CARDIFF CITY AND NANTES GIVEN TRANSFER FEE DEADLINE

FC Nantes and Cardiff City have until 5th Sept to come to agreement over his transfer; otherwise FIFA will make their own ruling, which can be appealed


Football's governing body has pressed both clubs to come to an agreement

Cardiff City reportedly have until September 5 to reach a settlement with Nantes in the dispute over the payment of Emiliano Sala's £15m transfer fee.

According to the BBC, football's governing body FIFA has sent a letter to both clubs explaining that if a decision is not reached, it will make its own ruling on the matter.

President Gianni Infantino has previously suggested he hoped the two clubs would come to an agreement themselves, but there has so far appeared to be little progress in solving the dispute.

Cardiff have always insisted that certain conditions of the deal to bring the Argentine striker to the Welsh capital had not been met, and that Sala was subsequently not a Premier League player.

As such they have refused to make any interim payments, despite Nantes insisting that the appropriate paperwork was completed.

A spokesperson for FIFA told WalesOnline: "We can confirm that a letter was sent to the parties on behalf of the chairman of the players' status committee.

"Please understand we cannot comment further at this stage."

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

Emiliano Sala: Cardiff City and Nantes given transfer fee deadline by Fifa
From the sectionCardiff


Fifa has given Cardiff City and Nantes until 5 September to reach a settlement in the dispute over the payment of Emiliano Sala's £15m transfer fee.

Sala, 28, was Cardiff's record signing, announced in January.

The Argentine striker died in a plane crash while travelling from France to join his new club.

Fifa sent a letter to both clubs stating that should they miss the deadline, they will issue its own ruling, which is subject to appeal.

"We can confirm that a letter was sent to the parties on behalf of the chairman of the players' status committee," Fifa said.

"Please understand we cannot comment further at this stage."


Sources at Cardiff confirmed receipt of the letter from Fifa.


Fifa president Gianni Infantino has previously said he hoped the two clubs would be able to reach an agreement themselves.

Cardiff have refused to make interim payments, claiming the deal was not legally binding.

The Bluebirds told world football's governing body that Nantes' conditions for completion of the deal were not fulfilled and Sala was not registered as a Premier League player.

Nantes claim the required paperwork was completed.

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

I think we should lay on at least half of the deal.

Maybe they knew this FIFA judgement was coming up now. That might explain why they have been so cautious in the transfer market but are prepared to scramble a few loans now

I think we should lay on at least half of the deal.

We should pay what is legally due (to FC Nantes) and that could be everything, something or nothing

My biggest hope is that Emiliano Sala's family get some recompense for the loss of their son and City (for me) are morally bound to assist with that...if they haven't already

FC Nantes and Cardiff City have until 5th Sept to come to agreement over his transfer; otherwise FIFA will make their own ruling, which can be appealed

don't see any end to this anytime soon.

Embarrassing.

I wonder how much of the fee due we will wriggle out of paying?

If any.

And how much negativity that will have caused in our recruitment which is obviously so easy as it is with a retiring manager and an out dated playing style. Queing up to join us they are.

Embarrassing.

I wonder how much of the fee due we will wriggle out of paying?

If any.

And how much negativity that will have caused in our recruitment which is obviously so easy as it is with a retiring manager and an out dated playing style. Queing up to join us they are.

There is no embarassment whatsoever - the club have behaved impeccably and have said from the outset that we will pay what we legally owe. Stop being so negative ( if you are an actual fan of the club ) and see what transpires!

FIFA once again have bottled it here!! Why after all this time tell the two clubs to sort it or we will? When they say they have their judgement, just hand that out as no doubt it will then go to appeal to add a few more years.

BTW personally I think CCFC have acted legally and compassionately this whole sorry saga and Nantes owner needs to have a good look at himself if reports are to be believed.

Nice to see some folk would have just handed Nantes £15m. But would they have used their own cash? NO.

Embarrassing.

I wonder how much of the fee due we will wriggle out of paying?

If any.

And how much negativity that will have caused in our recruitment which is obviously so easy as it is with a retiring manager and an out dated playing style. Queing up to join us they are.

