Here We go again:Cardiff ready to sue Nantes for up to £200m

Surely if a player passes away in an accident like sala did .
The club have the relevant insurance in place after all its 15 million we are taking about.
There apparently was a miss understanding at the club they thought as soon as a player was signed the insurance was automatically triggered.
It wasn't
So who ever is to blame for that cardiff city or the insurance company one of them is at fault.

How on earth is it nantes fault ?
Why does Tan expect to get anything from Nantes?

I do understand its an insane amount of money thats gone but Sala has gone aswell this shouldn't be dragged out its disgusting really this.

Tan wants his money back i totally agree with him .
The only way i see a payment being reimbursed is through the insurance company or from the company that flew him illegally over the channel.

Its easy for me to say this but Tan should of payed the money and then sued for damages financially.
That way ccfc could of trades as normal.

A player has lost his life its such a tragedy and our club since has been left in ruin.

The mess needs sorting asap now or we will be relegated at some point you cant keep flirting with relegation each season and expect to stay in this league.

Something needs to change so everyone can move forward.
The club have to recognise this and pull there finger out and find a solution or its another season of crap football and scraping at the bottom.

McKays arranged the illegal flight , they were nantes selling agent in this transfer, its pretty clear nantes will end up implicated in a civil case ,

https://m.allfootballapp/com/news/EPL/P ... ay/1204434 nice selling agent hmmmmmm

ok sorry for the late input but just had a busy few days.

Anyway for clarification I refer to my previous article on this

https://cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=227317

As a pre-cursor we need to forget about whether Sala was insured or not. For purposes of this civil action it is not relevant - just as, if someone has car insurance, they do not have to use that insurance to pursue a claim.

We also need to forget the argument about ownership. Again it is not relevant to the civil action. For the past few years there has been various court actions to determine whether ES was our player or not. Undoubtedly he was and, whilst it remains my view that we could have paid the £15m earlier, we chose not to. But we do now have a final decision - and that destroys one possible defence for Nantes.

So the boring bit.......

Negligence is a tort and actionable in the Civil Courts. Essentially negligence is typically the failure to act with due care causing harm to someone else and that harm can include Personal Injury, Damage to Property or Economic Loss.

Proving negligence is a bit like joining dots on a dot-to-dot page and if you can connect all the dots then you have proven negligence


Dot 1 - The Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant.

Dot 2 - The Defendant breached that duty of care

Dot 3 - The breach of that duty caused harm (or economical harm) to the Claimant

Dot 4 - The harm was not remote

and remember the Claimant is CCFC not ES

Dot 1 - The Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant

For me this is the biggest hurdle and I suspect we are probably suing the following:
Defendant (1) - ("D1") - Mr Ibbotsen ("Deceased")
Defendant (2) - ("D2") - Mr Henderson
Defendant (3) - ("D3") - Mr McKay
Defendant (4) - ("D4") - Nantes FC (as being vicarously liable for the actions of D3 and/or D2 and/or D1

To be Vicarously Liable in the UK a person needs to engage in an activity which may be regarded as what they would often do.

So from what I have read to date I understand that, even though he was bankrupt, Mr McKay (D3) often used to arrange travel for players in connection as an agent for Nantes FC (D4). It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements. It therefore follows that there is a strong argument that ("D4") is Vicariously Liable for the actions of ("D3").

If there are any financial connections between D4 and D3 then this makes the case even stronger - but in my eyes its strong nonetheless.

So the question here is did D1, D2, D3 and D4 each have a duty of care to ensure that an asset of CCFC reached the UK safely and undoubtedly I believe that they each held such a duty. In my eyes none of them can say they didnt have a duty of care.

So the first dot is ticked and we move to the second.

Dot 2 - The Defendant breached that duty of care to the Claimant

In UK law if a person is found guilty in criminal proceedings then they are also found liable (or negligent) in Civil Proceedings.

Therefore D3 is automatically in breach of his duty of care to the Claimant but, given the state of the plane, arguably both D1 and D2 are equally negligent. As D4 (Nantes) are vicarously liable for the actions of Mr McKay they are (unfortunately for them) also negligent. Some call it negligent by association.

So the first and second dots are ticked and we move to the third.

