Untenable position?

clingo said:
I'm probably being thick again but how is any of this the fault of Nantes? If as the club now insist that they thought he was insured prior to the tragedy, then they are acknowledging that he was our player.
I understand that the press will go for sensationalism over accuracy but surely wasn't there a moral imperative to have paid Nantes? The insurance issue is surely our problem not theirs.
The reputation of the club is being dragged further and further into the depths.
Click to expand...

This has moved on from Nantes, Clingo. This allegation says we tried to claim on the insurers for Sala the day after he died.

Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. However it is an allegation and should be reported as such not the blatant, blame culture, news hungry headlines from MailonLine and BBC Wales. If the allegation is found to be false then surely City have a libel claim against the newshounds?

In fairness I cannot see that WoL have reported on this, so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clingo
BluefromBridgend said:
This has moved on from Nantes, Clingo. This allegation says we tried to claim on the insurers for Sala the day after he died.

Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. However it is an allegation and should be reported as such not the blatant, blame culture, news hungry headlines from MailonLine and BBC Wales. If the allegation is found to be false then surely City have a libel claim against the newshounds?

In fairness I cannot see that WoL have reported on this, so far.
Click to expand...
Cheers BfB but I still can't fathom why we've only recently paid the first instalment. I guess what I'm saying is that in not paying when we should have, we've left the door open for all the newshounds.
It's seems a hell of a mess whatever is going on
 
  • Like
Reactions: BluefromBridgend
It's an appalling situation that the club find themselves in. They made a mistake by not insuring Sala. It wasn't the club's fault that this tragedy occurred but it did, regrettably, and therefore they were trying to cover all bases in an attempt to avoid paying the inevitable bill. Nantes are quite rightly expecting to be paid in full plus interest. Tan should ensure that this is done ASAP so that this whole unfortunate incident is put to rest and everyone concerning, including the family, can begin to put it behind them.

No matter how long the club fight the issue they will still need to pay up. There are no loopholes to be found
 
  • Like
Reactions: BluefromBridgend, clingo and swantastic
ccfcremotesupport said:
Tan is like a dog with a bone.
I admire his tenacity, but given the subject, not very becoming.
Click to expand...
But at the same time, he does have some valid points

Nantes definitely aren't squeaky clean in all this so they really shouldn't be able to sit back, take their cash, shrug and say "not my problem guv"

They were using dodgy agent(s) and also did nothing to prevent Emiliano getting on the plane, hired by the very same dodgy agent.

Sadly, no one comes out of this with any grace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blueturk the cat, irishbluebird, clingo and 1 other person
Good and intelligent people have tried to explain it all to me, yet it still doesn't make any sense to my limited capacity.

The deal was agreed, he flew over to sign papers and held the shirt aloft. What happened thereafter cannot surely be the responsibility of Nantes. The problem in my mind lies with McKay and his dubious arrangements. I can see how Tan feels robbed, but how it's Nantes problem is beyond me. We were quick to display him as our player, then deny that he was, then reinstate him as such for insurance and now we're back to he wasn't ours.
Hard pill for him to swallow, but to me, he has to pay up.
But what do I know?
Anyway, the whole thing continues to make sick to the pit of my stomach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: irishbluebird, BrizzleBluebird, remote and 2 others
Yep, going to drag on.

BUT, in view of this decision does it invalidate both FIFA's and EFL's decisions to impose an umbongo on us?

Can we get back the 7m VT paid to Nantes in view of the first decision?

SO, who has the biggest balls? AND, who can pi$$ the highest up the wall?

Of course, it could turn into a Mexican stand off which will do us absolutely no good at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blueturk the cat
I suppose it boils down to 3 facts: -

1. Was he our player? I think yes.
2. Who arranged the fatal flight? Not us.
3. If we had known what was happening could and should we have insisted he took commercial flights?

The answers to the third point are key. If we had condoned the private hire flight then we don't have a leg to stand on. If we didn't know then others, including Nantes, had a level of responsibility.

Surely it is as simple as that and some sort of compromise is needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clingo
BluefromBridgend said:
I suppose it boils down to 3 facts: -

1. Was he our player? I think yes.
2. Who arranged the fatal flight? Not us.
3. If we had known what was happening could and should we have insisted he took commercial flights?

The answers to the third point are key. If we had condoned the private hire flight then we don't have a leg to stand on. If we didn't know then others, including Nantes, had a level of responsibility.

Surely it is as simple as that and some sort of compromise is needed.
Click to expand...
Sounds reasonable when put that way. But he got here safely to sign the contract and hold the shirt aloft. Thereafter he went back to France to tie up his affairs. Can't see how Nantes can be held responsible for that and the subsequent tragedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BluefromBridgend
clingo said:
Sounds reasonable when put that way. But he got here safely to sign the contract and hold the shirt aloft. Thereafter he went back to France to tie up his affairs. Can't see how Nantes can be held responsible for that and the subsequent tragedy.
Click to expand...

Surely (I won't call you surely again) if they had any involvement in the fatal flight they must have had some responsibility.

More detail from WoL on today's news. It goes on a bit and repeats previously known facts.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport...kCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

I accept that VT continuing his pursuit of what he sees as right in the case is holding up City's development but would any of us just concede and stump up £20m (or whatever is relevant to us as individuals) if we thought we had a real case?
 
Tan "compromised" with Hamman's over his £15M claim against the club for the removal of his lifetime club "presidency". They settled out of court and suggestions are that Hamman got a very small percentage of his valuation of the position.

He also won the lesser case brought by Michael Isaacs who claimed his shares were devalued by Tan's dilution of his holding by issuing new equity. I remember the judge saying at the time that whilst Tan's action might be reprehensible, it wasn't illegal.

Ths is somewhat different as the transfer fees etc were contractually set in stone and not a matter of opinion. It's a question of whether Nantes would want to run the risk of the action being taken through the French Justice system which operates very strict contractual law principles - far more stringent than the UK. They could get a severe shafting and may seek a compromise rather than run the risk.

Whatever, now that Swiss mob have finally declared their judgement on the matter which I thought was due back in February, looks like Tan is now able to press the button. He's not famous for backing down - an out of court compromise looks favourite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrizzleBluebird and BluefromBridgend
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back