We will not wriggle out of anything
Take your agenda some where else

Maybe they knew this FIFA judgement was coming up now. That might explain why they have been so cautious in the transfer market but are prepared to scramble a few loans now

We cant sign loans the window is shut
However we can sign free agents

Shocking decision from Fifa, they appear to not want to be culpable in any exchange.

They would have had their own lawyers all over this, but easier decision is to pass the buck.

Until its told it doesn't have to, club has to factor in full financial commitment in to its ongoing finances so it has obviously effected transfers.

Fifa were never at this stage going to come down with any judgement.

Club are wriggling. Announced as our player. End of really in my view.

I know it's all been said before and legalities are complex but with holding monies as we have will not help with future transfers as clubs, agents and players will be wary.

Another point but the whole stage payment arrangements of lots of transfers needs more transparency. As do undisclosed fees.

Almost everything in public domain these days even how much you pay for your house and I'm surprised transfer fees aren't the same. How much the actual fee is and when plus levies and agents fees should all be fully published in my view.

Embarrassing.

I wonder how much of the fee due we will wriggle out of paying?

If any.

And how much negativity that will have caused in our recruitment which is obviously so easy as it is with a retiring manager and an out dated playing style. Queing up to join us they are.

Rubbish, the report says they will decide and we have said we would agree with their final decision, I would expect one side or other to make an appeal following the initial decision.

I think it will be Nantes appealing as I don't think the paperwork was correct, so he wasn't our player, but time will tell!

What's the point in having a FIFA governing body when after an 8 month investigation the response is "sort it out between yourselves" farcical.

I dont blame Fifa to be honest.

The Clubs should be able to sort it out between themselves by the rule of law.

I think due to the unique situation FIFA just want to give both Clubs a chance to reach agreement but if it comes down to it will give there ruling.

I think it will end up that we don't have to pay by law but will reach an agreement now as Nantes have probably been hoping Fifa would side with them but they obviously havnt and that's why Nantes have been reluctant to compromise.

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.

I dont blame Fifa to be honest.

The Clubs should be able to sort it out between themselves by the rule of law.

I think due to the unique situation FIFA just want to give both Clubs a chance to reach agreement but if it comes down to it will give there ruling.

I think it will end up that we don't have to pay by law but will reach an agreement now as Nantes have probably been hoping Fifa would side with them but they obviously havnt and that's why Nantes have been reluctant to compromise.

Technically nantes will only lose money because they will have to pay his salary for what was left of his contract As no money passed hands regarding transfer so negotiating who pays that maybe? .....But you may be right in your assertion fifa have not sided with nante so won't be entitled to transfer fee.

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.

A Jack being impartial on Cardiff City matters?... Yeah, right!

You don't fear for us at all, you are actually gleeful, c'mon admit it. Are you really suggesting our club should hand over 15m just like that when the club's lawyers would be instructing them not to (the lawyers know their field)? There's a whole number of acts of negligence by third parties involved in all of this. It's not about trying to worm out of any commitment - it's about what's right and wrong on a legal basis.

I think we should lay on at least half of the deal.

We should pay what is legally due (to FC Nantes) and that could be everything, something or nothing

My biggest hope is that Emiliano Sala's family get some recompense for the loss of their son and City (for me) are morally bound to assist with that...if they haven't already

agree

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.

Stick to your own forum, thank goodness school starts next week.

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.

A Jack being impartial on Cardiff City matters?... Yeah, right!

You don't fear for us at all, you are actually gleeful, c'mon admit it. Are you really suggesting our club should hand over 15m just like that when the club's lawyers would be instructing them not to (the lawyers know their field)? There's a whole number of acts of negligence by third parties involved in all of this. It's not about trying to worm out of any commitment - it's about what's right and wrong on a legal basis.

If memory serves me right didn't swans reneged out of paying a club money for a player? Not sure in what context but sure it happened ! They are only on here while they are where they are will they be here after xmas hope not...

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.

A Jack being impartial on Cardiff City matters?... Yeah, right!