Dot 3 - The breach of that duty caused harm (or economic harm) to the Claimant

Again this will be a disputed point, at any potential trial, but it is one which I believe will be succesful quite easily because of the nature of the player being signed.

At the time of his death ES was at the top of the French Goalscoring charts alongside players such as Mbappe. We were relegated by one point behind Brighton.

Civil Courts are decided on the balance of probabilities and therefore, with half a season to go, is it likely that ES would have scored enough goals to keep us in the Premier League?

We could perhaps draw on a similar experience with Sory Kaba this season. I believe, undoubtedly, ES would have scored at least 2 or 3 goals (in half a season) and that would have kept us up.

It will be up to a Court but I suspect they might agree that point.

So the first, second and third dots are ticked and we move to the fourth.

Dot 4 - The harm was not remote

I think a common sense approach is applicable here. If you put a person in a car that is not roadworthy it is possible (Possible not guaranteed) that an injury maybe sustained and that person may not be able to work for either a short or long term.

Similarly if you put a person in a plane that is faulty, or the pilot is not qualified, it is possible that an injury maybe sustained that may cause financial loss.

So with all 4 dots ticked - Negligence is proven

Once negligence is proven there will be some payout the question is How Much?

Insofar as the Claimant (CCFC) is concerned I would be looking at the following:

£15m - Loss of immediate value of player
£10m - The way transfer fees have gone loss of potential resale value of the player (i.e. could have sold for £25m)
£175m - Economic Loss sustained as a result of relegation for a period of 3 years.

Personally. If anyone is asking my opinion as to what I think would be a reasonable outcome:

a) £15m - Immediate value of player
b) £5m - Loss of resale value
c) £50m - Economic Loss although there are strong arguments for more.

Possible outcome

I do wonder whether faced with such a sizeable civil suit, of which Nantes Insurers would have to pay, whether they might just agree to agree to a compromise deal at say £20m effectively negating what both clubs owe each other.

Questions

I will probably regret this but I am happy to answer any sensible questions on the above.

ok sorry for the late input but just had a busy few days.

Anyway for clarification I refer to my previous article on this

https://cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=227317

As a pre-cursor we need to forget about whether Sala was insured or not. For purposes of this civil action it is not relevant - just as, if someone has car insurance, they do not have to use that insurance to pursue a claim.

We also need to forget the argument about ownership. Again it is not relevant to the civil action. For the past few years there has been various court actions to determine whether ES was our player or not. Undoubtedly he was and, whilst it remains my view that we could have paid the £15m earlier, we chose not to. But we do now have a final decision - and that destroys one possible defence for Nantes.

So the boring bit.......

Negligence is a tort and actionable in the Civil Courts. Essentially negligence is typically the failure to act with due care causing harm to someone else and that harm can include Personal Injury, Damage to Property or Economic Loss.

Proving negligence is a bit like joining dots on a dot-to-dot page and if you can connect all the dots then you have proven negligence


Dot 1 - The Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant.

Dot 2 - The Defendant breached that duty of care

Dot 3 - The breach of that duty caused harm (or economical harm) to the Claimant

Dot 4 - The harm was not remote

and remember the Claimant is CCFC not ES

Dot 1 - The Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant

For me this is the biggest hurdle and I suspect we are probably suing the following:
Defendant (1) - ("D1") - Mr Ibbotsen ("Deceased")
Defendant (2) - ("D2") - Mr Henderson
Defendant (3) - ("D3") - Mr McKay
Defendant (4) - ("D4") - Nantes FC (as being vicarously liable for the actions of D3 and/or D2 and/or D1

To be Vicarously Liable in the UK a person needs to engage in an activity which may be regarded as what they would often do.

So from what I have read to date I understand that, even though he was bankrupt, Mr McKay (D3) often used to arrange travel for players in connection as an agent for Nantes FC (D4). It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements. It therefore follows that there is a strong argument that ("D4") is Vicariously Liable for the actions of ("D3").

If there are any financial connections between D4 and D3 then this makes the case even stronger - but in my eyes its strong nonetheless.

So the question here is did D1, D2, D3 and D4 each have a duty of care to ensure that an asset of CCFC reached the UK safely and undoubtedly I believe that they each held such a duty. In my eyes none of them can say they didnt have a duty of care.

