Breaking: ‘ Tan / Cardiff are suing for £80 Million ‘

THE DAILY MAIL / THE SUN / MEDIA WALES

ALL PRINTED THIS STORY:



Cardiff City 'want Nantes to pay £80MILLION in compensation after claiming Emiliano Sala's death in plane crash led to their relegation from the Premier League'.

Cardiff are suing FC Nantes and lawyers costs alone will run in to hundreds of thousands of pounds.



Another costly court case to Our club in my opinion:
We’ve not won the case to prove Emiliano Sala was not our player so we don’t have to pay the £15mill owed to FC Nantes.



viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226



Cardiff City are seeking a huge £80million compensation package from French club Nantes after claiming that Emiliano Sala's death resulted in them being relegated from the Premier League, according to reports.

Daily Mail

Tuesday 26th April 2022


Sala was due to sign for Cardiff in January 2019, but died in a plane crash on his way to finalising the transfer.

The Bluebirds went on to be relegated from the top-flight four months later, finishing two points behind 17th-placed Brighton, and the club's manager at the time of Sala's death, Neil Warnock, felt the striker's goals could have kept them up.


The Welsh outfit are now pushing for £80m from Nantes, which they believe they lost in TV rights, advertising and sponsorship after dropping down to the Championship.

Cardiff are now counter suing FC: Nantes who are suing for the £15mill fee for Emiliano Sala.



viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226




Cardiff has based their claim on the Carlos Tevez case from 2007 - Sheffield United were paid a hefty compensation fee after West Ham broke third-party player ownership rules

Cardiff has based their claim on the Carlos Tevez case from 2007 - Sheffield United were paid a hefty compensation fee after West Ham broke third-party player ownership rules

Tevez scored seven goals in the second half of the 2006-07 season to keep West Ham in the Premier League at Sheffield United's expense.

Sheffield United wanted West Ham to be docked points, which would have allowed the Blades to stay in England's top division.

However, they eventually settled on a compensation fee worth £26.5m. Cardiff are now seeking a much higher figure, which includes approximately £20m in parachute payments.

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

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

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

Can we merge this topic with the other sticky on the same article ?

It's quite an interesting one from both points of view

Here we go again, another court case. Cant our club just concentrate on running the club properly and do what really matters the team , the fans

Can we merge this topic with the other sticky on the same article ?

It's quite an interesting one from both points of view

Oops only just seen sorry.

We can’t as my one has now been tweeted and on Fb.
And never works once merged.

Not sure how much of a sensationalised headline it is as the article doesn’t say much at all but not a good look if any truth in it really.

Can understand not wanting to pay the fee if it was on Nantes but this just similar to boro’s embarrassing claim against derby as they missed out on the play offs - only in a lot worse taste considering the circumstances.

Not sure how this stands up using the tevez case as there is evidence that tevez scored goals which impacted on Sheffield future - Sala was no guarantee of this

Maybe they should Craig pawson (at least I think it was him) for his non offside decision against Chelsea - that had a bigger impact

Seriously though I feel so sorry for the family of Sala who have had to sit through all of this pawning of their sons death without any resolution - felt for a longtime that both clubs should have offered to both pay 7.5 to the family and closed it - the only people benefiting from what I can see are the lawyers involved

Can we merge this topic with the other sticky on the same article ?

It's quite an interesting one from both points of view

Where is the other topic on this article ?


Link?

Annis I think he means the one i posted early this morning

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=227316

Can we merge this topic with the other sticky on the same article ?

It's quite an interesting one from both points of view

Where is the other topic on this article ?


Link?

Annis I think he means the one i posted early this morning

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=227316

I just only saw , Sorry Roger.

