Premier League eligibility

Here Pep Guardiola explains how they signed Douglas Luiz - however was not allowed to play in the Premier League due to paperwork issues. This of course did not mean he was not their player, but the Premier League needed valid documents that complied with their regulations before he was allowed to be named in a Premier League matchday squad.

This is what people seem to be confused about regarding Emiliano Sala. They (including Tan) think that because the Premier League would not allow him to be named in a match day squad until the paperwork complied with their regulations, then it means he was not a Cardiff player. As you can see, that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Premier League is a competition not a governing body. The governing body accepted the transfer was complete and the international clearance was achieved - but could not play in a certain competition until the paperwork was amended. If it was not amended, then he would simply be a Cardiff City player that would not be allowed to play in the Premier League. He could however, as Douglas did, play in pre season friendlies and other competitions that did not require that specific signing on fee structure.

................................................

Douglas Luiz could have been lining up for Manchester City at the Etihad on Saturday if things had turned out differently.

The Blues bought the Brazilian as one of their possible midfield options to eventually succeed Fernandinho , loaning him out to sister club Girona to get some experience in La Liga.

Pep Guardiola hoped to include him in his squad last season after catching the eye on their pre-season tour in 2018 but the player was denied a work permit - much to the dismay of his manager.

A second season on loan at Girona did nothing to change that situation, meaning City thought it best to accept £15m when Aston Villa came calling in summer. Luiz has impressed for the Premier League newcomers with two goals but has not started any of their last three games.

Ahead of the meeting, Guardiola explained how he believed the player had the quality to make it at the Etihad.

"He would be here if a work permit were possible if the Premier League said it would be possible but now he is at Aston Villa," he said.

"We have an option to get him back but sometimes life is like this. We wanted him because last season we had problems in that position because we didn’t buy a holding midfielder.

"We wanted him before so we thought about it but the rules with the work permit meant it was not possible. I thought he would be here with the pre-season he played last year in the States, he was really good. I think he had the quality to play with us but he could not do it.

"The talent is always there, we’ll see at the end of the season what his level is but the quality is always there."

Here we go, another expert who not only knows all the answers about a specific deal but also knows where Tan has gone wrong and why !!

Numpty !!

Here we go, another expert who not only knows all the answers about a specific deal but also knows where Tan has gone wrong and why !!

Numpty !!

Well I think the point being made is you don’t have to be an expert, it’s obvious.

Are you saying you disagree and not being able to play in the Premier League means he is not a player of that club? Maybe Aston Villa should get their money back then as according to you he was never a Man City player - ironically that was £15m too.

Here Pep Guardiola explains how they signed Douglas Luiz - however was not allowed to play in the Premier League due to paperwork issues. This of course did not mean he was not their player, but the Premier League needed valid documents that complied with their regulations before he was allowed to be named in a Premier League matchday squad.

This is what people seem to be confused about regarding Emiliano Sala. They (including Tan) think that because the Premier League would not allow him to be named in a match day squad until the paperwork complied with their regulations, then it means he was not a Cardiff player. As you can see, that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Premier League is a competition not a governing body. The governing body accepted the transfer was complete and the international clearance was achieved - but could not play in a certain competition until the paperwork was amended. If it was not amended, then he would simply be a Cardiff City player that would not be allowed to play in the Premier League. He could however, as Douglas did, play in pre season friendlies and other competitions that did not require that specific signing on fee structure.

................................................

Douglas Luiz could have been lining up for Manchester City at the Etihad on Saturday if things had turned out differently.

The Blues bought the Brazilian as one of their possible midfield options to eventually succeed Fernandinho , loaning him out to sister club Girona to get some experience in La Liga.

Pep Guardiola hoped to include him in his squad last season after catching the eye on their pre-season tour in 2018 but the player was denied a work permit - much to the dismay of his manager.

A second season on loan at Girona did nothing to change that situation, meaning City thought it best to accept £15m when Aston Villa came calling in summer. Luiz has impressed for the Premier League newcomers with two goals but has not started any of their last three games.

Ahead of the meeting, Guardiola explained how he believed the player had the quality to make it at the Etihad.

"He would be here if a work permit were possible if the Premier League said it would be possible but now he is at Aston Villa," he said.

"We have an option to get him back but sometimes life is like this. We wanted him because last season we had problems in that position because we didn’t buy a holding midfielder.

