make.

We will never know, I hope anyway, how another club would handle this situation as a footballer dying before the paperwork is 100% completed doesn't happen very often. It is easy to sit on your high horse and say the club should do this or that, but realistically if he was technically a Cardiff City player he would have been covered by the clubs insurance and the transfer would have been covered already. I am pretty sure the club would be perfectly happy letting insurance they pay for cover it, but as he was technically not a registered Cardiff City player, he was not covered.

This has gone off topic anyway and I have spent far too much of my time arguing with someone with nothing better to do with his life than sit on a rivals forum. My original points still stand, you used this topic to have a dig at the club and any transfer difficulties the club has in the future will not be because of the insurance dispute between Cardiff and Nantes.

Because you bought the player off Nantes, not the agent. You pay Nantes and sue the agent if that is who you are blaming. If there is sufficient evidence of blame then you will win the case and be compensated by the agency.

You have spoken about this in great depth yet learned nothing. You are still using two peoples deaths to point score and stop anyone having an opinion you don’t want to face, even if it is the most logical one.

seeing as you've turned the thread into it being about YOU I don't suppose it is off topic.
its just your user name put me in mind of the Lott family. my Aunt lived with some bloke up there for a few years when I was a kid , we used to visit about once a month .

Where do you believe I have turned it about me? That's some weird powers of deduction you have there.

I was asked about me, I answered.

what weird powers of deduction ?

The part where you seem to suggest that it was me that started talking about me.

Read the thread.

so you do not talk about yourself
and your not related to th Lotts from St Thomas { Daffydd, Ieuan, Non etc }...

seeing as you've turned the thread into it being about YOU I don't suppose it is off topic.
its just your user name put me in mind of the Lott family. my Aunt lived with some bloke up there for a few years when I was a kid , we used to visit about once a month .

Where do you believe I have turned it about me? That's some weird powers of deduction you have there.

I was asked about me, I answered.

what weird powers of deduction ?

The part where you seem to suggest that it was me that started talking about me.

Read the thread.

so you do not talk about yourself
and your not related to th Lotts from St Thomas { Daffydd, Ieuan, Non etc }...

If the topic is about me then I will in all likelihood reply. But I am never the one to start talking about myself. Usually a tactic by people who cannot respond to the excellent points I make, I thought that was obvious?

And no I’m not.

I’m not misinformed either. I don’t believe that is the reason the deal is being backed out of, had he have turned up when he should have there would not be a problem and there would be nobody from CCFC claiming he wasn’t their player. Nobody. That line is now only being followed after he dies commuting to your place of work.

I am not trying to make out anything. It is my absolute belief that most clubs would have paid Nantes by now, in fact I am struggling to think of one that wouldn’t have. I would be utterly shocked if that wasn’t the case.

more idiotic drivel

Which part exactly? And why?

Remember my theory about exposing rubbish.....

no i dont remember that at all, probably more nonsense about how your the most sensible and most correct person on this board/planet.


specifically, the last part, although my point could apply to any of the words you type. your claim about how other clubs would act in a situation that is entirely unique shows your agenda is to just be an argumentitive little tw*t and isnt based on anything credible whatsoever.

no i dont remember that at all, probably more nonsense about how your the most sensible and most correct person on this board/planet.


specifically, the last part, although my point could apply to any of the words you type. your claim about how other clubs would act in a situation that is entirely unique shows your agenda is to just be an argumentitive little tw*t and isnt based on anything credible whatsoever.

Well, let me remind you. My point I made to you was this it is very easy to spot someone talking rubbish as even gentle pressing of the point and they fold like a cheap suit. You have recently become very guilty of this, as no doubt you are aware.

So you think the last part is rubbish? Regarding most clubs paying in that situation by the looks of it. So, can you substantiate that with any sort of common sense then? I think it’s pretty common sense that you refusing to pay a club for their best player is not going to go without consequences in future transfers.

I have no agenda, I have nothing against Cardiff at all. It’s very ironic that you accuse me of being argumentative for holding a sensible opinion yet your entire existence on this forum seems to have now boiled down to running around it making as many barbed pointless comments to as many people as you can.

no i dont remember that at all, probably more nonsense about how your the most sensible and most correct person on this board/planet.


specifically, the last part, although my point could apply to any of the words you type. your claim about how other clubs would act in a situation that is entirely unique shows your agenda is to just be an argumentitive little tw*t and isnt based on anything credible whatsoever.

