AN INSURANCE CLAIM QUESTION : The Club stated :”T

AN INSURANCE CLAIM QUESTION :



The Club stated :”The CCFC staff understood from its broker that all players were insured from the moment they were signed…. and the case arises from learning that they are not”.


Hmm…. SO ‘FROM THE MOMENT THEY SIGN ! My question is that the Club officially claimed that Sala was not yet legally signed as our player due to some technical requirement by the Premiere League.



Are we shooting ourselves in the head ….. by claiming that Sala is insured from the moment he is signed…….only to negate that by officially saying that he has not signed yet and/or that his signature is invalid or incomplete ?



To me it appears that our CEO Ken Choo and our Club Secretary have messed up big time by doing an elementary mistake relating to how Sala’s ‘signing on fee’ was to be paid .



My horrific fear is that are we yet again are embarking on another court case that we are bound to lose ?


Moreover and irrespective of all the above …. simple logic - as I see it - is that how can anything or anyone be insured if the insurance company has not been notified ? However ,

I can not really form an opinion because I do not know the details of our insurance policy nor do I know all the facts.



Finally how does Choo (and Dalman) keep getting away with committing all sorts of things ….and remain untouchables ?

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

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=231729

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

As I said in another thread annis, maybe that is the reason for all the court cases, maybe the club had no choice as insurance refusing to pay out as sala wasn't recognised as signed by premier league?
The club may have had to go down that route so the insurance can't deny he was our player now the courts are saying he was.
May not all be as black and white as some think.
I don't know the ins and Outs of the policy neither but my vehicle insurance automatically covers me on anything I'm driving up to x amount without me notifying them, sure clubs have something similar for players.
We've probay all had dealings with insurance companies at some point and know they will use any loophole to get out of paying out.

Not saying im right about it all but it would certainly make more sense if I am.

The Board keep saying he was not our player?

So if they keep maintaining this , then they would not of insured him, they can’t have it both ways.

The courts and Welsh FA say he was a Cardiff City player.

Tan says he has a plan and this was it as far as paying for Sala.

As Paul Keevil said in the beginning if the courts say he was our player then we can go for the insurance. Now looking at it all we should have paid up then claimed the insurance. That is of course there is something there that the club are not telling us. I mean is the insurance invalid as Sala died on an illegal flight?

It does seem as though for whatever reasons the club done it arse backwards. But presume the reason for it will come out eventually

As I said in another thread annis, maybe that is the reason for all the court cases, maybe the club had no choice as insurance refusing to pay out as sala wasn't recognised as signed by premier league?
The club may have had to go down that route so the insurance can't deny he was our player now the courts are saying he was.
May not all be as black and white as some think.
I don't know the ins and Outs of the policy neither but my vehicle insurance automatically covers me on anything I'm driving up to x amount without me notifying them, sure clubs have something similar for players.
We've probay all had dealings with insurance companies at some point and know they will use any loophole to get out of paying out.

I've suggested similar in previous threads as well. What seemed to us like stubborn persistence to flog a dead horse may well have had alternative purpose.

If the club new all along the insurance terms were that a player is covered as soon as they are signed and the insurance company is arguing he wasn't a signed player as his paperwork with the Prem wasn't complete (which reading between the lines seems to be what the club are suggesting is the situation)

Then by taking it through the courts to have every single jurisdiction possible verify he was our player could make it very hard for the insurers to avoid payment if the terms are that players are ensured upon signing.

It would make a bit more sense as to why they chased every appeal rather than accept defeat - especially considering all the negative publicity and I'll sentiment all these appeals have cost the club.

Personally, I always felt it was so they could get the full disclosure of who arranged the flight and so who is liable and counter sue from there, but on reflection I doubt those responsible have the money anyway so defending the insurance may have been more likely.

As much as our board look like a bunch of 3rd rate bond villains, there has had to be more to these endless appeals other than stubborn refusal to pay.

Maybe I'm being too generous and it is just stubbornness, but really doesn't make commercial sense.

It beggars belief, if was written as a drama it would get binned for being too far fetched…

the whole saga is a complete f**k up by complete f**k ups

now our club is a complete f**k up

As I said in another thread annis, maybe that is the reason for all the court cases, maybe the club had no choice as insurance refusing to pay out as sala wasn't recognised as signed by premier league?
The club may have had to go down that route so the insurance can't deny he was our player now the courts are saying he was.
May not all be as black and white as some think.
I don't know the ins and Outs of the policy neither but my vehicle insurance automatically covers me on anything I'm driving up to x amount without me notifying them, sure clubs have something similar for players.
We've probay all had dealings with insurance companies at some point and know they will use any loophole to get out of paying out.

I agree and have been saying this all along.

All of these cases are going in a structured order.

Until ownership was finalised we had no hope of succeeding on the insurance claims.

This is unlikely to be the last in the series either !!

