SALA - CORRUPTION - SUING ??: There are a nu

SALA - CORRUPTION - SUING ??:


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226


There are a number of questions that are pure speculation , but which some fans are querying :

Fans are asking all these questions.


(1) Is it possible that there may have been some degree of financial corruption involved in the Sala transfer ? More specifically , have CCFC/Tan been duped into paying an inflated transfer fee as well as agents fees ?


(2) If so then who are the possible culprits ? The possibilities could include Nantes officials , Cardiff officials and agents .



(3) If so , then who stood to gain from this ? Obviously Nantes .


Could agents like McKay (or his son) or Sanogo have benefited ? Is it conceivable that CCFC officials were involved ?



(4) The biggest question however is ….. assuming there was corruption … then can CCFC sue anyone ?

Who ? For what ?



(5) If indeed we can sue someone then for how much ?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

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

In UK law there is a saying that a party cannot benefit out of an illegal base cause.

But, whilst there may have been illegalities in the transfer itself, what the civil case refers to is something specific that being the flight that killed sala and the loss of revenue and asset to CCFC.

If there was dodgyness on the French part it is not going to help them.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

In UK law there is a saying that a party cannot benefit out of an illegal base cause.

But, whilst there may have been illegalities in the transfer itself, what the civil case refers to is something specific that being the flight that killed sala and the loss of revenue and asset to CCFC.

If there was dodgyness on the French part it is not going to help them.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

So Paul,

As you know Tan has lost every case and sued for daft horrible things like making out Sala was not ours.

Cost City £millions.

Dragged our clubs name though the mud.

Transfer Embargo.


Paul,

So do you think Tan can win the Civil Case?

In UK law there is a saying that a party cannot benefit out of an illegal base cause.

But, whilst there may have been illegalities in the transfer itself, what the civil case refers to is something specific that being the flight that killed sala and the loss of revenue and asset to CCFC.

If there was dodgyness on the French part it is not going to help them.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

So Paul,

As you know Tan has lost every case and sued for daft horrible things like making out Sala was not ours.

Cost City £millions.

Dragged our clubs name though the mud.

Transfer Embargo.


Paul,

So do you think Tan can win the Civil Case?

Annis I thought that it cost Vincent Tan millions not city?

In UK law there is a saying that a party cannot benefit out of an illegal base cause.

But, whilst there may have been illegalities in the transfer itself, what the civil case refers to is something specific that being the flight that killed sala and the loss of revenue and asset to CCFC.

If there was dodgyness on the French part it is not going to help them.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

So Paul,

As you know Tan has lost every case and sued for daft horrible things like making out Sala was not ours.

Cost City £millions.

Dragged our clubs name though the mud.

Transfer Embargo.


Paul,

So do you think Tan can win the Civil Case?

Annis I thought that it cost Vincent Tan millions not city?

Roger,

The City are paying as it’s our court case.

It’s in the accounts every year but cleverly not individualised as they don’t have to.

Annis if they dont have to individualise it, do they still have to prove it, as someone could take out £1m, and buy a new car for thmselves?

Annis if they dont have to individualise it, do they still have to prove it, as someone could take out £1m, and buy a new car for thmselves?

Choo will sell you one .

Annis if they dont have to individualise it, do they still have to prove it, as someone could take out £1m, and buy a new car for thmselves?

Jules,
Yes their receipts / expenses will have to go in and all put together and over all it will say business expenses or legal fees etc.
If City like say Nantes got a visit by say HMRC then they would be able to see the individual receipts etc

Hi Annis. I genuinely think that Sala was always our player and that Tan was stupid to pursue those court actions and to avoid paying Nantes what we legally owed. All I can think of is that there may have been some insurance related reason that ccfc wanted a decision from the highest court to say sala was ours.

But as for the civil case I do think he has a case. If an asset of CCFC was killed as the result of negligence (of someone else) then the club has a claim against someone else.

Perhaps I can put it another way. In 1980 my dad was killed in a car accident. A catseye was flicked out of the ground, between Bassaleg and Cardiff, and killed him instantly. It wad someone elses fault and my mum sued that party for his death and lost income and was successful

I am sure others on here have similar stories. It's life. Shit happens.

We owned Sala. He was taken away from us and the goals he would (on the balance of probabilities) have scored would have kept our Premier league status.