"We wanted him before so we thought about it but the rules with the work permit meant it was not possible. I thought he would be here with the pre-season he played last year in the States, he was really good. I think he had the quality to play with us but he could not do it.

"The talent is always there, we’ll see at the end of the season what his level is but the quality is always there."

Imo its got nothing to do with the above man city saga
If this was true sala would have been insured under the premier league umbrella insurance policy that insures all premier league players for £16 million

Here Pep Guardiola explains how they signed Douglas Luiz - however was not allowed to play in the Premier League due to paperwork issues. This of course did not mean he was not their player, but the Premier League needed valid documents that complied with their regulations before he was allowed to be named in a Premier League matchday squad.

This is what people seem to be confused about regarding Emiliano Sala. They (including Tan) think that because the Premier League would not allow him to be named in a match day squad until the paperwork complied with their regulations, then it means he was not a Cardiff player. As you can see, that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Premier League is a competition not a governing body. The governing body accepted the transfer was complete and the international clearance was achieved - but could not play in a certain competition until the paperwork was amended. If it was not amended, then he would simply be a Cardiff City player that would not be allowed to play in the Premier League. He could however, as Douglas did, play in pre season friendlies and other competitions that did not require that specific signing on fee structure.

................................................

Douglas Luiz could have been lining up for Manchester City at the Etihad on Saturday if things had turned out differently.

The Blues bought the Brazilian as one of their possible midfield options to eventually succeed Fernandinho , loaning him out to sister club Girona to get some experience in La Liga.

Pep Guardiola hoped to include him in his squad last season after catching the eye on their pre-season tour in 2018 but the player was denied a work permit - much to the dismay of his manager.

A second season on loan at Girona did nothing to change that situation, meaning City thought it best to accept £15m when Aston Villa came calling in summer. Luiz has impressed for the Premier League newcomers with two goals but has not started any of their last three games.

Ahead of the meeting, Guardiola explained how he believed the player had the quality to make it at the Etihad.

"He would be here if a work permit were possible if the Premier League said it would be possible but now he is at Aston Villa," he said.

"We have an option to get him back but sometimes life is like this. We wanted him because last season we had problems in that position because we didn’t buy a holding midfielder.

"We wanted him before so we thought about it but the rules with the work permit meant it was not possible. I thought he would be here with the pre-season he played last year in the States, he was really good. I think he had the quality to play with us but he could not do it.

"The talent is always there, we’ll see at the end of the season what his level is but the quality is always there."

Imo its got nothing to do with the above man city saga
If this was true sala would have been insured under the premier league umbrella insurance policy that insures all premier league players for £16 million

There is no “imo” about it. This is all documented fact.

If the player was not registered to the Premier League then there will be no PL insurance, there will just be the insurance the club takes out on their players. Same goes for Douglas.

But clearly no insurance was taken out on Sala hence the case and the desperate attempt to delay payment.

Here we go, another expert who not only knows all the answers about a specific deal but also knows where Tan has gone wrong and why !!

Numpty !!

Well I think the point being made is you don’t have to be an expert, it’s obvious.

Are you saying you disagree and not being able to play in the Premier League means he is not a player of that club? Maybe Aston Villa should get their money back then as according to you he was never a Man City player - ironically that was £15m too.

From what I understand the PL objected to the way ES signing on fee was to paid and stated it was invalid under their rules and terms needed to be re-negotiated. This meant that at that point ES was still a free agent and could have signed for another club should one have made an offer (I accept that was unlikely but technically it could have happened)

If ES was free to sign for another club until the contract was amended then by definition he was not our player until his contract was ratified by the PL. There is also the fact that McKay's negligence led to the death of ES. French law states that anyone acting on behalf of another party ( in this case McKay for Nantes FC) are vicarious liable for any wrong doings.

When the state of the plane and the fact he was being flown by an unqualified pilot (all arranged by McKay) are taken into consideration it is perfectly arguable that Nantes are ultimately liable for the negligent death of ES.

Here Pep Guardiola explains how they signed Douglas Luiz - however was not allowed to play in the Premier League due to paperwork issues. This of course did not mean he was not their player, but the Premier League needed valid documents that complied with their regulations before he was allowed to be named in a Premier League matchday squad.

