REPORT: EMILIANO SALA RULING EXPECTED EARLY NEW YEAR

STRUGGLING CARDIFF CITY TO LEARN SALA FATE NEXT YEAR
By Graham Smeaton



Monday 4th October 2021




https://cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopi ... 2&t=204226


Alan Nixon (Sun on Sunday) writes that things could get much worse for the struggling Welsh side next year.

The bad news that Nixon brings is that Cardiff will learn their fate over the Emiliano Sala transfer tragedy “in the new year.”

Cardiff City were a Premier League side when they agreed a club-record £15million fee with French side Nantes for Argentinian striker Sala.

Cardiff City publicised Sala’s capture on the club’s official website. However, tragedy struck when the plane carrying Sala crashed in the English Channel. Sala was returning to Cardiff after his farewells to teammates at Nantes.

Cardiff City refused to pay Nantes citing “sufficient evidence of wrongdoing” in the arrangement of the flight bringing Sala back to the UK.

Cardiff have been ordered to pay this transfer fee but are “fighting FIFA’s decision” according to Nixon. He adds that a decision will be made “by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the new year.”

Cardiff are appealing the Courts decision and will know the decision this coming February.


Thoughts?

There is no easy way to think about this transfer story other than to remember that it is one steeped in tragedy – the untimely death of Emiliano Sala at its very core.

Cardiff City had announced Sala’s capture and even publicised it on the club website. That much is beyond obvious. However, they obviously think that they have a very strong case to have the £15milllion transfer fee set aside.

The CAS panel is due to hear the case from both sides in February next year. It will be then when Cardiff City learn their fate in this tragic saga.



https://cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopi ... 2&t=204226

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

Reply Twitter:

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

Does anyone else think that it’s a strange article when It says that Nixon is bringing bad news that a decision will be made in the New Year ?

How does he know it’s bad news ? If could be £15m worth of good news that could go a long way to sorting some of our issues on the playing/managerial side.

As others have mentioned, the money has, sensibly, been put away should we be told to pay so that shouldn’t cause too many problems were that to be the case.

Does anyone else think that it’s a strange article when It says that Nixon is bringing bad news that a decision will be made in the New Year ?

How does he know it’s bad news ? If could be £15m worth of good news that could go a long way to sorting some of our issues on the playing/managerial side.

As others have mentioned, the money has, sensibly, been put away should we be told to pay so that shouldn’t cause too many problems were that to be the case.

The club have provided for the loss in the previous years accounts, probably on the advice of the auditors would otherwise probably have qualified the accounts. All the accounts will show is a provision that we owe Nantes £15 million. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we have the money to pay it.

Odd article as on one hand he says be in January the decision but then says C.A.S meeting in February?
How does he know it's bad news seen a clairvoyant as he?

Does anyone else think that it’s a strange article when It says that Nixon is bringing bad news that a decision will be made in the New Year ?

How does he know it’s bad news ? If could be £15m worth of good news that could go a long way to sorting some of our issues on the playing/managerial side.

As others have mentioned, the money has, sensibly, been put away should we be told to pay so that shouldn’t cause too many problems were that to be the case.

The club have provided for the loss in the previous years accounts, probably on the advice of the auditors would otherwise probably have qualified the accounts. All the accounts will show is a provision that we owe Nantes £15 million. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we have the money to pay it.

So club just says we put money aside to make accounts look good?
Normally if organisation says set aside a sum of money to shareholders it means they've put money aside!!! not we've put money aside to just look good at shareholders meeting...... but whatever it is it will come out when time comes and not from DIY accountants we have on this forum.

Nixon is 99% right with all his tweets or articles.

Its a new article Sven has posted, it was wrote on Sunday.

My worry is, with costs, lawyers fees etc if City lose then it will cost us £20mill, but their again that money was always already put aside according to Chairman Dalman.

It has said many times before - he seems to say that because it was announced on the club website - it was official. The only thing that matters is when was the contract signed and then when the clauses in the contract had to be met before it became official etc etc.

As far as I know - no one on this board or the other board has seen the contract word for word. We dont know if it was subject to international clearance being approved etc etc.

Very worse case scenario - they deem Sala was a Cardiff player - the contract payments would be in installments and based on appearances, goals scored, whether we stayed up or not etc etc. So Id be very surprised if the figure was 15 million - more like a couple of million at best.

Even then, if you defending the club in court they will argue that the contract clauses could not be met (for obvious reasons) and a null contract would be the result.

Eitherway - it will set a precedent and be used in case law in the future, i think.