Well, let me remind you. My point I made to you was this it is very easy to spot someone talking rubbish as even gentle pressing of the point and they fold like a cheap suit. You have recently become very guilty of this, as no doubt you are aware.

So you think the last part is rubbish? Regarding most clubs paying in that situation by the looks of it. So, can you substantiate that with any sort of common sense then? I think it’s pretty common sense that you refusing to pay a club for their best player is not going to go without consequences in future transfers.

I have no agenda, I have nothing against Cardiff at all. It’s very ironic that you accuse me of being argumentative for holding a sensible opinion yet your entire existence on this forum seems to have now boiled down to running around it making as many barbed pointless comments to as many people as you can.

you are the one that made the claim and you cant back it up with anything as its such a unique situation, your only reason for saying it is to be deliberately arguementative.

I think its common sense to assume any other club would act in the exact same way as we have of course, because its the right approach given the circumstances, but as this has never happened before, its impossible to say

you are the one that made the claim and you cant back it up with anything as its such a unique situation, your only reason for saying it is to be deliberately arguementative.

I think its common sense to assume any other club would act in the exact same way as we have of course, because its the right approach given the circumstances, but as this has never happened before, its impossible to say

It isn’t a claim, it’s common sense. If you look for loopholes to back out of deals that don’t go your way, then people will be wary of doing business with you and may want to seek certain assurances that you aren’t going to start blaming agents and backing out of deals.

Typing something you don’t like is not argumentative, to be argumentative I would need to be arguing. The only person here showing any signs of arguing is you. Again, you don’t seem to note the irony laced in many of your posts.

It is not the correct course of action. You bought a player and refused to pay on a technicality. No matter how you want to dress it up. Many of your own fans also hold this opinion and are embarrassed by the way the club have approached it. But you can pretend it’s just my opinion to make everyone feel bad... if that makes it easier for you to swallow.

you are the one that made the claim and you cant back it up with anything as its such a unique situation, your only reason for saying it is to be deliberately arguementative.

I think its common sense to assume any other club would act in the exact same way as we have of course, because its the right approach given the circumstances, but as this has never happened before, its impossible to say

It isn’t a claim, it’s common sense. If you look for loopholes to back out of deals that don’t go your way, then people will be wary of doing business with you and may want to seek certain assurances that you aren’t going to start blaming agents and backing out of deals.

Typing something you don’t like is not argumentative, to be argumentative I would need to be arguing. The only person here showing any signs of arguing is you. Again, you don’t seem to note the irony laced in many of your posts.

It is not the correct course of action. You bought a player and refused to pay on a technicality. No matter how you want to dress it up. Many of your own fans also hold this opinion and are embarrassed by the way the club have approached it. But you can pretend it’s just my opinion to make everyone feel bad... if that makes it easier for you to swallow.

Stopped reading at "loophole". if you dont know the difference between a loophole in a contract, and that contract being fundamentally null and void then how can you preach about common sense.

You stopped reading after you realised I was correct.

I have explained the contract situation and I have also explained the term intent which supersedes technicalities in contract law. There is little doubt all parties were acting with intent, the examples are endless with this case.

Unfortunately if you are going down that route your club shot itself in the foot after announcing the player, benefitting commercially and various sound bites from both the chairman and manager.

You stopped reading after you realised I was correct.

I have explained the contract situation and I have also explained the term intent which supersedes technicalities in contract law. There is little doubt all parties were acting with intent, the examples are endless with this case.

Unfortunately if you are going down that route your club shot itself in the foot after announcing the player, benefitting commercially and various sound bites from both the chairman and manager.

nah i stopped reading after i realised how your talking like an expert on issues you know little about

Then you are only kidding yourself. But you seem happy enough doing that.

You’ve been called out on it by a few people in this thread. So I am with the majority of people who think you’re just using the topic to have go at the club. By your logic that makes me automatically correct. It has nothing to do with me reading something I don’t want to face, I can’t wait for it to be put to bed to be honest, regardless of the outcome.