This is what people seem to be confused about regarding Emiliano Sala. They (including Tan) think that because the Premier League would not allow him to be named in a match day squad until the paperwork complied with their regulations, then it means he was not a Cardiff player. As you can see, that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Premier League is a competition not a governing body. The governing body accepted the transfer was complete and the international clearance was achieved - but could not play in a certain competition until the paperwork was amended. If it was not amended, then he would simply be a Cardiff City player that would not be allowed to play in the Premier League. He could however, as Douglas did, play in pre season friendlies and other competitions that did not require that specific signing on fee structure.

................................................

Douglas Luiz could have been lining up for Manchester City at the Etihad on Saturday if things had turned out differently.

The Blues bought the Brazilian as one of their possible midfield options to eventually succeed Fernandinho , loaning him out to sister club Girona to get some experience in La Liga.

Pep Guardiola hoped to include him in his squad last season after catching the eye on their pre-season tour in 2018 but the player was denied a work permit - much to the dismay of his manager.

A second season on loan at Girona did nothing to change that situation, meaning City thought it best to accept £15m when Aston Villa came calling in summer. Luiz has impressed for the Premier League newcomers with two goals but has not started any of their last three games.

Ahead of the meeting, Guardiola explained how he believed the player had the quality to make it at the Etihad.

"He would be here if a work permit were possible if the Premier League said it would be possible but now he is at Aston Villa," he said.

"We have an option to get him back but sometimes life is like this. We wanted him because last season we had problems in that position because we didn’t buy a holding midfielder.

"We wanted him before so we thought about it but the rules with the work permit meant it was not possible. I thought he would be here with the pre-season he played last year in the States, he was really good. I think he had the quality to play with us but he could not do it.

"The talent is always there, we’ll see at the end of the season what his level is but the quality is always there."

I don't think you know the the finer details of the deal and neither do we. So it makes it difficult to form an opinion really.

I am sure those finer details will come out in time and then we will be able to make an informed opinion. Until then, we wait.

Here we go, another expert who not only knows all the answers about a specific deal but also knows where Tan has gone wrong and why !!

Numpty !!

Well I think the point being made is you don’t have to be an expert, it’s obvious.

Are you saying you disagree and not being able to play in the Premier League means he is not a player of that club? Maybe Aston Villa should get their money back then as according to you he was never a Man City player - ironically that was £15m too.

From what I understand the PL objected to the way ES signing on fee was to paid and stated it was invalid under their rules and terms needed to be re-negotiated. This meant that at that point ES was still a free agent and could have signed for another club should one have made an offer (I accept that was unlikely but technically it could have happened)

If ES was free to sign for another club until the contract was amended then by definition he was not our player until his contract was ratified by the PL. There is also the fact that McKay's negligence led to the death of ES. French law states that anyone acting on behalf of another party ( in this case McKay for Nantes FC) are vicarious liable for any wrong doings.

When the state of the plane and the fact he was being flown by an unqualified pilot (all arranged by McKay) are taken into consideration it is perfectly arguable that Nantes are ultimately liable for the negligent death of ES.

You understand wrong.

The PL did indeed object to him being registered to play in the Premier League. If they wanted him to play in that competition then that signing on fee needed to comply with that competitions rules. Where you are wrong is you believe that makes him a free agent - the contract is with the club not the Premier League. The contract was absolutely valid, it was just not valid to play in a certain competition. Had the contract not been amended he would have been a Cardiff City player that was ineligible to play in the Premier League competition - just as the above example was a Man City player unable to play in the Premier League.

In terms of the flight, it was a personal transport decision made by the player. The club do not have control over their employees transport and it is ludicrous that it is being suggested they do. Players are humans and not slaves, completely capable of making their own decisions. Just as the club don’t interfere if a player wants to get a chauffeur to training - it has not control over the company chosen, driver or his/her licence.

Here Pep Guardiola explains how they signed Douglas Luiz - however was not allowed to play in the Premier League due to paperwork issues. This of course did not mean he was not their player, but the Premier League needed valid documents that complied with their regulations before he was allowed to be named in a Premier League matchday squad.

This is what people seem to be confused about regarding Emiliano Sala. They (including Tan) think that because the Premier League would not allow him to be named in a match day squad until the paperwork complied with their regulations, then it means he was not a Cardiff player. As you can see, that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Premier League is a competition not a governing body. The governing body accepted the transfer was complete and the international clearance was achieved - but could not play in a certain competition until the paperwork was amended. If it was not amended, then he would simply be a Cardiff City player that would not be allowed to play in the Premier League. He could however, as Douglas did, play in pre season friendlies and other competitions that did not require that specific signing on fee structure.