So the first dot is ticked and we move to the second.

Dot 2 - The Defendant breached that duty of care to the Claimant

In UK law if a person is found guilty in criminal proceedings then they are also found liable (or negligent) in Civil Proceedings.

Therefore D3 is automatically in breach of his duty of care to the Claimant but, given the state of the plane, arguably both D1 and D2 are equally negligent. As D4 (Nantes) are vicarously liable for the actions of Mr McKay they are (unfortunately for them) also negligent. Some call it negligent by association.

So the first and second dots are ticked and we move to the third.

Dot 3 - The breach of that duty caused harm (or economic harm) to the Claimant

Again this will be a disputed point, at any potential trial, but it is one which I believe will be succesful quite easily because of the nature of the player being signed.

At the time of his death ES was at the top of the French Goalscoring charts alongside players such as Mbappe. We were relegated by one point behind Brighton.

Civil Courts are decided on the balance of probabilities and therefore, with half a season to go, is it likely that ES would have scored enough goals to keep us in the Premier League?

We could perhaps draw on a similar experience with Sory Kaba this season. I believe, undoubtedly, ES would have scored at least 2 or 3 goals (in half a season) and that would have kept us up.

It will be up to a Court but I suspect they might agree that point.

So the first, second and third dots are ticked and we move to the fourth.

Dot 4 - The harm was not remote

I think a common sense approach is applicable here. If you put a person in a car that is not roadworthy it is possible (Possible not guaranteed) that an injury maybe sustained and that person may not be able to work for either a short or long term.

Similarly if you put a person in a plane that is faulty, or the pilot is not qualified, it is possible that an injury maybe sustained that may cause financial loss.

So with all 4 dots ticked - Negligence is proven

Once negligence is proven there will be some payout the question is How Much?

Insofar as the Claimant (CCFC) is concerned I would be looking at the following:

£15m - Loss of immediate value of player
£10m - The way transfer fees have gone loss of potential resale value of the player (i.e. could have sold for £25m)
£175m - Economic Loss sustained as a result of relegation for a period of 3 years.

Personally. If anyone is asking my opinion as to what I think would be a reasonable outcome:

a) £15m - Immediate value of player
b) £5m - Loss of resale value
c) £50m - Economic Loss although there are strong arguments for more.

Possible outcome

I do wonder whether faced with such a sizeable civil suit, of which Nantes Insurers would have to pay, whether they might just agree to agree to a compromise deal at say £20m effectively negating what both clubs owe each other.

Questions

I will probably regret this but I am happy to answer any sensible questions on the above.

Great summary from someone in tne know on these cases .

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

Excellent write up and as some have said it's all been about the bigger picture.

I had mentioned before the potential defendants in the civil case.

I cannot see Nantes being linked, even vicariously, to this and therefore would question if it is worthwhile going after the D1, D2 & D3.

Another quick question Paul. How dissimilar is French Law in this matter as any case would be heard in a French Court.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I understand that he was their selling agent but surely his role as the selling agent had ceased by then.

Even in Makays own words he was helping Sala because Cardiff wouldn't.

Please understand I think there is something to pursue here. I'm just playing devils advocate and suggesting the defence that we may see.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

This is a very important point and the crux of the Vicarious Liability bit.

Ultimately someone was paying McKay for organising that flight the question is who - Was that Nantes? Was that CCFC? Was that ES?

I dont think it was ES because I believe I read somewhere that he was quite willing to catch a BA flight from Paris.

If CCFC organised it - then we wont have a claim against Nantes

If McKay organised it for Nantes (possibly on the basis of several flights back and fore) - then yes I think Nantes will be found liable for the actions of McKay and therefore negligent in law.

I had mentioned before the potential defendants in the civil case.

I cannot see Nantes being linked, even vicariously, to this and therefore would question if it is worthwhile going after the D1, D2 & D3.

Another quick question Paul. How dissimilar is French Law in this matter as any case would be heard in a French Court.

Not sure about French Law but as the accident happened near Guernsey I think there are suitable reasons for UK law to apply

https://simpleflying.com/which-countrys-laws-are-enforced-during-international-flights/

Guernsey is part of the UK. Cardiff was the destination so within the UK. The plane was based in the UK. As the issue related to air safety the destination takes precedence.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

This is a very important point and the crux of the Vicarious Liability bit.