We are right to sue SOMEONE because someone is responsible. Only time will tell whether Nantes are the right party (part of me is no longer convinced)

Hi Annis. I genuinely think that Sala was always our player and that Tan was stupid to pursue those court actions and to avoid paying Nantes what we legally owed. All I can think of is that there may have been some insurance related reason that ccfc wanted a decision from the highest court to say sala was ours.

But as for the civil case I do think he has a case. If an asset of CCFC was killed as the result of negligence (of someone else) then the club has a claim against someone else.

Perhaps I can put it another way. In 1980 my dad was killed in a car accident. A catseye was flicked out of the ground, between Bassaleg and Cardiff, and killed him instantly. It wad someone elses fault and my mum sued that party for his death and lost income and was successful

I am sure others on here have similar stories. It's life. Shit happens.

We owned Sala. He was taken away from us and the goals he would (on the balance of probabilities) have scored would have kept our Premier league status.

We are right to sue SOMEONE because someone is responsible. Only time will tell whether Nantes are the right party (part of me is no longer convinced)

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your clear explanation and So Sad to hear how your Father died.

The problem I have is that it was the agents and pilot that were responsible for Sala and that Nantes were NO longer involved in Sala after Sala became our player.

The agents were not acting on behalf of Nantes anymore.

Plus I believe the Managers, agents etc were shall we say closer in this than we are all led to believe.

What is also beyond is we never had proper insurance.
Tan is suppose to be suing them as well, but that’s suddenly gone totally quite as I think he will find it might be an employee of ours who messed up.

Who knows? It’s like a never ending soap opera with dreadful consequences for all concerned.

Annis if they dont have to individualise it, do they still have to prove it, as someone could take out £1m, and buy a new car for thmselves?

Jules,
Yes their receipts / expenses will have to go in and all put together and over all it will say business expenses or legal fees etc.
If City like say Nantes got a visit by say HMRC then they would be able to see the individual receipts etc

Jokingly meant a car Annis.

Hi Annis. I genuinely think that Sala was always our player and that Tan was stupid to pursue those court actions and to avoid paying Nantes what we legally owed. All I can think of is that there may have been some insurance related reason that ccfc wanted a decision from the highest court to say sala was ours.

But as for the civil case I do think he has a case. If an asset of CCFC was killed as the result of negligence (of someone else) then the club has a claim against someone else.

Perhaps I can put it another way. In 1980 my dad was killed in a car accident. A catseye was flicked out of the ground, between Bassaleg and Cardiff, and killed him instantly. It wad someone elses fault and my mum sued that party for his death and lost income and was successful

I am sure others on here have similar stories. It's life. Shit happens.

We owned Sala. He was taken away from us and the goals he would (on the balance of probabilities) have scored would have kept our Premier league status.

We are right to sue SOMEONE because someone is responsible. Only time will tell whether Nantes are the right party (part of me is no longer convinced)

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your clear explanation and So Sad to hear how your Father died.

The problem I have is that it was the agents and pilot that were responsible for Sala and that Nantes were NO longer involved in Sala after Sala became our player.

The agents were not acting on behalf of Nantes anymore.

Plus I believe the Managers, agents etc were shall we say closer in this than we are all led to believe.

What is also beyond is we never had proper insurance.
Tan is suppose to be suing them as well, but that’s suddenly gone totally quite as I think he will find it might be an employee of ours who messed up.

Hi Annis

In UK Law (Im not sure on French Law) it doesn't matter whether the sale had concluded or not.

The law of Vicarious Liability is a very technical area. A person/company does not specifically have to do something directly on behalf of another. They only have to do something which is "linked" to what they normally do.

Let me use Bob Higgins and Southampton as an example as I was involved in the case. Bob Higgins was the Southampton Under 13-16 coach. He also ran the Bob Higgins Academy and (around 1985) had several well known youngsters playing for him (I am not allowed to name them but I cant stop you doing an internet search). Anyway he abused a lot of the boys and is in prison having been convicted of 49 offences. In civil cases Southampton argued that it was nothing to do with them but, because there was a link (he trained boys at Southampton and his own Academy) Southampton found themselves defending Vicarious Liability allegations.

In our case I understand that (prior to Sala) Willie McKay arranged transport of players for Nantes. He was involved in the Sala flight and, it may be the case that he wasn't acting directly for Nantes. But there is a tenuous link which (if this was being heard in the UK) could have found Nantes liable for any losses CCFC sustained.

This is French law and I am no expert on that

Hope this partially explains.

