Sala - the crash was caused by

I am being told time and time again from day one Emiliano Sala was not insured .


And just say even if Emiliano Sala was insured it was void due to the pilot not having a valid license.

As it stands then Sala was not our player, as the required paperwork was not complete, so in that case he would not be insured by CCFC

If it is proved otherwise then that is when the insurance should kick in.

Whether the insurance company will fight that or not is another question

That’s the thing, it was completed and in full.

The fact the club are saying he was/is not their player means they did not take insurance out. You cannot insure another clubs player.

This is why in the last set of accounts they included the £18m they will likely owe, it will come from the club not the insurers because he quite clearly wasn’t insured - which is why we are where we are with it.

The club have to make that provision in their accounts ( it was actually £19.5m) under the prudence rule

Doesn’t automatically mean they have to pay it.

Again, stop presuming and guessing .. wait and see.

Where did I say they automatically have to pay it? I haven’t guessed or presumed anything.

I’m saying the contracts were completed and signed by all concerned parties. They are dated and timed and complete with timed and dated lodgements.

FIFA have ruled the club have to pay it. I am simply stating that looking at the document it’s hard to argue against, the clubs arguments simply look incorrect and misguided.

They seem to have cooled on the “he wasn’t our player” stance anyway since. The fact they lodged a complaint to the French authorities regarding vicarious liability means they are seeking damages on their asset. For them to do that they would be stating that he was indeed the clubs asset.

The club really are not on good footing going into a CAS hearing based on both the FIFA findings and also the clubs stance since.

I am being told time and time again from day one Emiliano Sala was not insured .


And just say even if Emiliano Sala was insured it was void due to the pilot not having a valid license.

As it stands then Sala was not our player, as the required paperwork was not complete, so in that case he would not be insured by CCFC

If it is proved otherwise then that is when the insurance should kick in.

Whether the insurance company will fight that or not is another question

As it stands many beg to differ and say Sala was our player and until the final outcome, we shall wait and see.

Annis how anyone can even begin to make an argument he wasn’t is beyond me.

Based on what exactly? Can’t even comprehend any possible argument that says otherwise.

I am being told time and time again from day one Emiliano Sala was not insured .


And just say even if Emiliano Sala was insured it was void due to the pilot not having a valid license.

As it stands then Sala was not our player, as the required paperwork was not complete, so in that case he would not be insured by CCFC

If it is proved otherwise then that is when the insurance should kick in.

Whether the insurance company will fight that or not is another question

As it stands many beg to differ and say Sala was our player and until the final outcome, we shall wait and see.

People can think what they want Annis, but it’s all based on assumptions.

Without the facts though it’s pointless.

I’ve been told a few things which I’m not going to repeat as that would be wrong given I was told them in confidence that make the situation look a lot different to many peoples current perceptions.

Won’t stop certain obsessed fans of our rivals trying to make judgements though.

Annis how anyone can even begin to make an argument he wasn’t is beyond me.

Based on what exactly? Can’t even comprehend any possible argument that says otherwise.

From day one we said he was ours and for a month after.

Sala was registered as our player with Welsh FA.
Nantes say he was and have shown paper work.
It was ruled yes, we have a appealed.
The paper work that was not complete was being registered as a Prem player, totally different than being our player.

My opinion yes he was ours.

We await the outcome.

I am being told time and time again from day one Emiliano Sala was not insured .


And just say even if Emiliano Sala was insured it was void due to the pilot not having a valid license.

As it stands then Sala was not our player, as the required paperwork was not complete, so in that case he would not be insured by CCFC

If it is proved otherwise then that is when the insurance should kick in.

Whether the insurance company will fight that or not is another question

That’s the thing, it was completed and in full.

The fact the club are saying he was/is not their player means they did not take insurance out. You cannot insure another clubs player.

This is why in the last set of accounts they included the £18m they will likely owe, it will come from the club not the insurers because he quite clearly wasn’t insured - which is why we are where we are with it.

The club have to make that provision in their accounts ( it was actually £19.5m) under the prudence rule

Doesn’t automatically mean they have to pay it.

Again, stop presuming and guessing .. wait and see.

Where did I say they automatically have to pay it? I haven’t guessed or presumed anything.

I’m saying the contracts were completed and signed by all concerned parties. They are dated and timed and complete with timed and dated lodgements.

