Legal position

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I see FIFA has set a deadline

"Fifa has given Cardiff City and Nantes until 5 September to reach a settlement in the dispute over the payment of Emiliano Sala's £15m transfer fee.

Fifa sent a letter to both clubs stating that should they miss the deadline, they will issue its own ruling, which is subject to appeal."
 
  • Like
Reactions: clingo and remote
Doesn't matter really. The fight has always ben about who owned him and therefore who's insurance pays out. FIFA provides a ruling and that's it. Unless the losing insurance company insists the 'losing' club appeals....which is a certainty. They'll chuck a million if not more on a legal fight to save 15.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remote
With so many technical and legal issues involved I'm not sure FIFA can make such demands.

How long did it take them to get rid of Blatter anyway?
 
The Telegraph has a story on this. Could affect the legal outcome regarding absolute responsibity for the tragedy.

A privately funded recovery of the plane wreckage as the AAIB have declined to do it, and it appears CCFC are supporting it - extract below.......

"Representatives for the family declined to comment on what options were under consideration and whether a crowd-funded salvage operation was among them.


But Cardiff City, who have also called for the plane to be recovered, told Telegraph Sport they would be willing to “look at options” for such a move.


Chairman Mehmet Dalman said: “Cardiff City Football Club believes that salvaging the aircraft is the only logical route to being able to establish exactly what caused the crash. There is significant public interest in doing so, to prevent further tragedies of this nature.


“Contrary to comments elsewhere that this isn’t necessary, we feel only with a detailed analysis of the wreckage can we have complete confidence in the conclusions drawn.


“We would be willing to work with other parties to look at options for the salvage operation, if this would be appropriate.”


Back in February, Cardiff multi-millionaire owner, Vincent Tan, donated £50,000 towards a private search for Ibbotson."
 
Oldsparkey said:
The Telegraph has a story on this. Could affect the legal outcome regarding absolute responsibity for the tragedy.

A privately funded recovery of the plane wreckage as the AAIB have declined to do it, and it appears CCFC are supporting it - extract below.......

"Representatives for the family declined to comment on what options were under consideration and whether a crowd-funded salvage operation was among them.


But Cardiff City, who have also called for the plane to be recovered, told Telegraph Sport they would be willing to “look at options” for such a move.


Chairman Mehmet Dalman said: “Cardiff City Football Club believes that salvaging the aircraft is the only logical route to being able to establish exactly what caused the crash. There is significant public interest in doing so, to prevent further tragedies of this nature.


“Contrary to comments elsewhere that this isn’t necessary, we feel only with a detailed analysis of the wreckage can we have complete confidence in the conclusions drawn.


“We would be willing to work with other parties to look at options for the salvage operation, if this would be appropriate.”


Back in February, Cardiff multi-millionaire owner, Vincent Tan, donated £50,000 towards a private search for Ibbotson."
Click to expand...

A very reasonable proposal showing City are keen to get as full clarity as possible.

I hope it can be done.
 
We've ben told to pay 6 million Euro......we'll appeal and then there'll be a decision. We then pay or not and the insurance will cough up. Second element due Jan 2020 but not clear if that payable or not (commercial issues!). Hopefully, this will bring this very sad saga to a close.
 
Just read that on WoL.

As I said earlier are FIFA a fit and proper body to make such a decision? Blatter et al.

Quite correctly City want to see the detail behind the decision before commenting.

That is not to say they can't or won't pay. They just need to know the rationale.
 
Odd decision. Surely if they are looking at it from a legal standpoint then it should be a pay all or none scenario? A figure of £6m is like saying, well you're not liable... but pay anyway. Or you're liable, but only a little bit. Ridiculous that it took so long for them to come to that half arsed conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldsparkey
swans-m said:
Odd decision. Surely if they are looking at it from a legal standpoint then it should be a pay all or none scenario? A figure of £6m is like saying, well you're not liable... but pay anyway. Or you're liable, but only a little bit. Ridiculous that it took so long for them to come to that half arsed conclusion.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

Lot more to be explained about this seemingly vague decision by FIFA.
 
swans-m said:
Odd decision. Surely if they are looking at it from a legal standpoint then it should be a pay all or none scenario? A figure of £6m is like saying, well you're not liable... but pay anyway. Or you're liable, but only a little bit. Ridiculous that it took so long for them to come to that half arsed conclusion.
Click to expand...
The €6M is the first of 3 instalments from the contract. Cardiff are seeking clarification as to whether FIFA are saying 'pay the first instalment' or 'pay the €6M and thats it'.
 