As I said in another thread annis, maybe that is the reason for all the court cases, maybe the club had no choice as insurance refusing to pay out as sala wasn't recognised as signed by premier league?
The club may have had to go down that route so the insurance can't deny he was our player now the courts are saying he was.
May not all be as black and white as some think.
I don't know the ins and Outs of the policy neither but my vehicle insurance automatically covers me on anything I'm driving up to x amount without me notifying them, sure clubs have something similar for players.
We've probay all had dealings with insurance companies at some point and know they will use any loophole to get out of paying out.

I've suggested similar in previous threads as well. What seemed to us like stubborn persistence to flog a dead horse may well have had alternative purpose.

If the club new all along the insurance terms were that a player is covered as soon as they are signed and the insurance company is arguing he wasn't a signed player as his paperwork with the Prem wasn't complete (which reading between the lines seems to be what the club are suggesting is the situation)

Then by taking it through the courts to have every single jurisdiction possible verify he was our player could make it very hard for the insurers to avoid payment if the terms are that players are ensured upon signing.

It would make a bit more sense as to why they chased every appeal rather than accept defeat - especially considering all the negative publicity and I'll sentiment all these appeals have cost the club.

Personally, I always felt it was so they could get the full disclosure of who arranged the flight and so who is liable and counter sue from there, but on reflection I doubt those responsible have the money anyway so defending the insurance may have been more likely.

As much as our board look like a bunch of 3rd rate bond villains, there has had to be more to these endless appeals other than stubborn refusal to pay.

Maybe I'm being too generous and it is just stubbornness, but really doesn't make commercial sense.

I agree.

Don’t forget it will be the lawyers advising on theee cases and whilst they will be making money Civil lawyers are also quite keen on maintaining their success rates so won’t blindly issue these claims if there’s no hope.

As I said in another thread annis, maybe that is the reason for all the court cases, maybe the club had no choice as insurance refusing to pay out as sala wasn't recognised as signed by premier league?
The club may have had to go down that route so the insurance can't deny he was our player now the courts are saying he was.
May not all be as black and white as some think.
I don't know the ins and Outs of the policy neither but my vehicle insurance automatically covers me on anything I'm driving up to x amount without me notifying them, sure clubs have something similar for players.
We've probay all had dealings with insurance companies at some point and know they will use any loophole to get out of paying out.

I've suggested similar in previous threads as well. What seemed to us like stubborn persistence to flog a dead horse may well have had alternative purpose.

If the club new all along the insurance terms were that a player is covered as soon as they are signed and the insurance company is arguing he wasn't a signed player as his paperwork with the Prem wasn't complete (which reading between the lines seems to be what the club are suggesting is the situation)

Then by taking it through the courts to have every single jurisdiction possible verify he was our player could make it very hard for the insurers to avoid payment if the terms are that players are ensured upon signing.

It would make a bit more sense as to why they chased every appeal rather than accept defeat - especially considering all the negative publicity and I'll sentiment all these appeals have cost the club.

Personally, I always felt it was so they could get the full disclosure of who arranged the flight and so who is liable and counter sue from there, but on reflection I doubt those responsible have the money anyway so defending the insurance may have been more likely.

As much as our board look like a bunch of 3rd rate bond villains, there has had to be more to these endless appeals other than stubborn refusal to pay.

Maybe I'm being too generous and it is just stubbornness, but really doesn't make commercial sense.

Too sensible mate. As you say if the insurers told the club he wasn’t fully signed, they then have to prove that beyond doubt, to either make a claim or turn back to deal with other relevant parties if he wasn’t fully signed.
We’re not looking at something as simple as a slip on an icy pavement and it’s £20m or so.

I’m sure there’s laxity of varying degrees in the process of the signing and insuring, but as to what degree that truly is has yet to come out. And if it does come out, you can guarantee it will only be after every court case or claim has been exhausted.

Surely this type of insurance has got to work on the same basis as liability insurance as in when you sign a contract or the club in this instance you are automatically on the clubs insurance, I get that some people on here want to bash the owner at every opportunity but in this case maybe the club have a case, and all the other court cases where just to prove that he was our player and now the insurance company had that clarity tbey may well have to pay out.

The Board keep saying he was not our player?

So if they keep maintaining this , then they would not of insured him, they can’t have it both ways.

The courts and Welsh FA say he was a Cardiff City player.

On the flipside, the courts cannot have it both ways either.

The club maintain he was NOT our player, however all courts have decided that he was, therefore the insurance (may) kick in.

All involved can now only go forward with the knowledge the he WAS our player as per the courts decision.

It's all about the bigger picture.

The Board keep saying he was not our player?

So if they keep maintaining this , then they would not of insured him, they can’t have it both ways.

The courts and Welsh FA say he was a Cardiff City player.

On the flipside, the courts cannot have it both ways either.