Ultimately someone was paying McKay for organising that flight the question is who - Was that Nantes? Was that CCFC? Was that ES?

I dont think it was ES because I believe I read somewhere that he was quite willing to catch a BA flight from Paris.

If CCFC organised it - then we wont have a claim against Nantes

If McKay organised it for Nantes (possibly on the basis of several flights back and fore) - then yes I think Nantes will be found liable for the actions of McKay and therefore negligent in law.

Didn't McKay give evidence that he arranged the flight for Sala as Cardiff only offered a scheduled flight?

I don't for one minute think he did it out of the goodness of his own heart but it does feel like he was already trying to distance Nantes from any liability.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I understand that he was their selling agent but surely his role as the selling agent had ceased by then.

Even in Makays own words he was helping Sala because Cardiff wouldn't.


If the flight was organised at the request of ES then we do not have a claim against Nantes.

But my understanding is that ES was more than willing to fly from Paris.

Quite right of CCFC not to get involved. Had we done so we could have been sued by his family!

Please understand I think there is something to pursue here. I'm just playing devils advocate and suggesting the defence that we may see.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I understand that he was their selling agent but surely his role as the selling agent had ceased by then.

Even in Makays own words he was helping Sala because Cardiff wouldn't.

Please understand I think there is something to pursue here. I'm just playing devils advocate and suggesting the defence that we may see.

Wayne,

They had totally discharged their duty as Emiliano was now not their player and they arranged nothing.

Emiliano went back there of his own free will, to say goodbye to friends and arrange his dogs passage.
He later asked his agent to get him a flight back.

That agent turned out be the problem, but was now not acting for either club.

Even though he was doing business with both clubs, had his sons in our U21’s and was Warnock’s friend.
He is he one who is totally liable but is a bankrupt.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I understand that he was their selling agent but surely his role as the selling agent had ceased by then.

Even in Makays own words he was helping Sala because Cardiff wouldn't.

Please understand I think there is something to pursue here. I'm just playing devils advocate and suggesting the defence that we may see.

Wayne,

They had totally discharged their duty as Emiliano was now not their player and they arranged nothing.

Emiliano went back there of his own free will, to say goodbye to friends and arrange his dogs passage.
He later asked his agent to get him a flight back.

That agent turned out be the problem, but was now not acting for either club.

Even though he was doing business with both clubs, had his sons in our U21’s and was Warnock’s friend.
He is he one who is totally liable but is a bankrupt.

This will boil down to who organised the flight and on behalf of who?

and who did McKay receive funds from for organising this flight

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I understand that he was their selling agent but surely his role as the selling agent had ceased by then.

Even in Makays own words he was helping Sala because Cardiff wouldn't.

Please understand I think there is something to pursue here. I'm just playing devils advocate and suggesting the defence that we may see.

Wayne,

They had totally discharged their duty as Emiliano was now not their player and they arranged nothing.

Emiliano went back there of his own free will, to say goodbye to friends and arrange his dogs passage.
He later asked his agent to get him a flight back.

That agent turned out be the problem, but was now not acting for either club.

Even though he was doing business with both clubs, had his sons in our U21’s and was Warnock’s friend.
He is he one who is totally liable but is a bankrupt.

This will boil down to who organised the flight and on behalf of who?

and who did McKay receive funds from for organising this flight

Well I have just said it was not Nantes or Cardiff City.
Nantes had nothing to do with anything after Emiliano became a Cardiff player.
Sala had already been back and for, this trip was Emiliano’s private trip, nothing to do with both clubs.



This was solely down to Emiliano and the agent.


I will say it again, as I did before all the court cases we have lost, we will without doubt lose this one again if it’s against Nantes.

Tan is treating this personally, Tan needs to move on for the best of the club, if he wins in court and comes out with 200 million is that going to be invested in the club...NO.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I understand that he was their selling agent but surely his role as the selling agent had ceased by then.

Even in Makays own words he was helping Sala because Cardiff wouldn't.

Please understand I think there is something to pursue here. I'm just playing devils advocate and suggesting the defence that we may see.