City were found in the wrong in the first case, City now appealed, hope they have new evidence to win their appeal

Reply FB:

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

the biggest worry for me, and i don't know how the financial side of this works so please if i am wrong, someone correct me,

but Dalman appeared twice on Si's podcast, and the first time on there he said, the club have accounted around £20m for this, so the money is already set aside for it, and has been accounted in the financial reports

the second time he appeared on the podcast, he said, if the club loses the verdict, we are in huge financial trouble as we cannot afford to the pay the money.

my worry is, the club try using this as an excuse for a fire sale or even accepting admin, to wipe out debts elsewhere before tan tries to sell.

the biggest worry for me, and i don't know how the financial side of this works so please if i am wrong, someone correct me,

but Dalman appeared twice on Si's podcast, and the first time on there he said, the club have accounted around £20m for this, so the money is already set aside for it, and has been accounted in the financial reports

the second time he appeared on the podcast, he said, if the club loses the verdict, we are in huge financial trouble as we cannot afford to the pay the money.

my worry is, the club try using this as an excuse for a fire sale or even accepting admin, to wipe out debts elsewhere before tan tries to sell.

I always try to have an open mind on our current ownership and have defended them many times but this one does worry me slightly.

If the money has been put away then great and we have very little to worry about whatever the decision, if not then things are tight although from an Administration perspective if we've already declared this as a liability on our accounts then we're no worse off than we already are surely ?

Just one other [point that others may or may not know (not speculate !). The reason why this has gone to court/tribunal is to decide whose player Sala legally was when the tragedy happened. Surely when that is decided then the insurance of either us or Nantes becomes liable for the loss of the transfer fee or did neither club have insurance ?

the biggest worry for me, and i don't know how the financial side of this works so please if i am wrong, someone correct me,

but Dalman appeared twice on Si's podcast, and the first time on there he said, the club have accounted around £20m for this, so the money is already set aside for it, and has been accounted in the financial reports

the second time he appeared on the podcast, he said, if the club loses the verdict, we are in huge financial trouble as we cannot afford to the pay the money.

my worry is, the club try using this as an excuse for a fire sale or even accepting admin, to wipe out debts elsewhere before tan tries to sell.

Unfortunately, the politician speaks with a very forked tongue and shouldn't be believed on much he says until the decision itself out in the public domain

I was told the money had 'been put aside' and that is my understanding of how these things should work; but who really knows right now?

the biggest worry for me, and i don't know how the financial side of this works so please if i am wrong, someone correct me,

but Dalman appeared twice on Si's podcast, and the first time on there he said, the club have accounted around £20m for this, so the money is already set aside for it, and has been accounted in the financial reports

the second time he appeared on the podcast, he said, if the club loses the verdict, we are in huge financial trouble as we cannot afford to the pay the money.

my worry is, the club try using this as an excuse for a fire sale or even accepting admin, to wipe out debts elsewhere before tan tries to sell.

Unfortunately, the politician speaks with a very forked tongue and shouldn't be believed on much he says until the decision itself out in the public domain

I was told the money had 'been put aside' and that is my understanding of how these things should work; but who really knows right now?

Unfortunately people believe what they want to believe when it comes to club? Dalmans comments said both things so easy to pick out the negative aspect of it... even when it comes to set aside the money it's not taken at face value its implied they are just saying it to con shareholders? Being positive city will win argument but unfortunately no winners in this case.

Does anyone else think that it’s a strange article when It says that Nixon is bringing bad news that a decision will be made in the New Year ?

How does he know it’s bad news ? If could be £15m worth of good news that could go a long way to sorting some of our issues on the playing/managerial side.

As others have mentioned, the money has, sensibly, been put away should we be told to pay so that shouldn’t cause too many problems were that to be the case.

The club have provided for the loss in the previous years accounts, probably on the advice of the auditors would otherwise probably have qualified the accounts. All the accounts will show is a provision that we owe Nantes £15 million. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we have the money to pay it.

So club just says we put money aside to make accounts look good?
Normally if organisation says set aside a sum of money to shareholders it means they've put money aside!!! not we've put money aside to just look good at shareholders meeting...... but whatever it is it will come out when time comes and not from DIY accountants we have on this forum.

I merely replied to the post to put what i see as the situation and to help people understand what a club means when they say they have provided for the loss.

As for being a DIY accountant you know absolutely nothing about my expertise. Its how I have been earning my living for the last 30 years. Its your type of attitude which is driving people off this forum, people who do have expertise in an area and can help inform others of the situation.

Does anyone else think that it’s a strange article when It says that Nixon is bringing bad news that a decision will be made in the New Year ?

How does he know it’s bad news ? If could be £15m worth of good news that could go a long way to sorting some of our issues on the playing/managerial side.

As others have mentioned, the money has, sensibly, been put away should we be told to pay so that shouldn’t cause too many problems were that to be the case.

The club have provided for the loss in the previous years accounts, probably on the advice of the auditors would otherwise probably have qualified the accounts. All the accounts will show is a provision that we owe Nantes £15 million. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we have the money to pay it.