You don't fear for us at all, you are actually gleeful, c'mon admit it. Are you really suggesting our club should hand over 15m just like that when the club's lawyers would be instructing them not to (the lawyers know their field)? There's a whole number of acts of negligence by third parties involved in all of this. It's not about trying to worm out of any commitment - it's about what's right and wrong on a legal basis.

Absolutely, I’m impartial on all matters whoever the club or situation, what is the point of being anything else?

Well I fear for you, yes, it won’t affect me however so not going to lose any sleep if that is what you are asking. If you think I am gleeful that two men lost their lives and you have refused to honour the deal that put them on that plane then you are sadly mistaken, it’s a horrendous situation.

Yes I am absolutely suggesting the club pays for the player it bought and was travelling to his first training session. Lawyers look for technicalities as I said, the fact there is potentially a technicality does not mean one should bend over backwards to use it. Every man and his dog saw the player holding the jersey aloft, we all saw him being announced as a Cardiff player and we all know the reason he was on the plane.

Tan has a custodian of the club and needs to understand that this could have massive future ramifications for the club which could potentially cost far more than the transfer fee he is trying to wriggle out of. The damage to reputation could be catastrophic and can absolutely see a scenario where clubs demand money up front from you for transfer fees which could cause mayhem on the balance sheet and cashflow and really hamper future transfer windows and acquisitions.

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.

You really got a clue, or maybe a brain.

We will pay what's due when the legal experts can tell us what’s due.

There are insurances and parties all trying to work out who owes what.

Nantes aren’t squeeky clean in this.

Let’s just wait to see who’s liable for what and then deal with it.

If memory serves me right didn't swans reneged out of paying a club money for a player? Not sure in what context but sure it happened ! They are only on here while they are where they are will they be here after xmas hope not...

No.

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.

A Jack being impartial on Cardiff City matters?... Yeah, right!

You don't fear for us at all, you are actually gleeful, c'mon admit it. Are you really suggesting our club should hand over 15m just like that when the club's lawyers would be instructing them not to (the lawyers know their field)? There's a whole number of acts of negligence by third parties involved in all of this. It's not about trying to worm out of any commitment - it's about what's right and wrong on a legal basis.

If memory serves me right didn't swans reneged out of paying a club money for a player? Not sure in what context but sure it happened ! They are only on here while they are where they are will they be here after xmas hope not...

Sounds familiar?
Swansea City transfer ban over Tamas Priskin row
• Town claim Welsh club still owe them for loan striker's wages
• Premier League new boys deny knowledge of wrongdoing
Press Association
Fri 24 Jun 2011 18.23 EDT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
8 years old
Ipswich Town have reported Swansea City to the Premier League and asked for a transfer embargo to be placed on the top-flight newcomers for alleged non-payment of invoices.

Ipswich's chief executive, Simon Clegg, claims Swansea have reneged on a deal relating to the payment of Tamas Priskin's wages while he was on loan last season and subsequent add-ons as a result of their promotion. Clegg said: "I am hugely disappointed a legally binding agreement reached in good faith by both clubs as part of Swansea's final push for promotion is now being disputed."


Ipswich claim the loan agreement made provision for Swansea to pay for the Hungarian striker's wages up to 31 May even though he was injured on April 22. They also say the contract provided for "cumulative payments for each stage of the play-off competition".

Clegg added: "I am genuinely delighted for Swansea and their fans but the attempted renegotiation and deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms by their chairman [Huw Jenkins] is not fitting for a club which has just secured the ultimate prize in Championship football and its £90m windfall. Tamas arrived in Swansea fit and became injured while under their care – that's football but contracts have to be honoured and I have absolutely no interest in renegotiating this agreement.

"As a result of Swansea refusing to pay our invoices I have reported them to the Premier League, sought an immediate transfer embargo and am now seeking full payment of all outstanding sums with the agreed contractual interest rate of 5% above base."


Swansea responded by saying they were "completely unaware of any dispute with Ipswich". Jenkins said: "In response to Ipswich Town's statement, as a club we are completely unaware of any dispute with Ipswich. Myself and Simon Clegg talked a few weeks

Last edited by pembroke allan on Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

You really got a clue, or maybe a brain.