Reply FB:

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

Here we go again, another court case. Cant our club just concentrate on running the club properly and do what really matters the team , the fans

They can do both surely, if they get anything from this it will help

Replies FB:

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

Reply FB:

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

Cardiff City hit Nantes with '£80m compensation claim' over Emiliano Sala due to Premier League relegation, says new book
Fresh reports have emerged from a new book that Cardiff are seeking a whopping sum for lost revenue


By Glen Williams (Junior reporter )


Tuesday 26 April 2022

SPORT


Cardiff City have reportedly served Nantes with an £80million compensation claim, believing the death of Emiliano Sala cost them relegation from the Premier League.

A new book about what happened to Sala has just been published, with some of the details from it reported in the London media. Sala was due to sign for the Bluebirds in January 2019, but the plane carrying him from France crashed in the English Channel and the striker tragically died at the age of 28.


And now, according to The Sun and the new book, it has come to light that Cardiff believe the relegation ultimately cost them £80m in lost TV rights, advertising and sponsorship opportunities. The Welsh club are said to have put forward their claim in the recent Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing in Switzerland, which will decide whether Cardiff have to pay the £15m transfer fee to Nantes.

It is understood Cardiff's CAS case centres around two strands. The first is over whether they or Nantes owned Sala and thus whether Cardiff are liable for the £15m transfer fee.

The second is thought to centre around the compensation package, should CAS judges rule against Cardiff. If Cardiff win the first part of the case, it might be they opt not to proceed with the compensation claim.

Cardiff were initially told to pay the money by FIFA in the first hearing, but the Bluebirds appealed the decision to CAS and await the outcome.

The Sun's report adds that Cardiff have used the 2007 Carlos Tevez case as an example, when West Ham were found to have broken the rules pertaining to third-party player ownership. Sheffield United then argued that West Ham should have been docked points instead of getting hit with a monetary fine — they were told to pay a record £5.5m — which would have kept the Blades in the Premier League.

Sheffield United, who were then managed by Warnock, eventually settled for £26.5m, but Cardiff are asking for three times as much.

Cardiff hold the belief that Nantes are responsible for Sala's death because agent Willie McKay acted on the French club's behalf and organised the ill-fated flight. They also argue that Sala's transfer was not complete because the striker was not eligible to play in the Premier League at the time of his passing.

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

Replies FB:

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

Let it go and focus on the state of the football at the club.
Tan is a freaking embarassment.

Let it go and focus on the state of the football at the club.
Tan is a freaking embarassment.

I am totally with you, it’s becoming once again embarrassing.

Let’s sort out our last court case , the appeal and start sorting out our club properly and why we are in our lowest ever position for 20 yrs, worst ever run this season in 120 yrs, the Jacks and Worzels took the piss out of us and our debt higher than 12 yrs ago.

It's its amazing how we only hear from some posters when the chance of Tan-bashing arises.

It's its amazing how we only hear from some posters when the chance of Tan-bashing arises.

Martin,

I bash him every day

We are currently our worst position for 20 yrs, we have gone backwards in every way and still more court cases, it’s endless with him.

Plus all we ever hear is, we are going to do another clear out etc etc

Club Statement | 26/04/22
Club News 19 minutes ago
Cardiff City FC wish to clarify that there is no truth in today’s press stories relating to a compensation claim being made against FC Nantes.

The suggestions that have been made can be wholly dismissed as false.

The Sun and Media Wales / Glen Williams had put the reports out.

Club statement- it's all a load of codswallop

Club Statement | 26/04/22
Club News 19 minutes ago
Cardiff City FC wish to clarify that there is no truth in today’s press stories relating to a compensation claim being made against FC Nantes.

The suggestions that have been made can be wholly dismissed as false.

The Sun and Media Wales / Glen Williams had put the reports out.

Daily Fail dishing out the tripe as usual

THE DAILY MAIL / THE SUN / MEDIA WALES

ALL PRINTED THIS STORY:

A lot of bashing club before the facts are known again!! who do you believe reporter who posted it
or club statement? Embarrassing at times

A lot of bashing club before the facts are known again!! who do you believe reporter who posted it
or club statement? Embarrassing at times

Alan,

Club statement has only just been printed .

No one bashing club, just the clowns running our club.

Believe Dalman never.