Regarding the sala case itself, if you have read anything about it you’d know that it was greedy agents and the owner of Nantes that manufactured and forced his transfer and organised that flight. Cardiff are not a club who can afford to privately fly players to run personal errands, he was offered a commercial flight and he declined. In hindsight I bet Cardiff wish they had arranged a private flight or Warnock had insisted he travelled with the team to Newcastle, rather letting him go back to France to say his goodbyes.if they had he would still be here, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. And if you believe the words of the agent that fabricated interest from other clubs to force the transfer for personal gain, who is currently in and out of court for fraud and who has been banned from the CCS for threatening to kill staff then you are extremely naive and shows you are willing to ignore FACTS because they go against your own agenda.

In any other scenario sala would have made it across the channel and the paperwork would have been finalised/corrected and there would have been no issues. Which will be the case for any other future transfers. Paperwork will be completed (probably more thoroughly) and Cardiff will pay the money that is owed. There are not many situations that a club can not honour a legally binding contract. But this is a legal dispute, most probably an insurance dispute, between Cardiff, Nantes and the people who organised the flight, once it is concluded Cardiff will pay any money they owe; which they’ve said from day 1. Whether you think that is moral or not, it’s just another meaningless opinion. I doubt Swansea or any other club would pay the £15mill if they weren’t legally obliged to just because it is deemed the moral thing to do.

You are just being silly now. Nobody is “calling me out” about anything, we have a group of Cardiff fans not wanting to face the reality by sticking their fingers in their ears saying “la la la la” and pretending I’m winding them up as opposed to holding a majority and common sense opinion. You are taking a small select group of people with a vested interest as opposed to taking a wider spectrum, so no, that’s not my logic at all.

I am fully aware of the Sala transfer. The agents manufacturing interest to secure a move is common practice, I would imagine that has happened with many of our transfers both in and out. Yet that is only now being cited as a deal breaker because it suits. An agent arranging a flight has nothing to do with anything, you still need to pay Nantes. If you were unwilling to spend £2000 for a flight for a £15m player then that’s your own lookout and run the risk of him making his own travel arrangements.

As I said, I don’t think this situation would have arisen with many, or indeed any, other club.

An agent arranging the flight has everything to do with it as it is clear negligence from a third party and just further complicates the case as who is liable to pay the transfer. Why should a club pay millions of pounds due to the negligence of someone else? Especially when they could potentially not be legally obliged to do so. The issues with the contract are clearly important enough for them to holdup in court, if they weren't it would have been thrown out already and we would have paid the money. That is not reneging on the contract at all, if it is not correctly completed then it is simply not complete and therefore not legally binding. No doubt the issues would have been quickly resolved if he was still alive but the club never got the opportunity to do so. No insurance company will payout on something that the insurance doesn't legally cover. Personally, I think a flight should have been arranged for him but that was the clubs financial decision not to and like I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. No one could have foreseen what happened as it is not common for planes carrying footballers to crash into the sea. It was a personal trip he was making and without sounding disrespectful he was a grown man and perfectly capable of arranging his own transport given the money footballers make.

We will never know, I hope anyway, how another club would handle this situation as a footballer dying before the paperwork is 100% completed doesn't happen very often. It is easy to sit on your high horse and say the club should do this or that, but realistically if he was technically a Cardiff City player he would have been covered by the clubs insurance and the transfer would have been covered already. I am pretty sure the club would be perfectly happy letting insurance they pay for cover it, but as he was technically not a registered Cardiff City player, he was not covered.

This has gone off topic anyway and I have spent far too much of my time arguing with someone with nothing better to do with his life than sit on a rivals forum. My original points still stand, you used this topic to have a dig at the club and any transfer difficulties the club has in the future will not be because of the insurance dispute between Cardiff and Nantes.

Because you bought the player off Nantes, not the agent. You pay Nantes and sue the agent if that is who you are blaming. If there is sufficient evidence of blame then you will win the case and be compensated by the agency.

You have spoken about this in great depth yet learned nothing. You are still using two peoples deaths to point score and stop anyone having an opinion you don’t want to face, even if it is the most logical one.