Wayne,

They had totally discharged their duty as Emiliano was now not their player and they arranged nothing.

Emiliano went back there of his own free will, to say goodbye to friends and arrange his dogs passage.
He later asked his agent to get him a flight back.

That agent turned out be the problem, but was now not acting for either club.

Even though he was doing business with both clubs, had his sons in our U21’s and was Warnock’s friend.
He is he one who is totally liable but is a bankrupt.

This will boil down to who organised the flight and on behalf of who?

and who did McKay receive funds from for organising this flight

Well I have just said it was not Nantes or Cardiff City.
Nantes had nothing to do with anything after Emiliano became a Cardiff player.
Sala had already been back and for, this trip was Emiliano’s private trip, nothing to do with both clubs.



This was solely down to Emiliano and the agent.


I will say it again, as I did before all the court cases we have lost, we will without doubt lose this one again if it’s against Nantes.

If it was purely a private trip why did the club offer a scheduled flight, as I think has been established?

This suggests it was actually something to do with the club initially, but another option was ultimately chosen.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I understand that he was their selling agent but surely his role as the selling agent had ceased by then.

Even in Makays own words he was helping Sala because Cardiff wouldn't.

Please understand I think there is something to pursue here. I'm just playing devils advocate and suggesting the defence that we may see.

Wayne,

They had totally discharged their duty as Emiliano was now not their player and they arranged nothing.

Emiliano went back there of his own free will, to say goodbye to friends and arrange his dogs passage.
He later asked his agent to get him a flight back.

That agent turned out be the problem, but was now not acting for either club.

Even though he was doing business with both clubs, had his sons in our U21’s and was Warnock’s friend.
He is he one who is totally liable but is a bankrupt.

This will boil down to who organised the flight and on behalf of who?

and who did McKay receive funds from for organising this flight

Well I have just said it was not Nantes or Cardiff City.
Nantes had nothing to do with anything after Emiliano became a Cardiff player.
Sala had already been back and for, this trip was Emiliano’s private trip, nothing to do with both clubs.



This was solely down to Emiliano and the agent.


I will say it again, as I did before all the court cases we have lost, we will without doubt lose this one again if it’s against Nantes.

If it was purely a private trip why did the club offer a scheduled flight, as I think has been established?

This suggests it was actually something to do with the club initially, but another option was ultimately chosen.

Warnock had invited Emiliano to go with the squad to Newcastle, but Emiliano said he had a few things to finish in Nantes before he would king the squad on the Monday for training.


It was 10O% nothing to do with Cardiff City.

Why would they not offer to book a flight, you would be shocked what Premiership clubs Secreties do for their players.

It was not Cardiff City’s fault or Nantes fault on how Emiliano tried to fly.

I know for a fact Emiliano went back only to say goodbye to friends, but also make it sure everything was arranged for his dog, who hated being away from for long periods.

This will boil down to who organised the flight and on behalf of who?

and who did McKay receive funds from for organising this flight

I think this is where the clubs case falls down Paul.

It was been reported from the Bournmouth court that Jack McKay had offered Sala a private jet via his father, Willie.

When Sala asked about cost he was told, it would not cost anything as long as Sala helped Jack score more goals.

This was after Cardiff offered to pay for Sala to return to France on a scheduled flight.

The civil case will only see guilt lying at the feet of McKay, Henderson and Ibbotson.

This will boil down to who organised the flight and on behalf of who?

and who did McKay receive funds from for organising this flight

I think this is where the clubs case falls down Paul.

It was been reported from the Bournmouth court that Jack McKay had offered Sala a private jet via his father, Willie.

When Sala asked about cost he was told, it would not cost anything as long as Sala helped Jack score more goals.

This was after Cardiff offered to pay for Sala to return to France on a scheduled flight.

The civil case will only see guilt lying at the feet of McKay, Henderson and Ibbotson.

But the mckays were nantes selling agents .

This will boil down to who organised the flight and on behalf of who?

and who did McKay receive funds from for organising this flight

I think this is where the clubs case falls down Paul.

It was been reported from the Bournmouth court that Jack McKay had offered Sala a private jet via his father, Willie.

When Sala asked about cost he was told, it would not cost anything as long as Sala helped Jack score more goals.