FIFA have ruled the club have to pay it. I am simply stating that looking at the document it’s hard to argue against, the clubs arguments simply look incorrect and misguided.

They seem to have cooled on the “he wasn’t our player” stance anyway since. The fact they lodged a complaint to the French authorities regarding vicarious liability means they are seeking damages on their asset. For them to do that they would be stating that he was indeed the clubs asset.

The club really are not on good footing going into a CAS hearing based on both the FIFA findings and also the clubs stance since.

Luckily you aren’t the judge.

I am being told time and time again from day one Emiliano Sala was not insured .


And just say even if Emiliano Sala was insured it was void due to the pilot not having a valid license.

As it stands then Sala was not our player, as the required paperwork was not complete, so in that case he would not be insured by CCFC

If it is proved otherwise then that is when the insurance should kick in.

Whether the insurance company will fight that or not is another question

As it stands many beg to differ and say Sala was our player and until the final outcome, we shall wait and see.

People can think what they want Annis, but it’s all based on assumptions.

Without the facts though it’s pointless.

I’ve been told a few things which I’m not going to repeat as that would be wrong given I was told them in confidence that make the situation look a lot different to many peoples current perceptions.

Won’t stop certain obsessed fans of our rivals trying to make judgements though.

I am being told time and time again from day one Emiliano Sala was not insured .


And just say even if Emiliano Sala was insured it was void due to the pilot not having a valid license.

As it stands then Sala was not our player, as the required paperwork was not complete, so in that case he would not be insured by CCFC

If it is proved otherwise then that is when the insurance should kick in.

Whether the insurance company will fight that or not is another question

As it stands many beg to differ and say Sala was our player and until the final outcome, we shall wait and see.

People can think what they want Annis, but it’s all based on assumptions.

Without the facts though it’s pointless.

I’ve been told a few things which I’m not going to repeat as that would be wrong given I was told them in confidence that make the situation look a lot different to many peoples current perceptions.

Won’t stop certain obsessed fans of our rivals trying to make judgements though.

Whatever you were told in confidence doesn’t matter really, as I said the whole thing is public record. No judgements are being made by anyone, just stating and repeating factual information in the public domain.

Annis how anyone can even begin to make an argument he wasn’t is beyond me.

Based on what exactly? Can’t even comprehend any possible argument that says otherwise.

Dean, from day one we said he was ours and for a month after.

Sala was registered as our player with Welsh FA.
Nantes say he was and have shown paper work.
It was ruled yes, we have a appealed.
The paper work that was not complete was being registered as a Prem player, totally different than being our player.

My opinion yes he was ours.

We await the outcome.

100% spot on. Cardiff’s arguments are outlined in the FIFA report. Neither hold any weight.

Why people believe FIFA have it in for Cardiff City is beyond me. They have made the clearly obvious decision.

I am yet to hear one argument that makes the least bit sense from anyone that claims they made the wrong decision. Have you?

Got a strange feeling Lawnmowers account has been hacked by going by the repeating.

100% spot on. Cardiff’s arguments are outlined in the FIFA report. Neither hold any weight.

Why people believe FIFA have it in for Cardiff City is beyond me. They have made the clearly obvious decision.

I am yet to hear one argument that makes the least bit sense from anyone that claims they made the wrong decision. Have you?

Here is a couple of counter arguments. When Nantes instructed the McKay's to sell Sala they insisted that he must go and play in the Premier League for a Premier League club.

That is known as an 'expressed clause' in contract law, the clause does-not need to be written down in the official contract papers just known to both parties. Therefore the contract between Cardiff and Nantes would only be completed when Sala was registered with the Premier League.

Secondly the apparent problem with the Premier League registration was Sala's employment contract it breached Premiership rules. To amend that contract would need the permission of Sala which was not forthcoming due to his tragic death. Without a valid employment contract he was not our player.

100% spot on. Cardiff’s arguments are outlined in the FIFA report. Neither hold any weight.

Why people believe FIFA have it in for Cardiff City is beyond me. They have made the clearly obvious decision.

I am yet to hear one argument that makes the least bit sense from anyone that claims they made the wrong decision. Have you?

Here is a couple of counter arguments. When Nantes instructed the McKay's to sell Sala they insisted that he must go and play in the Premier League for a Premier League club.

That is known as an 'expressed clause' in contract law, the clause does-not need to be written down in the official contract papers just known to both parties. Therefore the contract between Cardiff and Nantes would only be completed when Sala was registered with the Premier League.