I don’t need to point score, you come across as a complete bellend all by yourself. That doesn’t need to be pointed out by me. I’m not using the 2 deaths to do anything, but it’s quite hard to discuss something where 2 people died without referencing it. Your entire argument is based on your opinion that we will struggle to sign players because clubs will demand all transfer costs upfront because of the ongoing legal case and that there is a risk we will refuse to pay transfers in the future ‘if they don’t work out’. It’s not like we are trying to back out of a signing because we bought a Striker who hasn’t scored as many goals as we’d have liked. Sala died before he completed the contract. That is not me point scoring and that is not an opinion, it is a fact. A fact in an extremely unique case that will never happen again.

So you think either club aren't trying to sue the agents/owners of the plane? The Ownership of the aircraft is currently protected by the US firm that looks after the plane. It’s Hard to sue someone when you don’t know who they are.

You stopped reading after you realised I was correct.

I have explained the contract situation and I have also explained the term intent which supersedes technicalities in contract law. There is little doubt all parties were acting with intent, the examples are endless with this case.

Unfortunately if you are going down that route your club shot itself in the foot after announcing the player, benefitting commercially and various sound bites from both the chairman and manager.

you are a very naïve individual if you do not realise 2 exact but sperate cases can be heard on the same day by 2 separate courts with 2 different results.. I doubt any judge, lawyer, clerk or anyone that's even seen an advert for Rumpole on TV let alone a whole episode does not know this..its why court cases exist surely ?.. you talk about the law as if its a logarithm book with a sliding scale of results.
but anyway...Nantes insisted certain conditions be met before the transfer was deemed complete. Nantes did , we obviously agreed and although its almost certain these conditions would have been met , hence the photo shoots, sound bites etc...…. they had not been completed..

I’m sorry to say this, and I am as impartial as they come... but the fact you still haven’t paid is horrendous. You bought him, announced him and was about to take part in training. Then the hunt for technicalities started, which I’m sure could be found in most transfers at that stage if you look hard enough. The transfer should have been honoured and then looked at a legal route if you wanted to take it up with owner of plane etc. I fear this won’t look good for you.

Showing yourself up as just an antagonistic dickhead really.

Sadly I feel this board is coming to the end of its life unless something is done about this troll. Personally I agree him but its ruining thread after thread. He seems to have beaten the powers that be on this board.

unfortunately the threads he gets embroiled in have good viewing figures.

Nah I'm ok. You'll just have to come to terms with being wrong by yourself

The greatest technique that exposes someone talking rubbish is to simply press them slightly on it.

As predicted, any early resistance falls like a cheap suit.

If you are going to use analogies, get them right (noticed your dig at a poster about him spelling correctly ) FALLS like a cheap suit,

I don’t need to point score, you come across as a complete bellend all by yourself. That doesn’t need to be pointed out by me. I’m not using the 2 deaths to do anything, but it’s quite hard to discuss something where 2 people died without referencing it. Your entire argument is based on your opinion that we will struggle to sign players because clubs will demand all transfer costs upfront because of the ongoing legal case and that there is a risk we will refuse to pay transfers in the future ‘if they don’t work out’. It’s not like we are trying to back out of a signing because we bought a Striker who hasn’t scored as many goals as we’d have liked. Sala died before he completed the contract. That is not me point scoring and that is not an opinion, it is a fact. A fact in an extremely unique case that will never happen again.

So you think either club aren't trying to sue the agents/owners of the plane? The Ownership of the aircraft is currently protected by the US firm that looks after the plane. It’s Hard to sue someone when you don’t know who they are.

Whether you feel you need to pointscore is irrelevant, it’s the clear fact you are trying to is what I am pointing out. You have an inability to discuss this without either telling people that hold an opinion that you don’t like that they are not allowed to have that opinion, failing that you abuse them.

No it is not my whole point at all. My whole point is that you should have paid Nantes. The side issue what that an upshot of that will undoubtedly see you suffer in the transfer market. More so when in the PL and fees are incredibly high, but as I said, I can’t imagine too many clubs falling over themselves to let you pay on the never never. This may make you skip your first targets and have to go in to others until you find a club willing to play on your terms.

Doesn’t matter if you are struggling to sue the plane owners. That’s not Nantes fault, you owe them regardless. You claim off who you believe is liable after settling the bill.

You stopped reading after you realised I was correct.

