' SALA CASE LATEST: CLUB & FAB MEET OUR LAWYERS FOR Q&A '

FAB & Club Meet Lawyers Over Nantes Sala Claim

⬆️Latest information on Sala case, nothing we don't already know as to the main themes but some new information to confirm what some of us suspected.

I have previously said that Nantes have been recently indicted for illegal agent use and other things including money laundering and other charges and that this will help our case, as Willy McKay was acting as an illegal selling agent at the time, and in France this is a serious offence.

Nobody really has an idea how this will go but as it's got this far in the process and hasn't been thrown out
/dismissed etc, if appears that we so have a realistic chance of winning the case.

We have to prove that McKay was still in the employ of Nantes in some capacity as an agent, even if Sala was officially our player, which he was. He arranged the flight and thus Nantes are "vicariously" responsible plus they were again using an unlicensed agent, of which they are presently been indicated as a criminal case which will run alongside our commercial case. This does indeed look like it will help us as originally thought.

Interesting that there is no formal pre court mediation for French commercial court but I would have thought an OOC settlement would be possible but in France but looks like it is rare in a French CC.

It now looks like being heard in 2025 and there is also a strong chance of appeal whatever the decision.

So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth.



There are no minutes on either the club or FAB site yet as far as I can see.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=239272

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Ànnis, I agree with you on most of this and with Paul's sound comments, which is why it was 'Stickied' alongside Ninian27's thread...

My only difference is that I am glad the club have taken time to 'inform' the new FAB, who we hope will become an important group going forward...

The Trust participation was in their oversubscribed role (2 members) on the FAB and not as the independent, subscription-based supporters group they are...

I guess the other upview of this tooic is that it is another view of what has already been written over the last few days and paints another picture of where we are at as a club re finances, i.e. in 'no man's land'...

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Annis - we have all gone into detail this week about ours and Tans finances and the real state of play.

We may not win the Sala case and even if we do, it's going to take years as will be appealed whosever favour it goes in.

It's good these meetings are now taking place but we need to be asking these key questions and the only important question in the ES case for us as a club is to get confirmation that VT will use it to invest in the club.

Last edited by GrangeEndStar on Sat May 18, 2024 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Ànnis, I agree with you on most of this and with Paul's sound comments, which is why it was 'Stickied' alongside Ninian27's thread...

My only difference is that I am glad the club have taken time to 'inform' the new FAB, who we hope will become an important group going forward...

The Trust participation was in their oversubscribed role (2 members) on the FAB and not as the independent, subscription-based supporters group they are...

I guess the other upview of this tooic is that it is another view of what has already been written over the last few days and paints another picture of where we are at as a club re finances, i.e. in 'no man's land'...

Chris,

Cheers, I am for the meetings , but why are they never ever asking straight questions and questions like where would the money go and our costs etc and how much have we spent so far? ??

For me they are like lap dogs and nothing has changed just Morgan having more under him and Dalman.

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Annis - we have all gone into detail this week about ours and Tans finances and the real state of play.

We may not win the Sala case and even if we do, it's going to take years as will be appealed whosever favour it goes in.

It's good these meetings are now taking place but we need to be asking these key questions and the only important question in the ES case for us as a club is to get confirmation that VT will use it to invest in the club.

Paul,

Exactly what i have said to Sven.

The problem is the latest on this group led by Morgan won’t ask these questions.

Funny I have yet to meet anyone who had an email offering to vote or belong to this group, I have 3 Season Tickets and one for 52 Consecutive years, I never got an email.

My email has been the same for 20 plus years.

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Annis - we have all gone into detail this week about ours and Tans finances and the real state of play.

We may not win the Sala case and even if we do, it's going to take years as will be appealed whosever favour it goes in.

It's good these meetings are now taking place but we need to be asking these key questions and the only important question in the ES case for us as a club is to get confirmation that VT will use it to invest in the club.

Paul,

Exactly what i have said to Sven.

The problem is the latest on this group led by Morgan won’t ask these questions.

Funny I have yet to meet anyone who had an email offering to vote or belong to this group, I have 3 Season Tickets and one for 52 Consecutive years, I never got an email.

My email has been the same for 20 plus years.

There are other key questions too and not related to the above. Maybe they will be asked as in fairness they have only had two sessiona, but if not, I and a few others will raise them with the FAB members to ask, as they are all board room issues that need to be discussed and addressed.

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Ànnis, I agree with you on most of this and with Paul's sound comments, which is why it was 'Stickied' alongside Ninian27's thread...

My only difference is that I am glad the club have taken time to 'inform' the new FAB, who we hope will become an important group going forward...

The Trust participation was in their oversubscribed role (2 members) on the FAB and not as the independent, subscription-based supporters group they are...

