Swiss Federal Court

Has decided that CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction to deal with the emiliano sala damages case and has stated its a civil matter Cardiff City's case

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=233508

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

can someone explain this further, is this good news or bad news for the club, i have genuinely forgotten what is going on

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=233508

Does that mean that CAS didn't have the right to award the case to Nantes? Which I how read it.

Ignore my post having read more it seems I am completely wrong!!!!

Off to civil courts we go....


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=233508

What is the time frame of this ?

Surely this is good news for the club ?

If a senior court decides the CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction then logic would dictate that any subsequent sanctions (e.g. embargo) should be paused until civil courts decide ?

This is defo not over.

Surely this is good news for the club ?

If a senior court decides the CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction then logic would dictate that any subsequent sanctions (e.g. embargo) should be paused until civil courts decide ?

This is defo not over.

I feel the Civil Case has no bearing on the footballing case as to who owned (and should pay for) Sala.

Clutching at straws here but the only legal stance the club could have is that paying further installments may affect the outcome of the civil case. But its a stretch.

Surely this is good news for the club ?

If a senior court decides the CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction then logic would dictate that any subsequent sanctions (e.g. embargo) should be paused until civil courts decide ?

This is defo not over.

I feel the Civil Case has no bearing on the footballing case as to who owned (and should pay for) Sala.

Clutching at straws here but the only legal stance the club could have is that paying further installments may affect the outcome of the civil case. But its a stretch.

Not really. If CAS have no jurisdiction then how can the sporting bodies beneath them impose sanctions when the case has clearly not been decided at the appropriate level ?

Now I have no problem in them imposing a “payment into court” held pending a final decision to safeguard Nantes should the case go against them but sanctions like embargo’s seem to be pre-judging that decision and could very well be successfully challenged now.

All these cases are part of the bigger picture which seems to be getting closer to a conclusion, whichever way that conclusion goes.

Surely this is good news for the club ?

If a senior court decides the CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction then logic would dictate that any subsequent sanctions (e.g. embargo) should be paused until civil courts decide ?

This is defo not over.

I feel the Civil Case has no bearing on the footballing case as to who owned (and should pay for) Sala.

Clutching at straws here but the only legal stance the club could have is that paying further installments may affect the outcome of the civil case. But its a stretch.

Not really. If CAS have no jurisdiction then how can the sporting bodies beneath them impose sanctions when the case has clearly not been decided at the appropriate level ?

Now I have no problem in them imposing a “payment into court” held pending a final decision to safeguard Nantes should the case go against them but sanctions like embargo’s seem to be pre-judging that decision and could very well be successfully challenged now.

All these cases are part of the bigger picture which seems to be getting closer to a conclusion, whichever way that conclusion goes.

That is the clearest logic I have seen here.

Surely this is good news for the club ?

If a senior court decides the CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction then logic would dictate that any subsequent sanctions (e.g. embargo) should be paused until civil courts decide ?

This is defo not over.

I feel the Civil Case has no bearing on the footballing case as to who owned (and should pay for) Sala.

Clutching at straws here but the only legal stance the club could have is that paying further installments may affect the outcome of the civil case. But its a stretch.

Not really. If CAS have no jurisdiction then how can the sporting bodies beneath them impose sanctions when the case has clearly not been decided at the appropriate level ?

Now I have no problem in them imposing a “payment into court” held pending a final decision to safeguard Nantes should the case go against them but sanctions like embargo’s seem to be pre-judging that decision and could very well be successfully challenged now.

All these cases are part of the bigger picture which seems to be getting closer to a conclusion, whichever way that conclusion goes.

The Swiss Court have decided that CAS have no jurisdiction over who is responsible for the crash and deaths. Not over their decision as to who owned Sala and was liable for the fee.

Surely this is good news for the club ?

If a senior court decides the CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction then logic would dictate that any subsequent sanctions (e.g. embargo) should be paused until civil courts decide ?

This is defo not over.

I feel the Civil Case has no bearing on the footballing case as to who owned (and should pay for) Sala.

Clutching at straws here but the only legal stance the club could have is that paying further installments may affect the outcome of the civil case. But its a stretch.

Not really. If CAS have no jurisdiction then how can the sporting bodies beneath them impose sanctions when the case has clearly not been decided at the appropriate level ?