This was after Cardiff offered to pay for Sala to return to France on a scheduled flight.

The civil case will only see guilt lying at the feet of McKay, Henderson and Ibbotson.

I dont think it falls down but it does make it complicated.

Weird thing is McKay flew Warnock over 8 or 9 times to see Sala play, but his son was commissioned by Nantes to find a buyer for Sala.
Anyone know what flight (plane) Sala took the first time he came over to sign? He flew back on the Piper Malibu, went to say goodbye to Nantes teammates and sort personal belongings etc...
If it was that easy and convenient for Warnock to get a flight 8 or 9 times why did Cardiff offer a several hours out of the way BA flight from Paris? As it was a personal trip and didn't have to anyway? But yet Cardiff are happy for Warnock to fly back and forth on this Mckay arranged plane? And who pays for that? Doesn't make sense to me.

Weird thing is McKay flew Warnock over 8 or 9 times to see Sala play, but his son was commissioned by Nantes to find a buyer for Sala.
Anyone know what flight (plane) Sala took the first time he came over to sign? He flew back on the Piper Malibu, went to say goodbye to Nantes teammates and sort personal belongings etc...
If it was that easy and convenient for Warnock to get a flight 8 or 9 times why did Cardiff offer a several hours out of the way BA flight from Paris? As it was a personal trip and didn't have to anyway? But yet Cardiff are happy for Warnock to fly back and forth on this Mckay arranged plane? And who pays for that? Doesn't make sense to me.

was it the sane plane ?

The tragic death of ES, still hangs over the club. We would all rather have seen the matter resolved amicably by the two clubs involved. However, unfortunately, there has been, (at best) clear recklessness and negligance which directly resulted in his death.
As a result, it is not suprising that CCFC wish to pursue the matter through the civil courts. A summary / legal definition of the tort of negligance requirements has been provided. There appears to be a reasonable chance (on the balance of probabilities) that CCFC are entitled to some recompense, (damages). However, none of us can say with any certainty what will be the outcome.
I see no point in trying to use the aftermath of the ES tragedy as a stick with which to beat Tan. (By all means criticise him on other matters where it may be justified) BUT All the Facebook comments etc do an injustice to both ES’s memory and to our club.
Unfortunately, the wheels of justice grind slowly.The best we can do is await the outcome and appeal against, (what for me), is an autocratic and wholly unfair transfer embargo decision.

Weird thing is McKay flew Warnock over 8 or 9 times to see Sala play, but his son was commissioned by Nantes to find a buyer for Sala.
Anyone know what flight (plane) Sala took the first time he came over to sign? He flew back on the Piper Malibu, went to say goodbye to Nantes teammates and sort personal belongings etc...
If it was that easy and convenient for Warnock to get a flight 8 or 9 times why did Cardiff offer a several hours out of the way BA flight from Paris? As it was a personal trip and didn't have to anyway? But yet Cardiff are happy for Warnock to fly back and forth on this Mckay arranged plane? And who pays for that? Doesn't make sense to me.

was it the sane plane ?

Not the same plane but several different flights for scouting and the signing all paid for by the McKays working for Nantes trying to sell Sala but apparently the final flight they were just doing a favour conveniently for Sala because in McKays words Cardiff neglected him. From what I just read.
Think I was wrong about Sala flying back to Nantes on the Piper malibu but every flight including Warnock and scouting and Sala first arriving in Cardiff all paid for by Mckay on behalf of Nantes wanting to sell him. Surely then Nantes do have a responsibility as they got the McKays involved in the first place and the Mckays arranged and paid for all the flights. Anyway we can't get any money out of Mckay as he's bankrupt and doubt Nantes have 200m either surely that would literally destroy them.

I'll go first then.

..... It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements.

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that Nantes had already discharged their duty in this respect as Sala was already delivered to the UK?

His return to France was through personal choice and not at the behest of Nantes.

But it was all arranged by there selling agent .

I understand that he was their selling agent but surely his role as the selling agent had ceased by then.

Even in Makays own words he was helping Sala because Cardiff wouldn't.

Please understand I think there is something to pursue here. I'm just playing devils advocate and suggesting the defence that we may see.