................................................

Douglas Luiz could have been lining up for Manchester City at the Etihad on Saturday if things had turned out differently.

The Blues bought the Brazilian as one of their possible midfield options to eventually succeed Fernandinho , loaning him out to sister club Girona to get some experience in La Liga.

Pep Guardiola hoped to include him in his squad last season after catching the eye on their pre-season tour in 2018 but the player was denied a work permit - much to the dismay of his manager.

A second season on loan at Girona did nothing to change that situation, meaning City thought it best to accept £15m when Aston Villa came calling in summer. Luiz has impressed for the Premier League newcomers with two goals but has not started any of their last three games.

Ahead of the meeting, Guardiola explained how he believed the player had the quality to make it at the Etihad.

"He would be here if a work permit were possible if the Premier League said it would be possible but now he is at Aston Villa," he said.

"We have an option to get him back but sometimes life is like this. We wanted him because last season we had problems in that position because we didn’t buy a holding midfielder.

"We wanted him before so we thought about it but the rules with the work permit meant it was not possible. I thought he would be here with the pre-season he played last year in the States, he was really good. I think he had the quality to play with us but he could not do it.

"The talent is always there, we’ll see at the end of the season what his level is but the quality is always there."

I don't think you know the the finer details of the deal and neither do we. So it makes it difficult to form an opinion really.

I am sure those finer details will come out in time and then we will be able to make an informed opinion. Until then, we wait.

What finer details?

I read the FIFA decision document where it highlighted the finer details in relation to this case.

Cardiff did not understand that not being eligible to play in the Premier League doesn’t mean he isn’t a registered player. They also didn’t understand that players can choose to use any mode of transport they please.

It really is that simple, that is their argument... hence why FIFA rejected the argument.

You understand wrong.

The PL did indeed object to him being registered to play in the Premier League. If they wanted him to play in that competition then that signing on fee needed to comply with that competitions rules. Where you are wrong is you believe that makes him a free agent - the contract is with the club not the Premier League. The contract was absolutely valid, it was just not valid to play in a certain competition. Had the contract not been amended he would have been a Cardiff City player that was ineligible to play in the Premier League competition - just as the above example was a Man City player unable to play in the Premier League.

In terms of the flight, it was a personal transport decision made by the player. The club do not have control over their employees transport and it is ludicrous that it is being suggested they do. Players are humans and not slaves, completely capable of making their own decisions. Just as the club don’t interfere if a player wants to get a chauffeur to training - it has not control over the company chosen, driver or his/her licence.

Sorry you are way off. One of the consequences of the invalid contract was ES was unable to be registered to play in the PL.

However, that was due to his contract between CCFC and himself breaching PL rules and was therefore invalid. It was something to do with the signing on fee and the way it was being paid and it needed to be re-negotiated. Therefore as the contract was 'invalid' (we had offered unacceptable terms and we needed his consent to offer new terms) ES was technically a free agent (this is standard statutory contract law).

Therefore if no contract existed between ES and CCFC he wasn't our player and wouldn't be subject to the clubs player insurance.

Your explanation over whether there was negligence in the death of ES is really a load of waffle without any substance. If ES chose to travel to France and back (which he was entitled to do so) then the travel arrangements had to be of a certain standard the very minimum being a serviceable plane and qualified pilot. The Piper aircraft was a one engine wreck and unsuitable for flying over water at night in the winter. Add to that the pilot was unqualified. There is without doubt an arguable case that Nantes are liable for the negligent death of ES as a contract existed between them and McKay who organised the flight. Under French law that makes them variously liable for ES negligent death.

You understand wrong.

The PL did indeed object to him being registered to play in the Premier League. If they wanted him to play in that competition then that signing on fee needed to comply with that competitions rules. Where you are wrong is you believe that makes him a free agent - the contract is with the club not the Premier League. The contract was absolutely valid, it was just not valid to play in a certain competition. Had the contract not been amended he would have been a Cardiff City player that was ineligible to play in the Premier League competition - just as the above example was a Man City player unable to play in the Premier League.

In terms of the flight, it was a personal transport decision made by the player. The club do not have control over their employees transport and it is ludicrous that it is being suggested they do. Players are humans and not slaves, completely capable of making their own decisions. Just as the club don’t interfere if a player wants to get a chauffeur to training - it has not control over the company chosen, driver or his/her licence.