First installment that was arranged at the beginning if the deal i would expect. Not many big money transfers are paid in full these days...
 
Putting my legal hat on I’d be surprised if City don’t take this to Arbitration. I’ve not read any judgment but suggest it’s a case for legal submissions rather than a FIFA Players Status Committee.
 
ninian opinion said:
Putting my legal hat on I’d be surprised if City don’t take this to Arbitration. I’ve not read any judgment but suggest it’s a case for legal submissions rather than a FIFA Players Status Committee.
Click to expand...

There's no way City's insurers will pay out on just a FIFA PSC ruling. There needs to be much more clarification before any money changes hands.

Unless the two clubs agree on a solution/payment between themselves, it will definitely be appealed to the Court for Arbitration in Sport by either club.
 
Oldsparkey said:
There's no way City's insurers will pay out on just a FIFA PSC ruling. There needs to be much more clarification before any money changes hands.

Unless the two clubs agree on a solution/payment between themselves, it will definitely be appealed to the Court for Arbitration in Sport by either club.
Click to expand...

Question: Will there be insurance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldsparkey
Oldsparkey said:
Good point.

If both clubs continually deny he was actually their player at the time of his death, how can they then make a claim from their insurers?
Click to expand...

If the player is adjudged to be City’s and they have to pay for him then I suggest the club would potentially have a claim for an indemnity for it’s losses against the owners of the aircraft for failing in its duty to prevent harm against its property ie the player, and if the pilot was not it’s employee claiming against the pilot’s insurers for taking off in such bad weather and not taking the necessary safety checks.

Whether anybody owed City a contractual or tortious legal duty of care to protect its property and if so whether there was causative loss is open to question. I’d suggest there has to be a claim in contract or negligence somewhere there given these facts and the various parties; it may take some to unravel but that’s what lawyers are for.
 
ninian opinion said:
If the player is adjudged to be City’s and they have to pay for him then I suggest the club would potentially have a claim for an indemnity for it’s losses against the owners of the aircraft for failing in its duty to prevent harm against its property ie the player, and if the pilot was not it’s employee claiming against the pilot’s insurers for taking off in such bad weather and not taking the necessary safety checks.

Whether anybody owed City a contractual or tortious legal duty of care to protect its property and if so whether there was causative loss is open to question. I’d suggest there has to be a claim in contract or negligence somewhere there given these facts and the various parties; it may take some to unravel but that’s what lawyers are for.
Click to expand...

In that case, and it was accepted by the insurers that Sala was indeed an employee of the club at the time of his death, then surely the insurers would be duty bound to pay City out on the policy and pursue any claim for recompense off third parties themselves?
 
Oldsparkey said:
In that case, and it was accepted by the insurers that Sala was indeed an employee of the club at the time of his death, then surely the insurers would be duty bound to pay City out on the policy and pursue any claim for recompense off third parties themselves?
Click to expand...

OS,
Which insurance policy would that be? If there is an insurance policy covering death/personal injury of its players then that must be right. City would have assigned within such a policy the right of subrogation.

My thesis was on the basis there was no insurance policy in place or if there was the insurers would seek avoidance for eg act of god or some other excuse!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BluefromBridgend
ninian opinion said:
OS,
Which insurance policy would that be? If there is an insurance policy covering death/personal injury of its players then that must be right. City would have assigned within such a policy the right of subrogation.

My thesis was on the basis there was no insurance policy in place or if there was the insurers would seek avoidance for eg act of god or some other excuse!
Click to expand...

Take your point Nin, but that would suggest that even if Sala was deemed to be a City player by the authorities, any contract between City and it's insurers would allow subrogation.

I'd have thought any policy taken would be contractual and defined as such. Anything else is a get out for the insurers and City would have been mugs to accept it. I doubt Tan would put himself in that position - but you never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BluefromBridgend
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back