Secondly the apparent problem with the Premier League registration was Sala's employment contract it breached Premiership rules. To amend that contract would need the permission of Sala which was not forthcoming due to his tragic death. Without a valid employment contract he was not our player.

Tony, you have added a part to that first bit that doesn’t exist, a bit that makes all the difference.

The stipulation was that Sala was sold to a Premier League club - which is exactly what happened. They obviously didn’t say they want him to sign for a Premier League club AND play in the Premier League. They wanted to sell him to a Premier League club because that’s where the money is. Adding things on to that isn’t helping.

Secondly, you are confusing employment contracts and registry for a competition. The employment contract was and still is perfectly valid. However in its current form the player would not be able to play in the Premier League, but he would be able to represent the club in other matches. I think even the club now understands this and is not perusing that line. They were similarly confused by that, which is odd really considering that it is pretty much common knowledge with plenty of past cases of this.

It is very likely that both club and player would have amended the contract for him to be able to play in the Premier League. But had they not done that; he would just be a Cardiff player unable to play in that specific competition. It wouldn’t not make him a Cardiff player.

Cardiff then argued that some of the clauses indicated he had to play in the Premier League. However the clauses were team related and not player related, these were highlighted in the document.

Tony, you have added a part to that first bit that doesn’t exist, a bit that makes all the difference.

The stipulation was that Sala was sold to a Premier League club - which is exactly what happened. They obviously didn’t say they want him to sign for a Premier League club AND play in the Premier League. They wanted to sell him to a Premier League club because that’s where the money is. Adding things on to that isn’t helping.

Secondly, you are confusing employment contracts and registry for a competition. The employment contract was and still is perfectly valid. However in its current form the player would not be able to play in the Premier League, but he would be able to represent the club in other matches. I think even the club now understands this and is not perusing that line. They were similarly confused by that, which is odd really considering that it is pretty much common knowledge with plenty of past cases of this.

It is very likely that both club and player would have amended the contract for him to be able to play in the Premier League. But had they not done that; he would just be a Cardiff player unable to play in that specific competition. It wouldn’t not make him a Cardiff player.

Cardiff then argued that some of the clauses indicated he had to play in the Premier League. However the clauses were team related and not player related, these were highlighted in the document.

You make an assumption that Sala would have agreed to the amendment (which was likely) but sadly uncompleted. There might be a difference between 'team' and 'player' but it is reasonable to assume that Sala agreed to the move on the grounds that he would be playing Premier League football. Until that agreement was satisfied then Nantes would be in breach of miss selling Sala to us as we wanted him playing in the PL. Until the registration with the PL was complete then there is an argument he wasn't fit for purpose and the contract was void.

My point is that it makes no difference if he would or wouldn’t have. It wouldn’t make the employment contract any more valid or any less invalid. It has no impact as they are seperate entities.

To highlight the point further that Nantes certainly would not and did not stipulate he had to physically play in the Premier League is one of injury.

It is quite feasible that Sala could have picked up an injury in the depths of winter in Feb putting him out for 8-12 weeks, by which time Cardiff could have been relegated without him playing a game.

Does that mean they would have to pay the money back and Sala goes back to Nantes because he didn’t get to play in the Premier League? Of course not.

Many players move to clubs on the assumption they will play, only to find they never do. That doesn’t make the transfers invalid. Martin Braithwaite went to Barca because he wanted to play for them in La Liga and the Champions League - is he was never selected he couldn’t claim his contract was invalid and transfer null and void. That’s football.

The stipulation was simply that he was sold to a Premier League club because that is who would pay the most money. That’s what happened.

100% spot on. Cardiff’s arguments are outlined in the FIFA report. Neither hold any weight.

Why people believe FIFA have it in for Cardiff City is beyond me. They have made the clearly obvious decision.

I am yet to hear one argument that makes the least bit sense from anyone that claims they made the wrong decision. Have you?

Here is a couple of counter arguments. When Nantes instructed the McKay's to sell Sala they insisted that he must go and play in the Premier League for a Premier League club.

That is known as an 'expressed clause' in contract law, the clause does-not need to be written down in the official contract papers just known to both parties. Therefore the contract between Cardiff and Nantes would only be completed when Sala was registered with the Premier League.

Secondly the apparent problem with the Premier League registration was Sala's employment contract it breached Premiership rules. To amend that contract would need the permission of Sala which was not forthcoming due to his tragic death. Without a valid employment contract he was not our player.