Sorry you are way off. One of the consequences of the invalid contract was ES was unable to be registered to play in the PL.

Not quote. It was not an invalid contract. It’s important you understand this. The employment contract was absolutely valid. However if they wanted to register him to play in a certain competition then they would need to amend that contract. Being able to play in a certain competition has no bearing what so ever on whether you are registered to that club or not. Again, see the example posted in the OP. Unable to play in the PL, perfectly able to play for Man City outside it.

However, that was due to his contract between CCFC and himself breaching PL rules and was therefore invalid.

Invalid in terms of playing in the Premier League competition. Not invalid as an employment contract. Again he was more than able to play for the club outside the PL.

It was something to do with the signing on fee and the way it was being paid and it needed to be re-negotiated. Therefore as the contract was 'invalid' (we had offered unacceptable terms and we needed his consent to offer new terms) ES was technically a free agent (this is standard statutory contract law).

Again, that is PL regulations not employment law regulations. The contract was valid, just as it was would n out make him eligible for PL competition.

Therefore if no contract existed between ES and CCFC he wasn't our player and wouldn't be subject to the clubs player insurance.

Yes it did, and yes he was. The employment contracts were signed and sent for International clearance - which was granted. You cannot get international clearance with an invalid employment contract. The contracts were absolutely valid, it just means he couldn’t enter PL competition unless they decided to amend it. This is why the decision clearly went to Nantes.

Your explanation over whether there was negligence in the death of ES is really a load of waffle without any substance. If ES chose to travel to France and back (which he was entitled to do so) then the travel arrangements had to be of a certain standard the very minimum being a serviceable plane and qualified pilot.

No they don’t. They can be however he likes. He could decide to go on horseback if he wanted to. I am amazed you think a company has sole control over the movements of Its employees.

The Piper aircraft was a one engine wreck and unsuitable for flying over water at night in the winter. Add to that the pilot was unqualified. There is without doubt an arguable case that Nantes are liable for the negligent death of ES as a contract existed between them and McKay who organised the flight. Under French law that makes them variously liable for ES negligent death

There is absolutely no grounds for that what so ever in terms of whether Cardiff owe the transfer fee. None.

.

Let’s put it another way.

You get a job in a law firm, they have a really law debate team. You sign the contract and you become an employee. The contracts get housed at the law firms governing body after clearance that you are all good to work there.

They then say “we want to enter you into the work law debate competition”. You agree.

They go to register you and the work League says, I’m afraid contracts signed in black pen arent eligible to register to play in this league.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have an invalid contract. It means you have a contract that makes you ineligible to compete in a certain competition, where as if you don’t sign another and comply with the competitions rules, you will not be able to enter.

If you don’t sign another you will remain an employee that cannot compete in that competition.


........

So back to the Premier League. They are not a governing body that house contracts or ratify transfers, they are simply a competition. The FA/FAW are who ratify employment contracts and they ratified them and have international clearance. The FA/FAW have zero stipulations on signing on fee structures. That is simply the condition of being allowed to be registered to play in a certain competition.

You’re wrong. He had Italian citizenship so would’ve had no issue with a work permit.

He was a registered Man City player (case in question) just did not have a work permit. Similar situation to Percy Tau at Brighton who’s currently out on loan while they sort a work permit.

The argument with Sala is that even that initial registration wasn’t complete

You’re wrong. He had Italian citizenship so would’ve had no issue with a work permit.

He was a registered Man City player (case in question) just did not have a work permit. Similar situation to Percy Tau at Brighton who’s currently out on loan while they sort a work permit.

The argument with Sala is that even that initial registration wasn’t complete

He did not say Sala didn't get a permit. He said that like with a work permit not allowing you to play in the prem, neither will that signing on fee stuff. Both are stipulations of the Prem. Douesnt mean you dont play for your club, just that you cant play in the Prem so you have to get loaned out or just train. FAW confirmed he was registered with the club and the transfer complete.

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload ... ydvrzqrqdw

38. The foregoing having been established, the members of the Bureau moved to the
fourth and last condition precedent set out in clause 2.1.4 of the transfer agreement,
which constituted the core of the legal discussion between the parties.

39. The said provision required that the LFP and the FAW confirmed to Cardiff and Nantes
that the player had been registered as a Cardiff player and that the player’s ITC had
been released.