Annis if they dont have to individualise it, do they still have to prove it, as someone could take out £1m, and buy a new car for thmselves?

Jules,
Yes their receipts / expenses will have to go in and all put together and over all it will say business expenses or legal fees etc.
If City like say Nantes got a visit by say HMRC then they would be able to see the individual receipts etc

Jokingly meant a car Annis.

They probably do Jules, as that will go down as expenses

Hi Annis. I genuinely think that Sala was always our player and that Tan was stupid to pursue those court actions and to avoid paying Nantes what we legally owed. All I can think of is that there may have been some insurance related reason that ccfc wanted a decision from the highest court to say sala was ours.

But as for the civil case I do think he has a case. If an asset of CCFC was killed as the result of negligence (of someone else) then the club has a claim against someone else.

Perhaps I can put it another way. In 1980 my dad was killed in a car accident. A catseye was flicked out of the ground, between Bassaleg and Cardiff, and killed him instantly. It wad someone elses fault and my mum sued that party for his death and lost income and was successful

I am sure others on here have similar stories. It's life. Shit happens.

We owned Sala. He was taken away from us and the goals he would (on the balance of probabilities) have scored would have kept our Premier league status.

We are right to sue SOMEONE because someone is responsible. Only time will tell whether Nantes are the right party (part of me is no longer convinced)

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your clear explanation and So Sad to hear how your Father died.

The problem I have is that it was the agents and pilot that were responsible for Sala and that Nantes were NO longer involved in Sala after Sala became our player.

The agents were not acting on behalf of Nantes anymore.

Plus I believe the Managers, agents etc were shall we say closer in this than we are all led to believe.

What is also beyond is we never had proper insurance.
Tan is suppose to be suing them as well, but that’s suddenly gone totally quite as I think he will find it might be an employee of ours who messed up.

Hi Annis

In UK Law (Im not sure on French Law) it doesn't matter whether the sale had concluded or not.

The law of Vicarious Liability is a very technical area. A person/company does not specifically have to do something directly on behalf of another. They only have to do something which is "linked" to what they normally do.

Let me use Bob Higgins and Southampton as an example as I was involved in the case. Bob Higgins was the Southampton Under 13-16 coach. He also ran the Bob Higgins Academy and (around 1985) had several well known youngsters playing for him (I am not allowed to name them but I cant stop you doing an internet search). Anyway he abused a lot of the boys and is in prison having been convicted of 49 offences. In civil cases Southampton argued that it was nothing to do with them but, because there was a link (he trained boys at Southampton and his own Academy) Southampton found themselves defending Vicarious Liability allegations.

In our case I understand that (prior to Sala) Willie McKay arranged transport of players for Nantes. He was involved in the Sala flight and, it may be the case that he wasn't acting directly for Nantes. But there is a tenuous link which (if this was being heard in the UK) could have found Nantes liable for any losses CCFC sustained.

This is French law and I am no expert on that

Hope this partially explains.

Thanks Paul,


Well Tan needs to win Sonia’s it’s going to cost our club up to £25mill by the time this is all finished.

Hi Annis. I genuinely think that Sala was always our player and that Tan was stupid to pursue those court actions and to avoid paying Nantes what we legally owed. All I can think of is that there may have been some insurance related reason that ccfc wanted a decision from the highest court to say sala was ours.

But as for the civil case I do think he has a case. If an asset of CCFC was killed as the result of negligence (of someone else) then the club has a claim against someone else.

Perhaps I can put it another way. In 1980 my dad was killed in a car accident. A catseye was flicked out of the ground, between Bassaleg and Cardiff, and killed him instantly. It wad someone elses fault and my mum sued that party for his death and lost income and was successful

I am sure others on here have similar stories. It's life. Shit happens.

We owned Sala. He was taken away from us and the goals he would (on the balance of probabilities) have scored would have kept our Premier league status.

We are right to sue SOMEONE because someone is responsible. Only time will tell whether Nantes are the right party (part of me is no longer convinced)

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your clear explanation and So Sad to hear how your Father died.

The problem I have is that it was the agents and pilot that were responsible for Sala and that Nantes were NO longer involved in Sala after Sala became our player.

The agents were not acting on behalf of Nantes anymore.

Plus I believe the Managers, agents etc were shall we say closer in this than we are all led to believe.

What is also beyond is we never had proper insurance.
Tan is suppose to be suing them as well, but that’s suddenly gone totally quite as I think he will find it might be an employee of ours who messed up.