Tony, you have added a part to that first bit that doesn’t exist, a bit that makes all the difference.

The stipulation was that Sala was sold to a Premier League club - which is exactly what happened. They obviously didn’t say they want him to sign for a Premier League club AND play in the Premier League. They wanted to sell him to a Premier League club because that’s where the money is. Adding things on to that isn’t helping.

Secondly, you are confusing employment contracts and registry for a competition. The employment contract was and still is perfectly valid. However in its current form the player would not be able to play in the Premier League, but he would be able to represent the club in other matches. I think even the club now understands this and is not perusing that line. They were similarly confused by that, which is odd really considering that it is pretty much common knowledge with plenty of past cases of this.

It is very likely that both club and player would have amended the contract for him to be able to play in the Premier League. But had they not done that; he would just be a Cardiff player unable to play in that specific competition. It wouldn’t not make him a Cardiff player.

Cardiff then argued that some of the clauses indicated he had to play in the Premier League. However the clauses were team related and not player related, these were highlighted in the document.

Roathie you are so obvious in your posts anti cardiff city exactly word for word what you posted previously goodbye

My point is that it makes no difference if he would or wouldn’t have. It wouldn’t make the employment contract any more valid or any less invalid. It has no impact as they are seperate entities.

To highlight the point further that Nantes certainly would not and did not stipulate he had to physically play in the Premier League is one of injury.

It is quite feasible that Sala could have picked up an injury in the depths of winter in Feb putting him out for 8-12 weeks, by which time Cardiff could have been relegated without him playing a game.

Does that mean they would have to pay the money back and Sala goes back to Nantes because he didn’t get to play in the Premier League? Of course not.

The stipulation was simply that he was sold to a Premier League club because that is who would pay the most money. That’s what happened.

Your analogy of Sala being injured in February is way off. A buying club can pull out of a deal if a player fails his/hers transfer medical which would have been a far better analogy. The way I view it is until Sala was registered to play in the PL then he was not fit for purpose considering we were paying £15m for a player to play mainly in the PL not the FA Cup, League Cup or U23 side.

That condition may well have been satisfied days later but it wasn't at the time of his death. Therefore the whole transfer contract was null and void.

Carbon Monoxide can act differently on separate people due to fitness and body mass. ( look it up ) very sad.

Why the hell would Ibbitson get in a plane he knew was faulty? Which begs the question WAS it him who flew it over to France or was it Henderson ?

Are Cardiff now in the position of having to take a civil action against the estate of Ibbitson for £15m.? ( Never get the money )

Still no answers of how did Ibbitson walk on to the French airfield ( air side ) with a expired licence.

Mafia involvement as the Sala family stated.?? Seemed enough dodgy people involved for there to be something in this.!!

Many many questions that will sadly for the family remain unanswered.

Hope the agents and middlemen somehow find their conscious and come clean , maybe financially support the family trust set up by Cardiff but doubt it very much.

French authorities swept their raid on Nantes owner offices under the mat. ( Mafia involvement??)

RIP both as personally I think they are both victim's of others greed..

Nantes chairman still under investigation.

This isn’t going to be put to bed for a long time.

I know I’m a one eyed City fan but from what I’ve been told our club are completely in the right over this and we really should wait and see what comes out as there is a lot we don’t know regarding this awful tragedy

I don’t understand why so many people on the outside are so bothered by who pays what. It won’t bring the lad back .

What difference does it make to anyone away from City/ Nantes who gets the money

Makes you wonder if the comments are being driven by an agenda of hate towards our club or owners

I wonder how many apologies there will be when the truth comes out ?

Totally agree some people want us to lose 15million pound ,its shocking really the same people moan when we dont invest too like in January, as a fan I dont want the club to pay any monies out unnecessary

100% spot on. Cardiff’s arguments are outlined in the FIFA report. Neither hold any weight.

Why people believe FIFA have it in for Cardiff City is beyond me. They have made the clearly obvious decision.

I am yet to hear one argument that makes the least bit sense from anyone that claims they made the wrong decision. Have you?

Here is a couple of counter arguments. When Nantes instructed the McKay's to sell Sala they insisted that he must go and play in the Premier League for a Premier League club.

That is known as an 'expressed clause' in contract law, the clause does-not need to be written down in the official contract papers just known to both parties. Therefore the contract between Cardiff and Nantes would only be completed when Sala was registered with the Premier League.