40. In this respect, the members of the Bureau observed that Cardiff contested the
fulfilment of the said condition precedent, mainly on the basis of the fact that the
employment contract could allegedly not be registered with the Premier League and,
as such, had to be considered null and void, which in its opinion further lead to the
invalidation of the issuance of the player’s ITC.

41. In this respect, the members of the Bureau firstly observed that the clause at stake did
not require the player’s employment contract to be registered with the Premier League
as a condition precedent. What it is more, the Bureau held that it was clear that it was
always the intention of Cardiff to register the player with the Premier League and that
the only reason why the contract was not approved was an omission of Cardiff itself.

42. Moreover, the members of the Bureau pointed out that the registration of an
employment contract with the Premier League not only consists of an internal matter
between Cardiff and the Premier League and/or the FAW, but it is also a formal
requirement over which Nantes has no influence. As a result, from the Bureau’s point
of view, whether or not Cardiff and the agents representing the player had carried out
the required due diligence in drafting an employment contract that was in conformity
with the Premier League’s specific rules or not, can in no way affect the validity of the
transfer agreement concluded between Nantes and Cardiff.

43. The foregoing having been established, the Bureau turned its attention to the
question of whether the transfer of the player had been completed in TMS.

44. In this respect, the Bureau reverted to the specificities that govern the system of the
international transfers through the TMS platform and first recalled that, in order for a
transfer to occur on the TMS, a duly signed employment contract between the player
and the ‘new club’ needs to be uploaded therein in the first place. Moreover, the
Bureau highlighted that a transfer does not occur automatically in the TMS. On the
contrary, the receiving association, i.e. the FAW in the case at stake, has to manually
enter the registration date and confirm the ITC receipt from the former association, in
casu the FFF. A transfer goes into the status “closed-awaiting payments” in TMS once
the new association has entered the registration date and confirmed the ITC receipt.
Considering the foregoing and the information contained in TMS, the transfer of the
player was concluded in the system on 21 January 2019 at 17.30 local time in Wales,
i.e. when the FAW entered all the necessary requirements in the system.

45. With all the foregoing in mind, the members of the Bureau could determine that the
transfer of the player in TMS was completed and, therefore, that the player’s transfer
from Nantes to Cardiff has to be considered as validly concluded between the parties.
Hence, the player was a player of Cardiff.

46. Having established the aforementioned, the Bureau turned its attention to the first
part of Nantes’ claim, i.e. its request for the payment of the first instalment in the
amount of EUR 6,000,000, and recalled that its non-payment remained undisputed by
Cardiff.

You’re wrong. He had Italian citizenship so would’ve had no issue with a work permit.

He was a registered Man City player (case in question) just did not have a work permit. Similar situation to Percy Tau at Brighton who’s currently out on loan while they sort a work permit.

The argument with Sala is that even that initial registration wasn’t complete

He was registered, FAW confirmed it

Let’s put it another way.

You get a job in a law firm, they have a really law debate team. You sign the contract and you become an employee. The contracts get housed at the law firms governing body after clearance that you are all good to work there.

They then say “we want to enter you into the work law debate competition”. You agree.

They go to register you and the work League says, I’m afraid contracts signed in black pen arent eligible to register to play in this league.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have an invalid contract. It means you have a contract that makes you ineligible to compete in a certain competition, where as if you don’t sign another and comply with the competitions rules, you will not be able to enter.

If you don’t sign another you will remain an employee that cannot compete in that competition.


........

So back to the Premier League. They are not a governing body that house contracts or ratify transfers, they are simply a competition. The FA/FAW are who ratify employment contracts and they ratified them and have international clearance. The FA/FAW have zero stipulations on signing on fee structures. That is simply the condition of being allowed to be registered to play in a certain competition.

What an utter load of waffle

Not quote. It was not an invalid contract. It’s important you understand this. The employment contract was absolutely valid. However if they wanted to register him to play in a certain competition then they would need to amend that contract. Being able to play in a certain competition has no bearing what so ever on whether you are registered to that club or not. Again, see the example posted in the OP. Unable to play in the PL, perfectly able to play for Man City outside it.

Invalid in terms of playing in the Premier League competition. Not invalid as an employment contract. Again he was more than able to play for the club outside the PL.

Again, that is PL regulations not employment law regulations. The contract was valid, just as it was would n out make him eligible for PL competition.

Yes it did, and yes he was. The employment contracts were signed and sent for International clearance - which was granted. You cannot get international clearance with an invalid employment contract. The contracts were absolutely valid, it just means he couldn’t enter PL competition unless they decided to amend it. This is why the decision clearly went to Nantes.