Hi Annis

In UK Law (Im not sure on French Law) it doesn't matter whether the sale had concluded or not.

The law of Vicarious Liability is a very technical area. A person/company does not specifically have to do something directly on behalf of another. They only have to do something which is "linked" to what they normally do.

Let me use Bob Higgins and Southampton as an example as I was involved in the case. Bob Higgins was the Southampton Under 13-16 coach. He also ran the Bob Higgins Academy and (around 1985) had several well known youngsters playing for him (I am not allowed to name them but I cant stop you doing an internet search). Anyway he abused a lot of the boys and is in prison having been convicted of 49 offences. In civil cases Southampton argued that it was nothing to do with them but, because there was a link (he trained boys at Southampton and his own Academy) Southampton found themselves defending Vicarious Liability allegations.

In our case I understand that (prior to Sala) Willie McKay arranged transport of players for Nantes. He was involved in the Sala flight and, it may be the case that he wasn't acting directly for Nantes. But there is a tenuous link which (if this was being heard in the UK) could have found Nantes liable for any losses CCFC sustained.

This is French law and I am no expert on that

Hope this partially explains.

Paul,

This is what I was told in the beginning. At the time it felt like we were clutching at straws. As we have used the argument that Sala was not our player it felt even more so this argument/link was a long straw. Someone has been clever here by using case law to argue our case of a link but for me it still feel a very long straw. Time will tell.

I agree. They should have just paid Nantes in 3 instalments as agreed. Not fought the ownership.

They should have just concentrated on the civil case

Hi Annis. I genuinely think that Sala was always our player and that Tan was stupid to pursue those court actions and to avoid paying Nantes what we legally owed. All I can think of is that there may have been some insurance related reason that ccfc wanted a decision from the highest court to say sala was ours.

But as for the civil case I do think he has a case. If an asset of CCFC was killed as the result of negligence (of someone else) then the club has a claim against someone else.

Perhaps I can put it another way. In 1980 my dad was killed in a car accident. A catseye was flicked out of the ground, between Bassaleg and Cardiff, and killed him instantly. It wad someone elses fault and my mum sued that party for his death and lost income and was successful

I am sure others on here have similar stories. It's life. Shit happens.

We owned Sala. He was taken away from us and the goals he would (on the balance of probabilities) have scored would have kept our Premier league status.

We are right to sue SOMEONE because someone is responsible. Only time will tell whether Nantes are the right party (part of me is no longer convinced)

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your clear explanation and So Sad to hear how your Father died.

The problem I have is that it was the agents and pilot that were responsible for Sala and that Nantes were NO longer involved in Sala after Sala became our player.

The agents were not acting on behalf of Nantes anymore.

Plus I believe the Managers, agents etc were shall we say closer in this than we are all led to believe.

What is also beyond is we never had proper insurance.
Tan is suppose to be suing them as well, but that’s suddenly gone totally quite as I think he will find it might be an employee of ours who messed up.

Hi Annis

In UK Law (Im not sure on French Law) it doesn't matter whether the sale had concluded or not.

The law of Vicarious Liability is a very technical area. A person/company does not specifically have to do something directly on behalf of another. They only have to do something which is "linked" to what they normally do.

Let me use Bob Higgins and Southampton as an example as I was involved in the case. Bob Higgins was the Southampton Under 13-16 coach. He also ran the Bob Higgins Academy and (around 1985) had several well known youngsters playing for him (I am not allowed to name them but I cant stop you doing an internet search). Anyway he abused a lot of the boys and is in prison having been convicted of 49 offences. In civil cases Southampton argued that it was nothing to do with them but, because there was a link (he trained boys at Southampton and his own Academy) Southampton found themselves defending Vicarious Liability allegations.

In our case I understand that (prior to Sala) Willie McKay arranged transport of players for Nantes. He was involved in the Sala flight and, it may be the case that he wasn't acting directly for Nantes. But there is a tenuous link which (if this was being heard in the UK) could have found Nantes liable for any losses CCFC sustained.

This is French law and I am no expert on that

Hope this partially explains.

Paul,

This is what I was told in the beginning. At the time it felt like we were clutching at straws. As we have used the argument that Sala was not our player it felt even more so this argument/link was a long straw. Someone has been clever here by using case law to argue our case of a link but for me it still feel a very long straw. Time will tell.