Wayne,

They had totally discharged their duty as Emiliano was now not their player and they arranged nothing.

Emiliano went back there of his own free will, to say goodbye to friends and arrange his dogs passage.
He later asked his agent to get him a flight back.

That agent turned out be the problem, but was now not acting for either club.

Even though he was doing business with both clubs, had his sons in our U21’s and was Warnock’s friend.
He is he one who is totally liable but is a bankrupt.

This will boil down to who organised the flight and on behalf of who?

and who did McKay receive funds from for organising this flight

Well I have just said it was not Nantes or Cardiff City.
Nantes had nothing to do with anything after Emiliano became a Cardiff player.
Sala had already been back and for, this trip was Emiliano’s private trip, nothing to do with both clubs.



This was solely down to Emiliano and the agent.


I will say it again, as I did before all the court cases we have lost, we will without doubt lose this one again if it’s against Nantes.

If it was purely a private trip why did the club offer a scheduled flight, as I think has been established?

This suggests it was actually something to do with the club initially, but another option was ultimately chosen.

Joined Jan 10th 2010 and only now making your first post(s) on a topic like this...?

ok sorry for the late input but just had a busy few days.

Anyway for clarification I refer to my previous article on this

https://cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=227317

As a pre-cursor we need to forget about whether Sala was insured or not. For purposes of this civil action it is not relevant - just as, if someone has car insurance, they do not have to use that insurance to pursue a claim.

We also need to forget the argument about ownership. Again it is not relevant to the civil action. For the past few years there has been various court actions to determine whether ES was our player or not. Undoubtedly he was and, whilst it remains my view that we could have paid the £15m earlier, we chose not to. But we do now have a final decision - and that destroys one possible defence for Nantes.

So the boring bit.......

Negligence is a tort and actionable in the Civil Courts. Essentially negligence is typically the failure to act with due care causing harm to someone else and that harm can include Personal Injury, Damage to Property or Economic Loss.

Proving negligence is a bit like joining dots on a dot-to-dot page and if you can connect all the dots then you have proven negligence


Dot 1 - The Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant.

Dot 2 - The Defendant breached that duty of care

Dot 3 - The breach of that duty caused harm (or economical harm) to the Claimant

Dot 4 - The harm was not remote

and remember the Claimant is CCFC not ES

Dot 1 - The Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant

For me this is the biggest hurdle and I suspect we are probably suing the following:
Defendant (1) - ("D1") - Mr Ibbotsen ("Deceased")
Defendant (2) - ("D2") - Mr Henderson
Defendant (3) - ("D3") - Mr McKay
Defendant (4) - ("D4") - Nantes FC (as being vicarously liable for the actions of D3 and/or D2 and/or D1

To be Vicarously Liable in the UK a person needs to engage in an activity which may be regarded as what they would often do.

So from what I have read to date I understand that, even though he was bankrupt, Mr McKay (D3) often used to arrange travel for players in connection as an agent for Nantes FC (D4). It therefore follows that the arrangement of a flight for a player, say from France to the UK, would be consistent with such arrangements. It therefore follows that there is a strong argument that ("D4") is Vicariously Liable for the actions of ("D3").

If there are any financial connections between D4 and D3 then this makes the case even stronger - but in my eyes its strong nonetheless.

So the question here is did D1, D2, D3 and D4 each have a duty of care to ensure that an asset of CCFC reached the UK safely and undoubtedly I believe that they each held such a duty. In my eyes none of them can say they didnt have a duty of care.

So the first dot is ticked and we move to the second.

Dot 2 - The Defendant breached that duty of care to the Claimant

In UK law if a person is found guilty in criminal proceedings then they are also found liable (or negligent) in Civil Proceedings.

Therefore D3 is automatically in breach of his duty of care to the Claimant but, given the state of the plane, arguably both D1 and D2 are equally negligent. As D4 (Nantes) are vicarously liable for the actions of Mr McKay they are (unfortunately for them) also negligent. Some call it negligent by association.

So the first and second dots are ticked and we move to the third.

Dot 3 - The breach of that duty caused harm (or economic harm) to the Claimant

Again this will be a disputed point, at any potential trial, but it is one which I believe will be succesful quite easily because of the nature of the player being signed.