I have explained the contract situation and I have also explained the term intent which supersedes technicalities in contract law. There is little doubt all parties were acting with intent, the examples are endless with this case.

Unfortunately if you are going down that route your club shot itself in the foot after announcing the player, benefitting commercially and various sound bites from both the chairman and manager.

you are a very naïve individual if you do not realise 2 exact but sperate cases can be heard on the same day by 2 separate courts with 2 different results.. I doubt any judge, lawyer, clerk or anyone that's even seen an advert for Rumpole on TV let alone a whole episode does not know this..its why court cases exist surely ?.. you talk about the law as if its a logarithm book with a sliding scale of results.
but anyway...Nantes insisted certain conditions be met before the transfer was deemed complete. Nantes did , we obviously agreed and although its almost certain these conditions would have been met , hence the photo shoots, sound bites etc...…. they had not been completed..

No, company law is pretty straight forward, yes it still needs to be remedied by a panel and judge, but so does a kidder case - but murder is still murder. What you are saying is if it goes there then you still may have a chance, which is quite different to claiming innocence.

Incorrect. The loophole and technicality that you are trying to exploit is that Sala asked for his signing on fee upfront, upon asking the FA they said it needs to be over the length of his contract. So before Sala could sign an amendment, he died. The error was that Cardiff had agreed to an irregular payment and drew up a contract that contained an agreement that went against PL regulations. So the hitch was in fact created by Cardiff and is certainly a loophole and not a null and void contract, in this scenario then intent will be seeked.

unfortunately the threads he gets embroiled in have good viewing figures.

Why is that unfortunate?

People flock to threads I’m in because I make good points and can defend them with ease. That’s the whole point of a good thriving forum.

Would you rather people all agree, talking nonsense and abusing each other?

If you are going to use analogies, get them right (noticed your dig at a poster about him spelling correctly ) FALLS like a cheap suit,

I’m embarrassed for you. When you try and step up to the plate and be brave - make sure you have read the manual.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.urb ... t&amp=true

“folded like a cheap suit”
To give in on something you felt so strongly about only a moment ago.

I don’t need to point score, you come across as a complete bellend all by yourself. That doesn’t need to be pointed out by me. I’m not using the 2 deaths to do anything, but it’s quite hard to discuss something where 2 people died without referencing it. Your entire argument is based on your opinion that we will struggle to sign players because clubs will demand all transfer costs upfront because of the ongoing legal case and that there is a risk we will refuse to pay transfers in the future ‘if they don’t work out’. It’s not like we are trying to back out of a signing because we bought a Striker who hasn’t scored as many goals as we’d have liked. Sala died before he completed the contract. That is not me point scoring and that is not an opinion, it is a fact. A fact in an extremely unique case that will never happen again.

So you think either club aren't trying to sue the agents/owners of the plane? The Ownership of the aircraft is currently protected by the US firm that looks after the plane. It’s Hard to sue someone when you don’t know who they are.

Whether you feel you need to pointscore is irrelevant, it’s the clear fact you are trying to is what I am pointing out. You have an inability to discuss this without either telling people that hold an opinion that you don’t like that they are not allowed to have that opinion, failing that you abuse them.

No it is not my whole point at all. My whole point is that you should have paid Nantes. The side issue what that an upshot of that will undoubtedly see you suffer in the transfer market. More so when in the PL and fees are incredibly high, but as I said, I can’t imagine too many clubs falling over themselves to let you pay on the never never. This may make you skip your first targets and have to go in to others until you find a club willing to play on your terms.

Doesn’t matter if you are struggling to sue the plane owners. That’s not Nantes fault, you owe them regardless. You claim off who you believe is liable after settling the bill.

You do realise that everything you say on here that you think puts you above everyone on this forum, you actually do yourself don’t you? Pretty ironic really. I only need to change a few words of your first paragraph and it basically describes how you come across on here and particularly on this thread...

Whether you feel the need to deny that you used this topic to have a dig at the club is irrelevant, it’s a clear fact you did which is what I pointed out. You have the inability to discuss a topic without telling people who have a different opinion to you that they are wrong because your opinion ‘is always formed on solid ground, firm footing and laced with reason and common sense’ Bellend.

Let me guess you’re not having a dig at the club and everything you say is correct because....