So club just says we put money aside to make accounts look good?
Normally if organisation says set aside a sum of money to shareholders it means they've put money aside!!! not we've put money aside to just look good at shareholders meeting...... but whatever it is it will come out when time comes and not from DIY accountants we have on this forum.

I merely replied to the post to put what i see as the situation and to help people understand what a club means when they say they have provided for the loss.

As for being a DIY accountant you know absolutely nothing about my expertise. Its how I have been earning my living for the last 30 years. Its your type of attitude which is driving people off this forum, people who do have expertise in an area and can help inform others of the situation.

If you are an accountant then you will know, that if true what Nixon has said, the money has not just been set aside it has been put in escrow, I will put this meaning here for the benefit of other members of the board.

"A bond, deed, or other document kept in the custody of a third party and taking effect only when a specified condition has been fulfilled" which means that it cannot be touched until a decision has been made"
This was probably required by the court of arbitration

Does anyone else think that it’s a strange article when It says that Nixon is bringing bad news that a decision will be made in the New Year ?

How does he know it’s bad news ? If could be £15m worth of good news that could go a long way to sorting some of our issues on the playing/managerial side.

As others have mentioned, the money has, sensibly, been put away should we be told to pay so that shouldn’t cause too many problems were that to be the case.

The club have provided for the loss in the previous years accounts, probably on the advice of the auditors would otherwise probably have qualified the accounts. All the accounts will show is a provision that we owe Nantes £15 million. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we have the money to pay it.

So club just says we put money aside to make accounts look good?
Normally if organisation says set aside a sum of money to shareholders it means they've put money aside!!! not we've put money aside to just look good at shareholders meeting...... but whatever it is it will come out when time comes and not from DIY accountants we have on this forum.

I merely replied to the post to put what i see as the situation and to help people understand what a club means when they say they have provided for the loss.

As for being a DIY accountant you know absolutely nothing about my expertise. Its how I have been earning my living for the last 30 years. Its your type of attitude which is driving people off this forum, people who do have expertise in an area and can help inform others of the situation.

If you are an accountant then you will know, that if true what Nixon has said, the money has not just been set aside it has been put in escrow, I will put this meaning here for the benefit of other members of the board.

"A bond, deed, or other document kept in the custody of a third party and taking effect only when a specified condition has been fulfilled" which means that it cannot be touched until a decision has been made"
This was probably required by the court of arbitration

Yes you may well be correct in that. But it wouldn't be the club that has set aside the money but Tan himself. Which would mean we owe Tan a further 15 million or whatever it is. In the accounts we are showing a large figure of £19 million as a provision in the accounts for what i assume is the debt due to Nantes and other parties involved in this. If we lose the case and Tan loses his money this gets transferred to the directors loan account.

As an aside the 2019 accounts show a charge of £11 million for impairment of player registrations (in addition to the normal amortisation which is £15 million) which without wading through them I can only assume relates to the write off relating to Sala. In the unlikely event (in my opinion) that we win the case, this will be written back which may massively improve our position vis a vis the financial fair play rules.

I feel a little ashamed to be talking like this when a young man has so tragically died.

It's also interesting that the hearing has been postponed 3 or 4 times at the request of Nantes, so maybe they don't want all the details in the public domain. I do not think all the blame on this can be attributed to City.

It's also interesting that the hearing has been postponed 3 or 4 times at the request of Nantes, so maybe they don't want all the details in the public domain. I do not think all the blame on this can be attributed to City.

I've said that all along.

There are two parties to this action yet it's only our club that seems to be getting the bad press.

None of us have seen the papers on this case but there has to be some legal question that needs to be answered. We may lose this case but if there was no merit to our defence/argument then it would have been summarily dismissed a long time ago.

It's going to be interesting how this pans out.

My money is still on a last minute settlement where both clubs agree to be jointly liable, splitting the transfer fee and paying their own costs. You read it here first (From somebody definitely NOT in the know )

What saddens me is both clubs will come out bad in this sad and terrible mess. Both Nantes & Cardiff City will look very bad . I just think it could have been dealt with better especially as a young man lost his life in tragic circumstances.

Gutter press imo, he knows f**k all but guesses there's a story there with his ' struggling Cardiff ' opening.

What saddens me is both clubs will come out bad in this sad and terrible mess. Both Nantes & Cardiff City will look very bad . I just think it could have been dealt with better especially as a young man lost his life in tragic circumstances.

Couldn't agree more.

Any lawyers on here. Was he our player or not? I guess we can't sue airline company.

No one knows for sure. Although many people have already made their minds up
It’s just a case of wait and see.

His registration was rejected by the Premier league due to the structure of signing on fee payments. The question is if he refused to renegotiate his contract and the window closed who would own his registration ?