The club maintain he was NOT our player, however all courts have decided that he was, therefore the insurance (may) kick in.

All involved can now only go forward with the knowledge the he WAS our player as per the courts decision.

That’s why we have Courts, so they could decide.

They have said Sala was our player, which I said from day one and I was shot down.

I will state from what I know the insurance will not have to pay a penny.

Fc Nantes will be complete proved innocent.

And what I know Sala was totally our responsibility from the minute he signed for us.

The Board keep saying he was not our player?

So if they keep maintaining this , then they would not of insured him, they can’t have it both ways.

The courts and Welsh FA say he was a Cardiff City player.

On the flipside, the courts cannot have it both ways either.

The club maintain he was NOT our player, however all courts have decided that he was, therefore the insurance (may) kick in.

All involved can now only go forward with the knowledge the he WAS our player as per the courts decision.

..... And what I know Sala was totally our responsibility from the minute he signed for us.

and therefore insurance (may) kick in.

However, I am with you, we will not win this case against the insurance company. They will always say it was up to the club to advise them when new players signed.

The Board keep saying he was not our player?

So if they keep maintaining this , then they would not of insured him, they can’t have it both ways.

The courts and Welsh FA say he was a Cardiff City player.

On the flipside, the courts cannot have it both ways either.

The club maintain he was NOT our player, however all courts have decided that he was, therefore the insurance (may) kick in.

All involved can now only go forward with the knowledge the he WAS our player as per the courts decision.

That’s why we have Courts, so they could decide.

They have said Sala was our player, which I said from day one and I was shot down.

I will state from what I know the insurance will not have to pay a penny.

Fc Nantes will be complete proved innocent.

And what I know Sala was totally our responsibility from the minute he signed for us.

When you lose an asset and have insurance in place you make a claim. The insurance claim was dimissed, the question was whether this was (1) the asset wasn't owned by the club or (2) the asset wasn't covered under the policy or possibly both

If the reason given by the insurance company had been that the asset had not been owned by the club then the efforts to prove that he was via the courts would make sense.

We now know however that the reason the insurance was dismissed was that 'Club staff understood from its broker that all players were insured from the moment they were signed, and the case arises from learning they were not'.

It could well be that what you say that the insurance will not have to pay a penny, but one would have thought that it was common in football for an insurance poilcy to cover all players signed rather than to have them insured individually unless there was for example a limit on value of any player signed and the Sala signing was over that limit so he wasn't covered.

The question is would it be the responsibility of the club or their broker to highlight this before he signed on the dotted line. The efforts in proving that he had signed on the dotted line may have been necceasry all along to pursue the broker and not the insurance company as the lawyers believed that the brokers were liable for not highlihting to their client that the well publicised sala signing would not be covered under their existing policy they had and should have ensured this was brought to their attention before he did sign on the dotted line.

Can you imagine an insurance company , trying to get out of paying a claim !
An insurance company trying to muddy the waters and deflect !
This is certainly a crucial time for all parties involved .
I wonder if , after all this is settled , will Tan change his insurance company ?
I assume Tans legal team as been through this latest episode with a fine toothcomb(there's a first time for everything) .

So if the policy covered a player from tbr momeng they sign. And it’s been proven he was our player. Surely he was covered?

There is such a thing as unfair contracts, where the law states that as a seller knows more than a consummer, regarding what they are selling then any terms that are deemed to be unfair will be void. This includes insurance policies.

"standard contract terms used by traders have to be fair. This doesn't change if they're called "terms and conditions" or are part of a detailed contract that you actually have to sign. The contract is not allowed to create an imbalance between your rights and obligations as a consumer and the rights and obligations of sellers and suppliers"

Contract terms must be drafted in plain, understandable language. Any ambiguities will be interpreted in your favour.

Surely this type of insurance has got to work on the same basis as liability insurance as in when you sign a contract or the club in this instance you are automatically on the clubs insurance, I get that some people on here want to bash the owner at every opportunity but in this case maybe the club have a case, and all the other court cases where just to prove that he was our player and now the insurance company had that clarity tbey may well have to pay out.

My thoughts exactly, otherwise on transfer deadline day insurers wouldn't be able to cope. I wouldn't thinks there are that many insurers for this type of cover.

With large commercial fleet insurance, cover starts when ownership is taken of the vehicle. At renewal an inventory is taken of the vehicles owned. Cover at football clubs could be similar.

Definitely one for the courts.

I dont often stick up for the club over the Sala issue but on this particular point they were damned whatever they did. If they had gone for the brokers in the first place they would could be admitting he was our player. As the issue is presumably now settled that he was our player we may have a case against the broker if they were at fault.

If we do have a case i can see the brokers lawyers arguing that whatever FIFA may have decided, in English Law he was not our player and using the vey same arguments that we did with FIFA, but against us. We will then have the ridiculous situation of having to argue that he was our player using the same arguments that Nantes used against us!!