The thing to remember here is that if FIFA/CAS had decided Sala was not our player we could not pursue the civil case - so for CCFC they might have thought it was a "Win-Win" situation. If FIFA/CAS was not our player we would save ourselves £15m if he was our player we could sue for £100m. That was the importance of the 1st action.

No it has been decided he was our player (had it been UK law) we would only need to find a transportation of players link between McKay and Nantes. I assume Barristers have already found that link and that is why the Court allowed the case to proceed last week.

This is however french law and I am not really hot on that

All the previous cases were part of a very big picture imo.
Personally I hope that they nail every single rat involved in the little brown envelope tragedy.

What does this all mean in layman's terms, please?

What does this all mean in layman's terms, please?

Sala was our player and we owe Nantes 15 million.

As he was our player we have a case against those involved in the
fatal transport of OUR asset.

As an aside the Nantes owners are being prosecuted for fraud and corruption in the use of dodgy football agents.

There may be a case that the dodgy agents that Nantes used, had an involvement in the Sala deal.

Our case against Nantes may have been strengthened by the fact that they are being prosecuted.

What does this all mean in layman's terms, please?

Sala was our player and we owe Nantes 15 million.

As he was our player we have a case against those involved in the
fatal transport of OUR asset.

As an aside the Nantes owners are being prosecuted for fraud and corruption in the use of dodgy football agents.

There may be a case that the dodgy agents that Nantes used, had an involvement in the Sala deal.

Our case against Nantes may have been strengthened by the fact that they are being prosecuted.

Thanks.

Firstly, we need to pay the money to Nantes that FIFA have ordered us to pay. That will be the last two installments paid.

I expect us to do that.

Then we can pursue these court cases.

On that, I'm much more confident that we can win them now that we're hearing more information.

Does seem like Nantes, agents and certain managers (who I've previously said I believed were involved) are up to their neck in it.

Hi Annis. I genuinely think that Sala was always our player and that Tan was stupid to pursue those court actions and to avoid paying Nantes what we legally owed. All I can think of is that there may have been some insurance related reason that ccfc wanted a decision from the highest court to say sala was ours.

But as for the civil case I do think he has a case. If an asset of CCFC was killed as the result of negligence (of someone else) then the club has a claim against someone else.

Perhaps I can put it another way. In 1980 my dad was killed in a car accident. A catseye was flicked out of the ground, between Bassaleg and Cardiff, and killed him instantly. It wad someone elses fault and my mum sued that party for his death and lost income and was successful

I am sure others on here have similar stories. It's life. Shit happens.

We owned Sala. He was taken away from us and the goals he would (on the balance of probabilities) have scored would have kept our Premier league status.

We are right to sue SOMEONE because someone is responsible. Only time will tell whether Nantes are the right party (part of me is no longer convinced)

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your clear explanation and So Sad to hear how your Father died.

The problem I have is that it was the agents and pilot that were responsible for Sala and that Nantes were NO longer involved in Sala after Sala became our player.

The agents were not acting on behalf of Nantes anymore.

Plus I believe the Managers, agents etc were shall we say closer in this than we are all led to believe.

What is also beyond is we never had proper insurance.
Tan is suppose to be suing them as well, but that’s suddenly gone totally quite as I think he will find it might be an employee of ours who messed up.

Hi Annis

In UK Law (Im not sure on French Law) it doesn't matter whether the sale had concluded or not.

The law of Vicarious Liability is a very technical area. A person/company does not specifically have to do something directly on behalf of another. They only have to do something which is "linked" to what they normally do.

Let me use Bob Higgins and Southampton as an example as I was involved in the case. Bob Higgins was the Southampton Under 13-16 coach. He also ran the Bob Higgins Academy and (around 1985) had several well known youngsters playing for him (I am not allowed to name them but I cant stop you doing an internet search). Anyway he abused a lot of the boys and is in prison having been convicted of 49 offences. In civil cases Southampton argued that it was nothing to do with them but, because there was a link (he trained boys at Southampton and his own Academy) Southampton found themselves defending Vicarious Liability allegations.

In our case I understand that (prior to Sala) Willie McKay arranged transport of players for Nantes. He was involved in the Sala flight and, it may be the case that he wasn't acting directly for Nantes. But there is a tenuous link which (if this was being heard in the UK) could have found Nantes liable for any losses CCFC sustained.

This is French law and I am no expert on that

Hope this partially explains.

Paul. Here’s a summary overview of agency law in France. Thankfully it’s light reading
http://www.e-iure.com/pdf/agency/2007/france.pdf