I guess the other upview of this tooic is that it is another view of what has already been written over the last few days and paints another picture of where we are at as a club re finances, i.e. in 'no man's land'...

Chris,

Cheers, I am for the meetings , but why are they never ever asking straight questions and questions like where would the money go and our costs etc and how much have we spent so far? ??

For me they are like lap dogs and nothing has changed just Morgan having more under him and Dalman.

Annis, on the lack of real questioning, we are wholly in the same Hymn sheet...!

Is it like PMQs where the questions and answers are pre prepared so the club have answers?

How long do Q&A last ?

Is there an AOB section?

Are minutes taken?

Is it like PMQs where the questions and answers are pre prepared so the club have answers?

How long do Q&A last ?

Is there an AOB section?

Are minutes taken?

Jules,

If anyone puts a question that could upset The Hierarchy, your not invited again.
So you go in there like a nodding dog.

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Ànnis, I agree with you on most of this and with Paul's sound comments, which is why it was 'Stickied' alongside Ninian27's thread...

My only difference is that I am glad the club have taken time to 'inform' the new FAB, who we hope will become an important group going forward...

The Trust participation was in their oversubscribed role (2 members) on the FAB and not as the independent, subscription-based supporters group they are...

I guess the other upview of this tooic is that it is another view of what has already been written over the last few days and paints another picture of where we are at as a club re finances, i.e. in 'no man's land'...

Chris,

Cheers, I am for the meetings , but why are they never ever asking straight questions and questions like where would the money go and our costs etc and how much have we spent so far? ??

For me they are like lap dogs and nothing has changed just Morgan having more under him and Dalman.

Annis, on the lack of real questioning, we are wholly in the same Hymn sheet...!

Chris,

It’s incredible not one decent question, it’s like a meeting to make the Hierarchy look good.

Sadly fans who want to ask real questions, will never be invited.

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Ànnis, I agree with you on most of this and with Paul's sound comments, which is why it was 'Stickied' alongside Ninian27's thread...

My only difference is that I am glad the club have taken time to 'inform' the new FAB, who we hope will become an important group going forward...

The Trust participation was in their oversubscribed role (2 members) on the FAB and not as the independent, subscription-based supporters group they are...

I guess the other upview of this tooic is that it is another view of what has already been written over the last few days and paints another picture of where we are at as a club re finances, i.e. in 'no man's land'...

Chris,

Cheers, I am for the meetings , but why are they never ever asking straight questions and questions like where would the money go and our costs etc and how much have we spent so far? ??

For me they are like lap dogs and nothing has changed just Morgan having more under him and Dalman.

Annis, on the lack of real questioning, we are wholly in the same Hymn sheet...!

Chris,

It’s incredible not one decent question, it’s like a meeting to make the Hierarchy look good.

Sadly fans who want to ask real questions, will never be invited.

The other key question that should have been asked was about the precarious "going concern" statement by the directors and auditors in terms of the ability to raise new funding and if VT can confirm that there is no need for this concern as he or a third party will guarantee this?

That confirmation should have been in there and is a red flag as it is conspicuous by it's absence.

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Ànnis, I agree with you on most of this and with Paul's sound comments, which is why it was 'Stickied' alongside Ninian27's thread...

My only difference is that I am glad the club have taken time to 'inform' the new FAB, who we hope will become an important group going forward...

The Trust participation was in their oversubscribed role (2 members) on the FAB and not as the independent, subscription-based supporters group they are...

I guess the other upview of this tooic is that it is another view of what has already been written over the last few days and paints another picture of where we are at as a club re finances, i.e. in 'no man's land'...

Chris,

Cheers, I am for the meetings , but why are they never ever asking straight questions and questions like where would the money go and our costs etc and how much have we spent so far? ??

For me they are like lap dogs and nothing has changed just Morgan having more under him and Dalman.

Annis, on the lack of real questioning, we are wholly in the same Hymn sheet...!

Chris,

It’s incredible not one decent question, it’s like a meeting to make the Hierarchy look good.

Sadly fans who want to ask real questions, will never be invited.

The other key question that should have been asked was about the precarious "going concern" statement by the directors and auditors in terms of the ability to raise new funding and if VT can confirm that there is no need for this concern as he or a third party will guarantee this?

That confirmation should have been in there and is a red flag as it is conspicuous by it's absence.

And that without a doubt should of come from Keith Morgan, but he would not dare.

Plus it’s unbelievable The Trust have two members on the FAB team lol

Paul,

I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Ànnis, I agree with you on most of this and with Paul's sound comments, which is why it was 'Stickied' alongside Ninian27's thread...

My only difference is that I am glad the club have taken time to 'inform' the new FAB, who we hope will become an important group going forward...

The Trust participation was in their oversubscribed role (2 members) on the FAB and not as the independent, subscription-based supporters group they are...