No they don’t. They can be however he likes. He could decide to go on horseback if he wanted to. I am amazed you think a company has sole control over the movements of Its employees.

There is absolutely no grounds for that what so ever in terms of whether Cardiff owe the transfer fee. None.

.

1. You have no idea whatsoever about contract law. The PL had spotted a flaw in the contract with regard to the signing on fee which made the contract invalid and needed to be amended. Until that was resolved the original contract was invalid because it requires all parties to agree to an amendment. Therefore the original contract by definition was invalid until both sides agreed new T&C's.

2. Frankly what you are doing is muddling 'registration rules' and 'contract law'. Both need to be signed sealed and delivered for ES to be considered a CCFC player.

3. The employment contract was invalid because part of the deal was for CCFC to provide ES a chance of playing in the PL. If the contract offered prevented him from doing that then CCFC would be in breach of contract and the contract would be considered null and void until a resolution was found by amending the contract.

4. Finally you have no knowledge of the law with regard to negligence. McKay had a 'duty of care' with regard to ES whilst the transfer was being organised. Again you seem to be muddling 'what someone does in their free time' with 'business transactions' such as a players transfer from one club to another.

If ES wanted to fly on a private jet then McKay should have made sure (as the organiser) that 1. the plane was fit for purpose and 2. the pilot was qualified. He did neither.

1. You have no idea whatsoever about contract law. The PL had spotted a flaw in the contract with regard to the signing on fee which made the contract invalid and needed to be amended. Until that was resolved the original contract was invalid because it requires all parties to agree to an amendment. Therefore the original contract by definition was invalid until both sides agreed new T&C's.


Tony, I don’t want to offend here, but you don’t know what you are talking about. The PL didn’t “spot” anything. You are being confused with competition registration and club registration.

In order to register a player to a club there are no restrictions. In order to register a player to a certain competition, each competition is different but must be met IF YOU WANT HIM TO PLAY IN THAT COMPETITION. It has nothing to do with club registration.

I refer you to the FIFA judgement. Point 42:-

“As a result, from the Bureau’s point of view, whether or not Cardiff and the agents representing the player had carried out the required due diligence in drafting an employment contract that was in conformity with the Premier League’s specific rules or not, can in no way affect the validity of the transfer agreement concluded between Nantes and Cardiff“

2. Again you are confused between registering a player for a certain competition and registering your player to your club. I refer you again to not only the FIFA judgement where they explain this, but also the OP where the example was given of Luiz who was a Man City player that also could not be registered with the PL due to not having the required work permit. PL registration and employment contract validity have no affect on eachother.

3. You are doing it again. The employment contract was to play for Cardiff City - not to play in the Premier League. He was more than entitled to do that (play for the club), but in its current set up he would not be able to play in the Premier League. This again is backed up by the document posted above.

4. Again you don’t know what you are talking about. You need to read the FIFA ruling as your timeline is barmy. The transfer was not “being organised”, it had been completed in full. Sala was on a personal trip to say his goodbyes AFTER the transfer was complete. Sala was more than capable of making his own decisions surrounding travel arrangements of which Cardiff have no say in. Once the transfer is complete the contract between McKay and Nantes ended - FIFA also state that this decision to fly obviously was not on behalf of Nantes but on behalf of the player himself.

- Your last point has no bearing on the case. It may have a bearing on a case of Cardiff City vs Mr McKay. But something tells me Cardiff wouldn’t be getting much progress on taking a bankrupt man to court.

:sleepy2:

The Sala case is many things, but making you sleepy it should not - It has huge ramifications for your club.

Here I explain why their argument makes no sense and why FIFA back that up in their documented decision.

:sleepy2:

Stop trolling please RV, stick to the topic. Thanks

:sleepy2:

Stop trolling please RV, stick to the topic. Thanks

(Mod please delete these once RV's excitement has worn off, back to the last on topic post)

:sleepy2:

Stop trolling please RV, stick to the topic. Thanks

(Mod please delete these once RV's excitement has worn off, back to the last on topic post)

:sleepy2:

Stop trolling please RV, stick to the topic. Thanks

(Mod please delete these once RV's excitement has worn off, back to the last on topic post)

:wave:

Stop trolling please RV, stick to the topic. Thanks

(Mod please delete these once RV's excitement has worn off, back to the last on topic post)