We will pay what's due when the legal experts can tell us what’s due.

There are insurances and parties all trying to work out who owes what.

Nantes aren’t squeeky clean in this.

Let’s just wait to see who’s liable for what and then deal with it.

It’s about what is right, not technicalities.

OJ Simpson is technically and legally didn’t murder his wife... technicalities get exploited in cases such as this all the time, but it’s not often thought about regarding the costs and damage of the long term reputation damage to the person/business.

I have a feeling should Tan worm his way out of this, the club will feel the effects of that for dozens of transfer windows to come, to a point where Tan would look back at this and realise that paying was probably the cheap option.

Sounds familiar?
Swansea City transfer ban over Tamas Priskin row
• Town claim Welsh club still owe them for loan striker's wages
• Premier League new boys deny knowledge of wrongdoing
Press Association
Fri 24 Jun 2011 18.23 EDT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
8 years old
Ipswich Town have reported Swansea City to the Premier League and asked for a transfer embargo to be placed on the top-flight newcomers for alleged non-payment of invoices.

Ipswich's chief executive, Simon Clegg, claims Swansea have reneged on a deal relating to the payment of Tamas Priskin's wages while he was on loan last season and subsequent add-ons as a result of their promotion. Clegg said: "I am hugely disappointed a legally binding agreement reached in good faith by both clubs as part of Swansea's final push for promotion is now being disputed."


Ipswich claim the loan agreement made provision for Swansea to pay for the Hungarian striker's wages up to 31 May even though he was injured on April 22. They also say the contract provided for "cumulative payments for each stage of the play-off competition".

Clegg added: "I am genuinely delighted for Swansea and their fans but the attempted renegotiation and deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms by their chairman [Huw Jenkins] is not fitting for a club which has just secured the ultimate prize in Championship football and its £90m windfall. Tamas arrived in Swansea fit and became injured while under their care – that's football but contracts have to be honoured and I have absolutely no interest in renegotiating this agreement.

"As a result of Swansea refusing to pay our invoices I have reported them to the Premier League, sought an immediate transfer embargo and am now seeking full payment of all outstanding sums with the agreed contractual interest rate of 5% above base."


Swansea responded by saying they were "completely unaware of any dispute with Ipswich". Jenkins said: "In response to Ipswich Town's statement, as a club we are completely unaware of any dispute with Ipswich. Myself and Simon Clegg talked a few weeks

This was due to the player going back to Ipswich. The club insisted that he goes back.

From memory Ipswich conceded that due to their insistence that he no longer receives treatment at our club then we were not due to pay what he claimed and we responded to his claim with an acceptable resolution. At no point did we refuse to pay.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.wal ... 829673.amp

...A bit different to backing out of a signing because he dies.

You really got a clue, or maybe a brain.

We will pay what's due when the legal experts can tell us what’s due.

There are insurances and parties all trying to work out who owes what.

Nantes aren’t squeeky clean in this.

Let’s just wait to see who’s liable for what and then deal with it.

It’s about what is right, not technicalities.

OJ Simpson is technically and legally didn’t murder his wife... technicalities get exploited in cases such as this all the time, but it’s not often thought about regarding the costs and damage of the long term reputation damage to the person/business.

I have a feeling should Tan worm his way out of this, the club will feel the effects of that for dozens of transfer windows to come, to a point where Tan would look back at this and realise that paying was probably the cheap option.

I am beginning to think that you are not really a jack, just someone who comes on here to cause a stir and attention.

Until its told it doesn't have to, club has to factor in full financial commitment in to its ongoing finances so it has obviously effected transfers.

Fifa were never at this stage going to come down with any judgement.

Club are wriggling. Announced as our player. End of really in my view.

I know it's all been said before and legalities are complex but with holding monies as we have will not help with future transfers as clubs, agents and players will be wary.

Another point but the whole stage payment arrangements of lots of transfers needs more transparency. As do undisclosed fees.

Almost everything in public domain these days even how much you pay for your house and I'm surprised transfer fees aren't the same. How much the actual fee is and when plus levies and agents fees should all be fully published in my view.

Fair play to you, you are a culeless c*nt