You do realise that everything you say on here that you think puts you above everyone on this forum, you actually do yourself don’t you? Pretty ironic really. I only need to change a few words of your first paragraph and it basically describes how you come across on here and particularly on this thread...

Whether you feel the need to deny that you used this topic to have a dig at the club is irrelevant, it’s a clear fact you did which is what I pointed out. You have the inability to discuss a topic without telling people who have a different opinion to you that they are wrong because your opinion ‘is always formed on solid ground, firm footing and laced with reason and common sense’ Bellend.

Let me guess you’re not having a dig at the club and everything you say is correct because....

I don't even know what that means.

It seems the sticking point with us is that you see anything you don't like as ''a dig'', and thus it must be the only thought behind the post. Where as I am aware that is is balanced critique, I have no problem praising the club and have done previously.

But if you expect me to only tell you what you want to hear then you are mistaken.

You stopped reading after you realised I was correct.

I have explained the contract situation and I have also explained the term intent which supersedes technicalities in contract law. There is little doubt all parties were acting with intent, the examples are endless with this case.

Unfortunately if you are going down that route your club shot itself in the foot after announcing the player, benefitting commercially and various sound bites from both the chairman and manager.

you are a very naïve individual if you do not realise 2 exact but sperate cases can be heard on the same day by 2 separate courts with 2 different results.. I doubt any judge, lawyer, clerk or anyone that's even seen an advert for Rumpole on TV let alone a whole episode does not know this..its why court cases exist surely ?.. you talk about the law as if its a logarithm book with a sliding scale of results.
but anyway...Nantes insisted certain conditions be met before the transfer was deemed complete. Nantes did , we obviously agreed and although its almost certain these conditions would have been met , hence the photo shoots, sound bites etc...…. they had not been completed..

No, company law is pretty straight forward, yes it still needs to be remedied by a panel and judge, but so does a kidder case - but murder is still murder. What you are saying is if it goes there then you still may have a chance, which is quite different to claiming innocence.

Incorrect. The loophole and technicality that you are trying to exploit is that Sala asked for his signing on fee upfront, upon asking the FA they said it needs to be over the length of his contract. So before Sala could sign an amendment, he died. The error was that Cardiff had agreed to an irregular payment and drew up a contract that contained an agreement that went against PL regulations. So the hitch was in fact created by Cardiff and is certainly a loophole and not a null and void contract, in this scenario then intent will be seeked.

if it was pretty straight forward. one or more of the following would already have happened..we would have paid..Nantes would have give up...FIFA would have sorted it months ago..and at least one person would be in jail..
as for this loophole { loophole ..a word you had earlier jumped on another poster for using ???? } does it matter who created the hold up in signing..he had not signed.. morally I think we owe the money, legally not so sure and if straight forward nobody would be paying law firms small fortunes, and I am pretty sure your not the naive nit wit you are making out and know this.

unfortunately the threads he gets embroiled in have good viewing figures.

Why is that unfortunate?

People flock to threads I’m in because I make good points and can defend them with ease. That’s the whole point of a good thriving forum.

Would you rather people all agree, talking nonsense and abusing each other?

option 2.

Then you are in the wrong place if you want everyone to agree. This is a football forum.

Fair play to these jacks, they have you all biting.

Ignore them is best.

If you are going to use analogies, get them right (noticed your dig at a poster about him spelling correctly ) FALLS like a cheap suit,

I’m embarrassed for you. When you try and step up to the plate and be brave - make sure you have read the manual.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.urb ... t&amp=true

“folded like a cheap suit”
To give in on something you felt so strongly about only a moment ago.

oh dear... reading not a strong point of yours either

Then you are in the wrong place if you want everyone to agree. This is a football forum.

agreeing, talking nonsense and abusing each other was option 2..not just the agreeing with each other...
too much sangria me thinks

If you are going to use analogies, get them right (noticed your dig at a poster about him spelling correctly ) FALLS like a cheap suit,

I’m embarrassed for you. When you try and step up to the plate and be brave - make sure you have read the manual.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.urb ... t&amp=true

“folded like a cheap suit”
To give in on something you felt so strongly about only a moment ago.

oh dear... reading not a strong point of yours either

Or yours it seems. Read it again.