Secondly the apparent problem with the Premier League registration was Sala's employment contract it breached Premiership rules. To amend that contract would need the permission of Sala which was not forthcoming due to his tragic death. Without a valid employment contract he was not our player.

Tony, you have added a part to that first bit that doesn’t exist, a bit that makes all the difference.

The stipulation was that Sala was sold to a Premier League club - which is exactly what happened. They obviously didn’t say they want him to sign for a Premier League club AND play in the Premier League. They wanted to sell him to a Premier League club because that’s where the money is. Adding things on to that isn’t helping.

Secondly, you are confusing employment contracts and registry for a competition. The employment contract was and still is perfectly valid. However in its current form the player would not be able to play in the Premier League, but he would be able to represent the club in other matches. I think even the club now understands this and is not perusing that line. They were similarly confused by that, which is odd really considering that it is pretty much common knowledge with plenty of past cases of this.

It is very likely that both club and player would have amended the contract for him to be able to play in the Premier League. But had they not done that; he would just be a Cardiff player unable to play in that specific competition. It wouldn’t not make him a Cardiff player.

Cardiff then argued that some of the clauses indicated he had to play in the Premier League. However the clauses were team related and not player related, these were highlighted in the document.

Roathie you are so obvious in your posts anti cardiff city exactly word for word what you posted previously goodbye

,I was wondering when somebody would notice,without outing him myself his MO Never changes

No, my account hasn’t been hacked, but all the information about this case is NOT public and that includes the way the FIFA hearing was held.

There is a long way to go with this yet and it’s unwise to judge the outcome from conclusions people are making with only the limited information which is in the public.

I’ll leave it there

And I never understand on here why people press the quote button on another person's post then add a load of ITK tosh without it having any relevance to the original post.

Cool bro ta ta
Cool bro ta ta.

I will leave it there now.

My point is that it makes no difference if he would or wouldn’t have. It wouldn’t make the employment contract any more valid or any less invalid. It has no impact as they are seperate entities.

To highlight the point further that Nantes certainly would not and did not stipulate he had to physically play in the Premier League is one of injury.

It is quite feasible that Sala could have picked up an injury in the depths of winter in Feb putting him out for 8-12 weeks, by which time Cardiff could have been relegated without him playing a game.

Does that mean they would have to pay the money back and Sala goes back to Nantes because he didn’t get to play in the Premier League? Of course not.

The stipulation was simply that he was sold to a Premier League club because that is who would pay the most money. That’s what happened.

Your analogy of Sala being injured in February is way off. A buying club can pull out of a deal if a player fails his/hers transfer medical which would have been a far better analogy. The way I view it is until Sala was registered to play in the PL then he was not fit for purpose considering we were paying £15m for a player to play mainly in the PL not the FA Cup, League Cup or U23 side.

That condition may well have been satisfied days later but it wasn't at the time of his death. Therefore the whole transfer contract was null and void.

What I have found strange about this FIFA decision is that it gave absolutely no consideration to Stage 7 of it's Transfer Matching System i.e. The Player Becomes Eligible To Play For His New Club". Stage 8 of the system is the buying club completes payment to the selling club be that the full transfer fee or the installments as the become due.

Cardiff argued this point but it was dismissed pretty much out of hand with the reason given a mistake by Cardiff City in drawing up the player contract could not be used as an excuse not to pay. FIFA decided to concentrate on the fact that the FAW had acknowledged receipt of the ITC at 17.30pm on the evening that Emiliano Sala died in the plane crash. This despite a stipulation within the contract that the ITC had to be received by The FA. Cardiff also presented emails which clearly stated that that the contract required an amendment was required before the contract and therefore the transfer could be approved. Therefore before his tragic death ES was NEVER eligible to play for Cardiff City and as it's a requirement of the FIFA TMS that the players are eligible to PLAY for their new clubs before payment becomes due it's crazy to tell Cardiff they have to pay up.

It was also a stipulation within the contract that any dispute with the contract would be to FIFA Disputes Resolution Chamber but this case was put in front of FIFA Player Status Committee who decided that it was OK for them to make a decision in the case.

In my opinion Cardiff City are right to fight this and I hope that when they get in front of the CAS they get formal statement from the PL and FA confirming that ES was NEVER eligible to play for Cardiff City.