At the time of his death ES was at the top of the French Goalscoring charts alongside players such as Mbappe. We were relegated by one point behind Brighton.

Civil Courts are decided on the balance of probabilities and therefore, with half a season to go, is it likely that ES would have scored enough goals to keep us in the Premier League?

We could perhaps draw on a similar experience with Sory Kaba this season. I believe, undoubtedly, ES would have scored at least 2 or 3 goals (in half a season) and that would have kept us up.

It will be up to a Court but I suspect they might agree that point.

So the first, second and third dots are ticked and we move to the fourth.

Dot 4 - The harm was not remote

I think a common sense approach is applicable here. If you put a person in a car that is not roadworthy it is possible (Possible not guaranteed) that an injury maybe sustained and that person may not be able to work for either a short or long term.

Similarly if you put a person in a plane that is faulty, or the pilot is not qualified, it is possible that an injury maybe sustained that may cause financial loss.

So with all 4 dots ticked - Negligence is proven

Once negligence is proven there will be some payout the question is How Much?

Insofar as the Claimant (CCFC) is concerned I would be looking at the following:

£15m - Loss of immediate value of player
£10m - The way transfer fees have gone loss of potential resale value of the player (i.e. could have sold for £25m)
£175m - Economic Loss sustained as a result of relegation for a period of 3 years.

Personally. If anyone is asking my opinion as to what I think would be a reasonable outcome:

a) £15m - Immediate value of player
b) £5m - Loss of resale value
c) £50m - Economic Loss although there are strong arguments for more.

Possible outcome

I do wonder whether faced with such a sizeable civil suit, of which Nantes Insurers would have to pay, whether they might just agree to agree to a compromise deal at say £20m effectively negating what both clubs owe each other.

Questions

I will probably regret this but I am happy to answer any sensible questions on the above.

Great summary from someone in tne know on these cases .

I agree, Wez. A plausible explanation from Paul that beats any others I have read...

As Paul clearly states, it is simpky his opinion but from experience we know it is one of some value...

Loads of qustions, of course, but I'd like to think this litigation would have a positive outcome for the club (rather than Vincent Tan himself)

Weird thing is McKay flew Warnock over 8 or 9 times to see Sala play, but his son was commissioned by Nantes to find a buyer for Sala.
Anyone know what flight (plane) Sala took the first time he came over to sign? He flew back on the Piper Malibu, went to say goodbye to Nantes teammates and sort personal belongings etc...
If it was that easy and convenient for Warnock to get a flight 8 or 9 times why did Cardiff offer a several hours out of the way BA flight from Paris? As it was a personal trip and didn't have to anyway? But yet Cardiff are happy for Warnock to fly back and forth on this Mckay arranged plane? And who pays for that? Doesn't make sense to me.

That’s exactly what happened and was happening.

McKay was good friends with Warnock.

Not the same plane on his sadly final journey.

Plus the original pilot refused to fly this plane.



Sadly if the Hierarchy knew that they were doing in these court cases they would of won one of them, they don’t.

And latest is it’s all been upheld and they have been told no more appeals , you have to now if you want to persue , you have to go down the civil route.

This will take years and even bigger costs and more heartache.

The problem you have is Tan is using to winning everything in his country and fights every case.

Not once has anything gone our way, because from the beginning he tried to Sue by saying Emiliano was not our player , the same people backing him now were the same then.

Weird thing is McKay flew Warnock over 8 or 9 times to see Sala play, but his son was commissioned by Nantes to find a buyer for Sala.
Anyone know what flight (plane) Sala took the first time he came over to sign? He flew back on the Piper Malibu, went to say goodbye to Nantes teammates and sort personal belongings etc...
If it was that easy and convenient for Warnock to get a flight 8 or 9 times why did Cardiff offer a several hours out of the way BA flight from Paris? As it was a personal trip and didn't have to anyway? But yet Cardiff are happy for Warnock to fly back and forth on this Mckay arranged plane? And who pays for that? Doesn't make sense to me.

Because CCFC tried to do the right thing and arranged a proper flight,as for you saying NW used this mode of transport on several occasions well I would like to see the receipts, as some would say Hmmmm.
What cannot be denied is CCFC provided someone to collect him so how can anyone say we neglected the poor lad.