"FC Nantes pretending not to be responsible is appalling. The negligence of FC Nantes and its agent at the time cost my son his life. All I want is for justice to be done."

clive said:

Cardiff to appeal dismissed £100m Sala claim

Cardiff City have filed an appeal against a French judge's decision to dismiss a claim for more than £100m in compensation following the death of footballer Emiliano Sala.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgmp72313elo

Radostanradical said:

Everyone is having a go at Cardiff, but it should be recognised that the club have been left carrying the can for a tragedy they didn’t create. Emiliano Sala died on a flight Cardiff did not arrange, did not approve, and were not informed about in any official capacity. The aircraft was organised through people involved in the transfer on the Nantes side, and the operator who set it up was later jailed for endangering the safety of an aircraft. The pilot wasn’t licensed for night flying. Despite all that, Cardiff ended up being treated as if they were responsible for every link in the chain, while those who actually organised the flight faced nowhere near the same level of scrutiny.

From Cardiff’s point of view, the transfer process itself was full of unresolved issues. There were disputes over who was acting as an agent, who arranged Sala’s travel, and whether the Premier League registration was fully completed at the moment he boarded the plane, which are all genuine questions Cardiff raised from the start. The club believed Nantes had a duty of care during the transfer, especially regarding how the player was transported between clubs. Instead, the French Commercial Court dismissed Cardiff’s concerns as “extravagant” and ruled entirely in Nantes’ favour, without addressing the wider failures that led to Sala being put on an unsafe, unlicensed flight.

That’s why Cardiff are appealing again. It’s their final chance to challenge a ruling they feel was one‑sided and ignored the complexity of what actually happened. Cardiff aren’t dragging this out for the sake of it, they’re doing it because a player died, the circumstances were avoidable, and the club were left holding the bill for a disaster they didn’t cause. From a Cardiff perspective, they absolutely have a legitimate case and every right to fight their corner.

Chizz said:

Radostanradical said:

Everyone is having a go at Cardiff, but it should be recognised that the club have been left carrying the can for a tragedy they didn’t create. Emiliano Sala died on a flight Cardiff did not arrange, did not approve, and were not informed about in any official capacity. The aircraft was organised through people involved in the transfer on the Nantes side, and the operator who set it up was later jailed for endangering the safety of an aircraft. The pilot wasn’t licensed for night flying. Despite all that, Cardiff ended up being treated as if they were responsible for every link in the chain, while those who actually organised the flight faced nowhere near the same level of scrutiny.

From Cardiff’s point of view, the transfer process itself was full of unresolved issues. There were disputes over who was acting as an agent, who arranged Sala’s travel, and whether the Premier League registration was fully completed at the moment he boarded the plane, which are all genuine questions Cardiff raised from the start. The club believed Nantes had a duty of care during the transfer, especially regarding how the player was transported between clubs. Instead, the French Commercial Court dismissed Cardiff’s concerns as “extravagant” and ruled entirely in Nantes’ favour, without addressing the wider failures that led to Sala being put on an unsafe, unlicensed flight.

That’s why Cardiff are appealing again. It’s their final chance to challenge a ruling they feel was one‑sided and ignored the complexity of what actually happened. Cardiff aren’t dragging this out for the sake of it, they’re doing it because a player died, the circumstances were avoidable, and the club were left holding the bill for a disaster they didn’t cause. From a Cardiff perspective, they absolutely have a legitimate case and every right to fight their corner.

The transfer was already legally complete. FIFA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and even the Swiss Federal Tribunal have all concluded that Sala had become a Cardiff player before the crash. Those findings have consistently gone against Cardiff. 

The court rejected Cardiff's liability case against Nantes. Cardiff argued that unlicensed intermediary Willie McKay was effectively acting for Nantes and that Nantes should therefore be responsible for the consequences of the illegal flight. The French court was not persuaded that Nantes bore legal responsibility on that basis. 

The claimed £100m losses are highly speculative. Much of Cardiff's damages claim rests on the proposition that Sala would have kept the club in the Premier League, avoiding relegation and preserving broadcasting, commercial and reputational income. Courts are generally reluctant to award damages based on such hypothetical sporting outcomes unless causation is proved to a very high standard. 

In my view, the claim is also difficult to reconcile with Cardiff's own position. If the club genuinely believes Emiliano Sala was so vital that their Premier League future - and £100m of revenue - depended on him, then they should have exercised a correspondingly high duty of care over his transfer and transportation. A player they now describe as indispensable should never have been allowed to travel on an unlicensed, privately arranged flight without proper oversight. It is hard to argue that another club should bear responsibility for losses arising from risks Cardiff itself was in a position to identify or prevent. 

Chizz said:

JiMMy 85 said:

Chizz said:

Radostanradical said:

Everyone is having a go at Cardiff, but it should be recognised that the club have been left carrying the can for a tragedy they didn’t create. Emiliano Sala died on a flight Cardiff did not arrange, did not approve, and were not informed about in any official capacity. The aircraft was organised through people involved in the transfer on the Nantes side, and the operator who set it up was later jailed for endangering the safety of an aircraft. The pilot wasn’t licensed for night flying. Despite all that, Cardiff ended up being treated as if they were responsible for every link in the chain, while those who actually organised the flight faced nowhere near the same level of scrutiny.