My point is that it makes no difference if he would or wouldn’t have. It wouldn’t make the employment contract any more valid or any less invalid. It has no impact as they are seperate entities.

To highlight the point further that Nantes certainly would not and did not stipulate he had to physically play in the Premier League is one of injury.

It is quite feasible that Sala could have picked up an injury in the depths of winter in Feb putting him out for 8-12 weeks, by which time Cardiff could have been relegated without him playing a game.

Does that mean they would have to pay the money back and Sala goes back to Nantes because he didn’t get to play in the Premier League? Of course not.

The stipulation was simply that he was sold to a Premier League club because that is who would pay the most money. That’s what happened.

Your analogy of Sala being injured in February is way off. A buying club can pull out of a deal if a player fails his/hers transfer medical which would have been a far better analogy. The way I view it is until Sala was registered to play in the PL then he was not fit for purpose considering we were paying £15m for a player to play mainly in the PL not the FA Cup, League Cup or U23 side.

That condition may well have been satisfied days later but it wasn't at the time of his death. Therefore the whole transfer contract was null and void.

What I have found strange about this FIFA decision is that it gave absolutely no consideration to Stage 7 of it's Transfer Matching System i.e. The Player Becomes Eligible To Play For His New Club". Stage 8 of the system is the buying club completes payment to the selling club be that the full transfer fee or the installments as the become due.

Cardiff argued this point but it was dismissed pretty much out of hand with the reason given a mistake by Cardiff City in drawing up the player contract could not be used as an excuse not to pay. FIFA decided to concentrate on the fact that the FAW had acknowledged receipt of the ITC at 17.30pm on the evening that Emiliano Sala died in the plane crash. This despite a stipulation within the contract that the ITC had to be received by The FA. Cardiff also presented emails which clearly stated that that the contract required an amendment was required before the contract and therefore the transfer could be approved. Therefore before his tragic death ES was NEVER eligible to play for Cardiff City and as it's a requirement of the FIFA TMS that the players are eligible to PLAY for their new clubs before payment becomes due it's crazy to tell Cardiff they have to pay up.

It was also a stipulation within the contract that any dispute with the contract would be to FIFA Disputes Resolution Chamber but this case was put in front of FIFA Player Status Committee who decided that it was OK for them to make a decision in the case.

In my opinion Cardiff City are right to fight this and I hope that when they get in front of the CAS they get formal statement from the PL and FA confirming that ES was NEVER eligible to play for Cardiff City.

Gary, as always you raise great points

The club are adamant that they have the Law on their side and that CAS will see the bigger picture when their case is presented

Their legal team are amongst the best in the world and are employed by the owner on the club's behalf; and that is an important factor, as they won't want to be blowing smoke up his (proverbial) backside, if they want a financially lucrative future relationship

It's a minefield to most of us but those professionally advising the club will have the information to hand and will have a far more factual outlook than the barrack room lawyers on this (and other) sites

Great post Gary

My point is that it makes no difference if he would or wouldn’t have. It wouldn’t make the employment contract any more valid or any less invalid. It has no impact as they are seperate entities.

To highlight the point further that Nantes certainly would not and did not stipulate he had to physically play in the Premier League is one of injury.

It is quite feasible that Sala could have picked up an injury in the depths of winter in Feb putting him out for 8-12 weeks, by which time Cardiff could have been relegated without him playing a game.

Does that mean they would have to pay the money back and Sala goes back to Nantes because he didn’t get to play in the Premier League? Of course not.

The stipulation was simply that he was sold to a Premier League club because that is who would pay the most money. That’s what happened.

Your analogy of Sala being injured in February is way off. A buying club can pull out of a deal if a player fails his/hers transfer medical which would have been a far better analogy. The way I view it is until Sala was registered to play in the PL then he was not fit for purpose considering we were paying £15m for a player to play mainly in the PL not the FA Cup, League Cup or U23 side.

That condition may well have been satisfied days later but it wasn't at the time of his death. Therefore the whole transfer contract was null and void.

Tony, I don’t mean to be blunt however your point here doesn’t make much sense or hold much relevance to the situation, it it really doesn’t relate.

Medicals are undertaken PRIOR to transfers being completed to allow a buying party chance to pull out of the deal. So of course clubs can pull out, it’s what they are designed for.

However if they conducted a successful medical and signed the player. Then a week later realised that they forgot to check his ankles only to then discover he has a chronic ankle problem - they can’t send him back and negate the sale. It’s too late and it’s their error.