The media’s put it out, so fans were bound to st first believe including Media Wales

So we're now even using completely made up stories to bash the current regime !!??

However, what does surprise me is that people are still questionning the merit of the club taking this to the highest level.

For years the same people have criticised Tan for wasting club money on transfers, wages, poor running, etc., yet when he takes stand against paying out money we may not be liable for that's wrong too.

Will these same posters also give the club a pat on the back if they are successful and don't have to pay the full £15m plus costs and add-ons ?

Most legal views would be that they have already demonstrated the need for this to be heard at the correct level (CAS) by the case not having been summarily dismissed earlier. There is clearly a point on liability that needs to be properly resolved. The club may win or it may lose but I'm astounded people just think it's OK to Nantes £15m+ without question !! They may think differently if it was their money !!

I still think we'll lose this one, at least partially, but it doesn't make it wrong to have disputed it. If we do win then that's a significant impact on our turnover next season.

This is something I have posted several times over the years. I have a legal background and it is a subject I have even discussed with Mehmet. Who knows I made have even given him the idea?

The way I see it and have always seen it, is this.

1) If we win the CAS case - We cannot sue Nantes because he was not our player.

2) If we lose the CAS case - It will be judged that he was our player and we can sue Nantes (See Below)

The rationale is as follows:

In the UK Civil Courts for a Claim in negligence to succeed it must be proved that:

(a) A defendant has a duty of care to the Claimant - (i.e. Nantes had a duty of care to CCFC)
(b) That the duty of care was breached - (i.e Nantes allowed an unauthorized pilot/agent to deliver CCFC assets to Wales)
(c) As a result of that breach financial loss occurred - (i.e loss of a player worth £15m & Loss of Revenue)

Also remember that the burden of proof in the Civil Courts is less than in the Criminal Courts

In the Criminal Courts the burden of proof is - "Beyond reasonable doubt"
In the Civil Courts the burden of proof is "On the balance of probabilities"

We all have (a) a duty of care to each other and Nantes certainly had a duty of care to CCFC.

So we need to prove (b) did Nantes allow an unauthorized pilot/agent to deliver one of CCFC assets to Wales?

Let me put a slightly different spin on this. Let us say CCFC purchased £1m worth of clothing items from Nantes and the Nantes management chose to use an agent W.McKay to organize a flight to send those goods to us - we would be able to claim compensation for those goods - Do you agree?

In the same way, subject to CAS, we have an asset (E.Sala) who was worth £15m. Nantes used an agent to send those goods to us and did so via an unlicenced route. W.McKay has already been found guilty and, in the legal system, if you are found guilty of a Criminal Act then you are automatically liable under Civil Proceedings.

So Nantes failed to deliver our assets and we are able to sue Nantes for £15m accordingly.

The question as to whether we can sue for Loss of Revenue is an interesting one.

Those who have been involved in Car Accidents or Taxi Claims will appreciate claims for Loss of Earnings. This is quite similar.

CCFC had purchased a striker who was presently leading the French goalscoring charts and therefore "on the balance of probabilities" I believe a Court would accept that he would have scored a reasonable number of goals to keep the club in the Premier League. Remember we only finished 2 points behind Brighton

Accordingly, the loss the club has sustained, since being relegated, could (in my opinion) be recoverable.

I do have a legal background but I would imagine that the club has discussed this point with some seriously high-standing Barristers - QCs probably - and if they believe that the club can prove this loss then they are right to go for it.



The best outcome for Nantes, in my opinion, is for the CAS to determine that the player was still owned by them. Ok they will not receive the £15m (which they have not received anyway to date) but they will not be liable to pay £80m

For CCFC I think the best outcome is for the CAS to say E.Sala was a CCFC player. We owe Nantes £15m and then we can recover that £15m (for failing to deliver the asset) and also get another £80m on top.

This is something I have posted several times over the years. I have a legal background and it is a subject I have even discussed with Mehmet. Who knows I made have even given him the idea?

The way I see it and have always seen it, is this.

