And similarly, if the Premier League had refused to clear the deal, then he would have remained with Nantes. The contracts signed are signed subject to clearance. Until that clearance, he's a Nantes player.I see it differently. Cardiff agreed (and signed) a deal with Nantes in good faith. If for instance, Sala had not passed on and Nantes had insisted that actually, they'd had a better offer and that they wanted to cancel the deal then Cardiff would have almost certainly told them where to go.
Well if he was a Nantes player, then surely you mean Nantes only have themselves to blame.Ultimately, this is why clubs insure the lives and careers of their players - their assets. If there's some reason, such as issues relating to the nature of Sala's flight (e.g. aircraft and pilot), have rendered any insurance claim null and void then again Cardiff only have themselves to blame.
Cardiff didn't 'drop the vase', so the comparison doesn't make sense. How about if you bought the vase from the seller on ebay, and they sent it, and if got broken in transit? Would you still pay? Would you bollox.If I buy, for example, an antique vase and sign a contract with the dealer in which I agree to pay a certain price for it, and subsequently drop it through no fault of the seller, then suggesting I no longer want to pay for it since it now has no value is surely morally wrong. Even if a technicality in the contract means that I can avoid paying for it, it does not mean that, morally speaking, I should. That woud be classless.
Understood, we're talking about the issue at hand, and not meaning to ignore or make light of the fact that what matters the most is the loss of people's lives, and they can't be brought back.The same is true here. I apologise for the cold use of language here when talking about a human life
You have no evidence that it was Cardiff's fault that the 'asset' wasn't protected, and indeed no evidence that he was a Cardiff player. If he was still a Nantes player, then they should have looked after him until he was no longer their player. You could equally argue that Nantes no longer cared about him or his safety, despite the fact he was still their player - they just stopped caring because he was planning to leave.but they agreed to pay for an asset, had its value reduced to zero having failed to protect it accordingly, and so the onus remains on them to make good on that payment.
Understood, but we don't really have knowledge of how he came to take that flight do we? I don't think it's right just to assume it's Cardiff's fault. Not without some evidence that they had some knowledge it was happening (all the details you gave).In the case of Sala, the plane in question was not appropriate for flying in bad weather, the pilot was not permitted to fly commercial passengers and was not qualified to fly at night (all of which happened). If it hasn't already, I'm sure in time the flight will be proven to have been illegal.
What if Cardiff told him not to fly back to France?Someone, somewhere - not least the man flying the plane - will have known that. Had transport been organised properly that simply would not have happened. But Cardiff, either through direct involvement in organising the flight or failing to organise something properly themselves, were tinpot. They were classless.