I guess the other upview of this tooic is that it is another view of what has already been written over the last few days and paints another picture of where we are at as a club re finances, i.e. in 'no man's land'...

Chris,

Cheers, I am for the meetings , but why are they never ever asking straight questions and questions like where would the money go and our costs etc and how much have we spent so far? ??

For me they are like lap dogs and nothing has changed just Morgan having more under him and Dalman.

Annis, on the lack of real questioning, we are wholly in the same Hymn sheet...!

Chris,

It’s incredible not one decent question, it’s like a meeting to make the Hierarchy look good.

Sadly fans who want to ask real questions, will never be invited.

The other key question that should have been asked was about the precarious "going concern" statement by the directors and auditors in terms of the ability to raise new funding and if VT can confirm that there is no need for this concern as he or a third party will guarantee this?

That confirmation should have been in there and is a red flag as it is conspicuous by it's absence.

And that without a doubt should of come from Keith Morgan, but he would not dare.

Plus it’s unbelievable The Trust have two members on the FAB team lol

Agree and I also don't know why both the Trust and the SC needed more than one rep, better to have a couple more "indies" who may have different views and ask the key questions etc and it's more equitable.

These are all board level key issues and the whole point of the FAB is to be consulted at board level on these things. It's early days and it is a good thing, I'll speak to a few FAB members when I get chance as they may just need priming, no problem with that as long as these and other key things are asked and more importantly, get a practical response and not excuses.

Paul,


I think people don't realise the true value of the meetings and the newly formed FAB.
Firstly, the FAB has only recently been formed and the format of the meetings is still emerging, FAB members are asking questions from the club and in general the club are quite open and informative about most matters. There will always be an element that some matters are subject to confidentiality and the club cannot put all things into the public domain, I think everyone should respect that.

With regard to the meeting with the Lawyers, they could only state the legal process and the pathway through the case, they would not be in a position to tell us what the Board would do with any possible monies that would be forthcoming from any settlement. Indeed even the Board would not be in a position to tell us at this stage that as they would not know if anything would materialise from the case.

The FAB is representative of the Cardiff City Supporters, made up of the supporters groups as well as season ticket holders. I joined the Trust recently and put my name forward for the Trust's Board and was successful. Anyone can join the Trust if they wish, its a body that is open and transparent.



As far as minutes being taken then your answer is, as above that is a record taken of the meetings and published for all to see.
I agree with your comments:

"So in reality, if we do win the case, it maybe considerably longer until we are able to realise any monies and of course there is also no guarantee that Tan will commit those funds to the club, given his 50% overall reduction to his net worth".

This is the reality. Tan needs the money as he has lost 50% of his net worth. He doesn't care about the club as we all know.

The FAB and Keith Morgan should have asked for assurances and confirmation that any monies won will go back into the club.

But they don’t ask these type of questions??

And for me what's the point of having these meetings?

Ànnis, I agree with you on most of this and with Paul's sound comments, which is why it was 'Stickied' alongside Ninian27's thread...

My only difference is that I am glad the club have taken time to 'inform' the new FAB, who we hope will become an important group going forward...

The Trust participation was in their oversubscribed role (2 members) on the FAB and not as the independent, subscription-based supporters group they are...

I guess the other upview of this tooic is that it is another view of what has already been written over the last few days and paints another picture of where we are at as a club re finances, i.e. in 'no man's land'...

Chris,

Cheers, I am for the meetings , but why are they never ever asking straight questions and questions like where would the money go and our costs etc and how much have we spent so far? ??

For me they are like lap dogs and nothing has changed just Morgan having more under him and Dalman.

Annis, on the lack of real questioning, we are wholly in the same Hymn sheet...!

Chris,

It’s incredible not one decent question, it’s like a meeting to make the Hierarchy look good.

Sadly fans who want to ask real questions, will never be invited.

Just one point from me on this.

I don’t agree that this could take years of appeals, etc., before any final resolution.

I have said all along (and I do have a pretty good knowledge of civil courts, at least in England and Wales) that I doubt this case will go to trial and it will be settled. You can’t appeal settlements !!

Civil courts encourage compromise and there are significant costs penalties if a case goes to trial and can subsequently be shown to have been able to be settled at a level more than, or equal to, the final judgment. I’m guessing it’s similar in France.

I won’t predict what the outcome will be (although I think if we do win it will be pretty significant monies in the scheme of things) but I would be very surprised if we don’t get a resolution in the next 12 months.

Can anyone answer this question, who does Keith Morgan work for or represent?
Is he Dalmans mouth piece?

Is it like PMQs where the questions and answers are pre prepared so the club have answers?

How long do Q&A last ?

Is there an AOB section?

Are minutes taken?

Jules,

If anyone puts a question that could upset The Hierarchy, your not invited again.
So you go in there like a nodding dog.

Hmmmmm not very open and fair then?