1) If we win the CAS case - We cannot sue Nantes because he was not our player.

2) If we lose the CAS case - It will be judged that he was our player and we can sue Nantes (See Below)

The rationale is as follows:

In the UK Civil Courts for a Claim in negligence to succeed it must be proved that:

(a) A defendant has a duty of care to the Claimant - (i.e. Nantes had a duty of care to CCFC)
(b) That the duty of care was breached - (i.e Nantes allowed an unauthorized pilot/agent to deliver CCFC assets to Wales)
(c) As a result of that breach financial loss occurred - (i.e loss of a player worth £15m & Loss of Revenue)

Also remember that the burden of proof in the Civil Courts is less than in the Criminal Courts

In the Criminal Courts the burden of proof is - "Beyond reasonable doubt"
In the Civil Courts the burden of proof is "On the balance of probabilities"

We all have (a) a duty of care to each other and Nantes certainly had a duty of care to CCFC.

So we need to prove (b) did Nantes allow an unauthorized pilot/agent to deliver one of CCFC assets to Wales?

Let me put a slightly different spin on this. Let us say CCFC purchased £1m worth of clothing items from Nantes and the Nantes management chose to use an agent W.McKay to organize a flight to send those goods to us - we would be able to claim compensation for those goods - Do you agree?

In the same way, subject to CAS, we have an asset (E.Sala) who was worth £15m. Nantes used an agent to send those goods to us and did so via an unlicenced route. W.McKay has already been found guilty and, in the legal system, if you are found guilty of a Criminal Act then you are automatically liable under Civil Proceedings.

So Nantes failed to deliver our assets and we are able to sue Nantes for £15m accordingly.

The question as to whether we can sue for Loss of Revenue is an interesting one.

Those who have been involved in Car Accidents or Taxi Claims will appreciate claims for Loss of Earnings. This is quite similar.

CCFC had purchased a striker who was presently leading the French goalscoring charts and therefore "on the balance of probabilities" I believe a Court would accept that he would have scored a reasonable number of goals to keep the club in the Premier League. Remember we only finished 2 points behind Brighton

Accordingly, the loss the club has sustained, since being relegated, could (in my opinion) be recoverable.

I do have a legal background but I would imagine that the club has discussed this point with some seriously high-standing Barristers - QCs probably - and if they believe that the club can prove this loss then they are right to go for it.



The best outcome for Nantes, in my opinion, is for the CAS to determine that the player was still owned by them. Ok they will not receive the £15m (which they have not received anyway to date) but they will not be liable to pay £80m

For CCFC I think the best outcome is for the CAS to say E.Sala was a CCFC player. We owe Nantes £15m and then we can recover that £15m (for failing to deliver the asset) and also get another £80m on top.

Paul, can you please post this as. New topic,

Very interesting

So we're now even using completely made up stories to bash the current regime !!??

However, what does surprise me is that people are still questionning the merit of the club taking this to the highest level.

For years the same people have criticised Tan for wasting club money on transfers, wages, poor running, etc., yet when he takes stand against paying out money we may not be liable for that's wrong too.

Will these same posters also give the club a pat on the back if they are successful and don't have to pay the full £15m plus costs and add-ons ?

Most legal views would be that they have already demonstrated the need for this to be heard at the correct level (CAS) by the case not having been summarily dismissed earlier. There is clearly a point on liability that needs to be properly resolved. The club may win or it may lose but I'm astounded people just think it's OK to Nantes £15m+ without question !! They may think differently if it was their money !!

I still think we'll lose this one, at least partially, but it doesn't make it wrong to have disputed it. If we do win then that's a significant impact on our turnover next season.

With Dalman, def No smoke without fire , just heard him on talk sport.

He is like an MP.

Or is he another Boris

THE DAILY MAIL / THE SUN / MEDIA WALES

ALL PRINTED THIS STORY:

The Daily Mail and Wales Online cite The Sun as their source. Hardly conclusive evidence from sensationalist sources. The original Sun article doesn’t offer any proof either.