From Cardiff’s point of view, the transfer process itself was full of unresolved issues. There were disputes over who was acting as an agent, who arranged Sala’s travel, and whether the Premier League registration was fully completed at the moment he boarded the plane, which are all genuine questions Cardiff raised from the start. The club believed Nantes had a duty of care during the transfer, especially regarding how the player was transported between clubs. Instead, the French Commercial Court dismissed Cardiff’s concerns as “extravagant” and ruled entirely in Nantes’ favour, without addressing the wider failures that led to Sala being put on an unsafe, unlicensed flight.

That’s why Cardiff are appealing again. It’s their final chance to challenge a ruling they feel was one‑sided and ignored the complexity of what actually happened. Cardiff aren’t dragging this out for the sake of it, they’re doing it because a player died, the circumstances were avoidable, and the club were left holding the bill for a disaster they didn’t cause. From a Cardiff perspective, they absolutely have a legitimate case and every right to fight their corner.

The transfer was already legally complete. FIFA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and even the Swiss Federal Tribunal have all concluded that Sala had become a Cardiff player before the crash. Those findings have consistently gone against Cardiff. 

The court rejected Cardiff's liability case against Nantes. Cardiff argued that unlicensed intermediary Willie McKay was effectively acting for Nantes and that Nantes should therefore be responsible for the consequences of the illegal flight. The French court was not persuaded that Nantes bore legal responsibility on that basis. 

The claimed £100m losses are highly speculative. Much of Cardiff's damages claim rests on the proposition that Sala would have kept the club in the Premier League, avoiding relegation and preserving broadcasting, commercial and reputational income. Courts are generally reluctant to award damages based on such hypothetical sporting outcomes unless causation is proved to a very high standard. 

In my view, the claim is also difficult to reconcile with Cardiff's own position. If the club genuinely believes Emiliano Sala was so vital that their Premier League future - and £100m of revenue - depended on him, then they should have exercised a correspondingly high duty of care over his transfer and transportation. A player they now describe as indispensable should never have been allowed to travel on an unlicensed, privately arranged flight without proper oversight. It is hard to argue that another club should bear responsibility for losses arising from risks Cardiff itself was in a position to identify or prevent. 

I see what you are saying but if they were signing a teenager, a third choice goalkeeper or a star striker, this should not be any different. 

They're claiming a loss of £100m of revenue solely down to the unavailability of one, single player.  For that to have any truth, they would have to demonstrated a far greater duty of care.  

Obviously a club owes a debt of responsibility to any player and high levels of duty of care. Whether that's a teenager, third choice goalkeeper or star striker.  But, by demonstrating a fatal lack of duty of care to the player, they are also demonstrating he cannot have solely been responsible for a loss of £100m worth of revenue. 

He was either so critical to the forward revenue streams of the club that he deserved the greatest possible duty of care; or he wasn't.  They can't have it both ways.  

Chizz said:

Radostanradical said:

Everyone is having a go at Cardiff, but it should be recognised that the club have been left carrying the can for a tragedy they didn’t create. Emiliano Sala died on a flight Cardiff did not arrange, did not approve, and were not informed about in any official capacity. The aircraft was organised through people involved in the transfer on the Nantes side, and the operator who set it up was later jailed for endangering the safety of an aircraft. The pilot wasn’t licensed for night flying. Despite all that, Cardiff ended up being treated as if they were responsible for every link in the chain, while those who actually organised the flight faced nowhere near the same level of scrutiny.

From Cardiff’s point of view, the transfer process itself was full of unresolved issues. There were disputes over who was acting as an agent, who arranged Sala’s travel, and whether the Premier League registration was fully completed at the moment he boarded the plane, which are all genuine questions Cardiff raised from the start. The club believed Nantes had a duty of care during the transfer, especially regarding how the player was transported between clubs. Instead, the French Commercial Court dismissed Cardiff’s concerns as “extravagant” and ruled entirely in Nantes’ favour, without addressing the wider failures that led to Sala being put on an unsafe, unlicensed flight.

That’s why Cardiff are appealing again. It’s their final chance to challenge a ruling they feel was one‑sided and ignored the complexity of what actually happened. Cardiff aren’t dragging this out for the sake of it, they’re doing it because a player died, the circumstances were avoidable, and the club were left holding the bill for a disaster they didn’t cause. From a Cardiff perspective, they absolutely have a legitimate case and every right to fight their corner.

The transfer was already legally complete. FIFA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and even the Swiss Federal Tribunal have all concluded that Sala had become a Cardiff player before the crash. Those findings have consistently gone against Cardiff. 

The court rejected Cardiff's liability case against Nantes. Cardiff argued that unlicensed intermediary Willie McKay was effectively acting for Nantes and that Nantes should therefore be responsible for the consequences of the illegal flight. The French court was not persuaded that Nantes bore legal responsibility on that basis. 

The claimed £100m losses are highly speculative. Much of Cardiff's damages claim rests on the proposition that Sala would have kept the club in the Premier League, avoiding relegation and preserving broadcasting, commercial and reputational income. Courts are generally reluctant to award damages based on such hypothetical sporting outcomes unless causation is proved to a very high standard. 

In my view, the claim is also difficult to reconcile with Cardiff's own position. If the club genuinely believes Emiliano Sala was so vital that their Premier League future - and £100m of revenue - depended on him, then they should have exercised a correspondingly high duty of care over his transfer and transportation. A player they now describe as indispensable should never have been allowed to travel on an unlicensed, privately arranged flight without proper oversight. It is hard to argue that another club should bear responsibility for losses arising from risks Cardiff itself was in a position to identify or prevent. 

Arsenetatters said:

Just feels so wrong to put a price on his life. But I guess it’s the same as an accident at work falling off scaffolding or losing an arm in a machine fault. Because a person died the whole process is bound to be incredibly difficult.