Now I have no problem in them imposing a “payment into court” held pending a final decision to safeguard Nantes should the case go against them but sanctions like embargo’s seem to be pre-judging that decision and could very well be successfully challenged now.

All these cases are part of the bigger picture which seems to be getting closer to a conclusion, whichever way that conclusion goes.

The Swiss Court have decided that CAS have no jurisdiction over who is responsible for the crash and deaths. Not over their decision as to who owned Sala and was liable for the fee.

But the CAS upheld the sanctions and decision imposed.

Therefore, now that has been overturned that has to, at the very least, question the validity of those sanctions.

Take the anti-regime stance away and then, logically, look at what is happening here.

I’m not saying it’s morally right but legally there is a huge question.

Surely this is good news for the club ?

If a senior court decides the CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction then logic would dictate that any subsequent sanctions (e.g. embargo) should be paused until civil courts decide ?

This is defo not over.

I feel the Civil Case has no bearing on the footballing case as to who owned (and should pay for) Sala.

Clutching at straws here but the only legal stance the club could have is that paying further installments may affect the outcome of the civil case. But its a stretch.

Not really. If CAS have no jurisdiction then how can the sporting bodies beneath them impose sanctions when the case has clearly not been decided at the appropriate level ?

Now I have no problem in them imposing a “payment into court” held pending a final decision to safeguard Nantes should the case go against them but sanctions like embargo’s seem to be pre-judging that decision and could very well be successfully challenged now.

All these cases are part of the bigger picture which seems to be getting closer to a conclusion, whichever way that conclusion goes.

The Swiss Court have decided that CAS have no jurisdiction over who is responsible for the crash and deaths. Not over their decision as to who owned Sala and was liable for the fee.

But the CAS upheld the sanctions and decision imposed.

Therefore, now that has been overturned that has to, at the very least, question the validity of those sanctions.

Take the anti-regime stance away and then, logically, look at what is happening here.

I’m not saying it’s morally right but legally there is a huge question.

I think we are at cross purposes here.

CAS upheld the decision that Sala was our player AND therefore the sanctions.

That CAS decision has NOT been overturned by the Swiss Courts.

Surely this is good news for the club ?

If a senior court decides the CAS doesn’t have jurisdiction then logic would dictate that any subsequent sanctions (e.g. embargo) should be paused until civil courts decide ?

This is defo not over.

I feel the Civil Case has no bearing on the footballing case as to who owned (and should pay for) Sala.

Clutching at straws here but the only legal stance the club could have is that paying further installments may affect the outcome of the civil case. But its a stretch.

Not really. If CAS have no jurisdiction then how can the sporting bodies beneath them impose sanctions when the case has clearly not been decided at the appropriate level ?

Now I have no problem in them imposing a “payment into court” held pending a final decision to safeguard Nantes should the case go against them but sanctions like embargo’s seem to be pre-judging that decision and could very well be successfully challenged now.

All these cases are part of the bigger picture which seems to be getting closer to a conclusion, whichever way that conclusion goes.

The Swiss Court have decided that CAS have no jurisdiction over who is responsible for the crash and deaths. Not over their decision as to who owned Sala and was liable for the fee.

But the CAS upheld the sanctions and decision imposed.

Therefore, now that has been overturned that has to, at the very least, question the validity of those sanctions.

Take the anti-regime stance away and then, logically, look at what is happening here.

I’m not saying it’s morally right but legally there is a huge question.

I think we are at cross purposes here.

CAS upheld the decision that Sala was our player AND therefore the sanctions.

That CAS decision has NOT been overturned by the Swiss Courts.

I understand that.

But if there is a question over jurisdiction, never mind culpability, then surely any penalties imposed should be paused ?

I really don’t know who will win these cases but I do think that until all REASONABLE legal avenues have been followed any penalties should be paused/removed.

The fact that none of the cases have been kicked out by way of summary judgment is evidence in itself that there is legally arguable case.

Do I think we’ll end up having to pay nothing ? …….. no !

Do I think we’ll end up having to pay the full £15m + costs ? …….. no, I just don’t see how CCFC can be held 100% liable given previous findings of the criminal courts and some of the facts we already know.

The cases are part of an overall strategy and, bit by bit, we are getting closer to a conclusion.