Same as the situation here. Nantes did all they were supposed to do and the transfer was completed.

Cardiff then realised they made an error in the signing on fee structure meaning he couldn’t play in the competition they wanted him to. That’s not Nantes’ fault, the club failed to do its due diligence in what was required to make their signing “fit for purpose”, to use your term.

This is not anti Cardiff view as has been suggested, this is just the situation based on facts and what we know. This is essentially verbatim the FIFA findings too as said in their summary of findings. Surely FIFA aren’t going to be accused of being anti Cardiff too? Common sense is not the enemy you think it is.

My point is that it makes no difference if he would or wouldn’t have. It wouldn’t make the employment contract any more valid or any less invalid. It has no impact as they are seperate entities.

To highlight the point further that Nantes certainly would not and did not stipulate he had to physically play in the Premier League is one of injury.

It is quite feasible that Sala could have picked up an injury in the depths of winter in Feb putting him out for 8-12 weeks, by which time Cardiff could have been relegated without him playing a game.

Does that mean they would have to pay the money back and Sala goes back to Nantes because he didn’t get to play in the Premier League? Of course not.

The stipulation was simply that he was sold to a Premier League club because that is who would pay the most money. That’s what happened.

Your analogy of Sala being injured in February is way off. A buying club can pull out of a deal if a player fails his/hers transfer medical which would have been a far better analogy. The way I view it is until Sala was registered to play in the PL then he was not fit for purpose considering we were paying £15m for a player to play mainly in the PL not the FA Cup, League Cup or U23 side.

That condition may well have been satisfied days later but it wasn't at the time of his death. Therefore the whole transfer contract was null and void.

What I have found strange about this FIFA decision is that it gave absolutely no consideration to Stage 7 of it's Transfer Matching System i.e. The Player Becomes Eligible To Play For His New Club". Stage 8 of the system is the buying club completes payment to the selling club be that the full transfer fee or the installments as the become due.

Cardiff argued this point but it was dismissed pretty much out of hand with the reason given a mistake by Cardiff City in drawing up the player contract could not be used as an excuse not to pay. FIFA decided to concentrate on the fact that the FAW had acknowledged receipt of the ITC at 17.30pm on the evening that Emiliano Sala died in the plane crash. This despite a stipulation within the contract that the ITC had to be received by The FA. Cardiff also presented emails which clearly stated that that the contract required an amendment was required before the contract and therefore the transfer could be approved. Therefore before his tragic death ES was NEVER eligible to play for Cardiff City and as it's a requirement of the FIFA TMS that the players are eligible to PLAY for their new clubs before payment becomes due it's crazy to tell Cardiff they have to pay up.

It was also a stipulation within the contract that any dispute with the contract would be to FIFA Disputes Resolution Chamber but this case was put in front of FIFA Player Status Committee who decided that it was OK for them to make a decision in the case.

In my opinion Cardiff City are right to fight this and I hope that when they get in front of the CAS they get formal statement from the PL and FA confirming that ES was NEVER eligible to play for Cardiff City.

Gary, you have interpreted that incorrectly.

The Transfer Matching System doesn’t only refer to league competition. The transferred player simply has to be eligible to play for the club. Sala WAS eligible to play for Cardiff, just not in the Premier League at the time.

Think of it as signing someone who has already played for the maximum amount of clubs in a single season. They would be ineligible to play in the league - but eligible to play for the club in other capacities. There have been a number of instances where players are signed but cannot play in the league competition.

But it’s important to note in order to understand why these decisions are going against the club. People seem to be adding on stipulations and regulations that don’t exist to help the clubs cause on the forum.

There was no “must play in the Premier League” stipulation - only to be sold to a Premier League club. And there is no criteria in the TMS stating the player must play in that countries league system, just eligibility to play for that club in some capacity.

Do one roathie.....

Totally agree some people want us to lose 15million pound ,its shocking really the same people moan when we dont invest too like in January, as a fan I dont want the club to pay any monies out unnecessary

Wez, it isn’t a case of “wanting” the club to lose x amount of money. It’s about talking of the reality of the situation.

Saying Messi is a world class player isn’t me wanting him to be, makes no difference to me. It's just stating the obvious based on what we all know.

Pretending none of this evidence or these circumstances exist isn’t going to help the club or make them any more likely to get away with not paying. Far better we are able to discuss it in common sense terms isn't it?