| Cardiff on 14:56 - Jan 12 with 1426 views | Boundy |
| Cardiff on 13:11 - Jan 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is a forum and open for all to read. This is not a one to one debate. I like to provide an educational angle to my posts and not on here to points score or pit other posters down.
You are contradicting your earlier posts where you denied there was an 'aviation company' involved in this disaster to cover "duty of care " issues.
The "Registered Agent" put the player on a plane sorted out by his dads' mate who had a plane. I do not know if he did no research at all on the plane, the pilot, nor the mate of his dad organising it (possible aviation firm) nor insurance cover. This would be the duty of care.
The Registered agent is bound by the duties of "Duty of Care" as you would expect from Uber and a "FIFA Registered agent". He should have a paper chain that can be audited as part of his business. Assessor will ask to see this paper train perhaps. This was a big deal not popping down to Costco to get a big box of toilet rolls and coffee.
I have annual travel insurance which covers me for trips. It s common sense for me. If I sent an employee to work for me I would i ensure any flight taken by an employee would have travel insurance. I suspect this particular trip would have been subject to exclusions. Would an insurance firm cover a single flight form this particular aviation firm using this plane?
I sense we have had two positions and the truth is halfway perhaps?. You probably would never accept such a concept. 'Grey areas' abound in this case and you only deal in black and white I suspect. |
"provide an educational angle to my posts and not on here to points score or pit other posters down."
so when will that begin , because you come across as being extremely uneducated when it come to this particular topic |  |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
|  |
| Cardiff on 17:35 - Jan 12 with 1334 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 14:56 - Jan 12 by Boundy |
"provide an educational angle to my posts and not on here to points score or pit other posters down."
so when will that begin , because you come across as being extremely uneducated when it come to this particular topic |
I do not know your educational background but i would guess a few of the readership are unfamiliar with 'Public liability insurance', 'Public indemnity insurance 'and the concept of "duty of care". I have had to learn of these thing through being a freelancer.
Nor will they have considered FIFA's own liability for the actions of an agent they had registered as being competent.
No one else has raised these issues that may or may not be relevant. |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 22:24 - Jan 12 with 1269 views | STID2017 |
| Cardiff on 17:35 - Jan 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not know your educational background but i would guess a few of the readership are unfamiliar with 'Public liability insurance', 'Public indemnity insurance 'and the concept of "duty of care". I have had to learn of these thing through being a freelancer.
Nor will they have considered FIFA's own liability for the actions of an agent they had registered as being competent.
No one else has raised these issues that may or may not be relevant. |
Ultimately people have died, and instead of all the parties reaching amicable financial agreements and compensating all that they should, there has been this horrific haggling.
At the end of the day gives the impression money matters more than lives, whatever the ins and outs of the case |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 22:57 - Jan 12 with 1217 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 13:47 - Jan 12 by bennytheblue |
He will go on and on. Years ago he went on about Langstone for about a year, a loan note of £15 million, it was like his life depended on it. This is his latest project. What a life eh? |
Not at all, I simply told you that you are liable to pay it (and you were).
There was no going on and on, no life depending on it… just telling you the facts of the matter which turned out to be true as Tan handed over millions to settle out of court.
If your ilk listened to me instead of trying and failing to get one over on me then it would have avoided such things.
Same goes for the Sala issue, I told you why you were liable and where your claim “may” lay. This is now echoed as fact by all after years of deliberation. |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 23:05 - Jan 12 with 1206 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 13:11 - Jan 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is a forum and open for all to read. This is not a one to one debate. I like to provide an educational angle to my posts and not on here to points score or pit other posters down.
You are contradicting your earlier posts where you denied there was an 'aviation company' involved in this disaster to cover "duty of care " issues.
The "Registered Agent" put the player on a plane sorted out by his dads' mate who had a plane. I do not know if he did no research at all on the plane, the pilot, nor the mate of his dad organising it (possible aviation firm) nor insurance cover. This would be the duty of care.
The Registered agent is bound by the duties of "Duty of Care" as you would expect from Uber and a "FIFA Registered agent". He should have a paper chain that can be audited as part of his business. Assessor will ask to see this paper train perhaps. This was a big deal not popping down to Costco to get a big box of toilet rolls and coffee.
I have annual travel insurance which covers me for trips. It s common sense for me. If I sent an employee to work for me I would i ensure any flight taken by an employee would have travel insurance. I suspect this particular trip would have been subject to exclusions. Would an insurance firm cover a single flight form this particular aviation firm using this plane?
I sense we have had two positions and the truth is halfway perhaps?. You probably would never accept such a concept. 'Grey areas' abound in this case and you only deal in black and white I suspect. |
Not understanding what point you are making? Are you suggesting that because it’s an open forum you can’t respond to anyone who corrects the errors in your reasoning? That’s a new way of avoiding pretty glaring errors.
I am not contradicting anything, you just misunderstand (again). You claimed Henderson ran a company arranging pilots, I correctly told you he didn’t. He was someone who went on Facebook to pick up odd jobs and give them to others if he couldn’t do it.
The company I refer to is the company that owned the plane, not Henderson. Duty of care would fall under the company that McKay booked the flights with, not McKay himself. I again refer you to the local taxi firm example, the person that booked the taxi is not liable for the state of the taxi that arrives or the driver.
The registered agent didn’t “put” anyone on anything. Sala was a grown man making his own choices, who declined an inconvenient commercial flight to seek other options. McKay Snr (not the agent) booked the flight for Sala as a favour to him (again I refer you to the taxi example for a second time) - once that happens the duty of care falls on the aviation company.
There is no reasonable expectation for a client to do research and gather reports on the transport or driver, if you believe this to be true - I again ask you to hand over the mechanical and licensing report you conducted on your last taxi you booked or flight you took. I’m sure we would all like to see how you approached the bookings.
There are no two positions, there is reality and then there is fantasy. Yours as usual is in the fantasy realm. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 23:07 - Jan 12 with 1204 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 12:54 - Jan 12 by bennytheblue |
Nicely put, dr p will never quite get it, let him have another waffle. Blessim |
I suppose it can be described as nicely put if you don’t understand the glaring errors in what he is claiming of course. Why change the habit of a lifetime right?
You can help him out if you like. Provide your mechanical report and licensing report you undertook prior to booking your last taxi or flight.
I’d be fascinating to see this myth play out while we pretend that is expected and normal practice. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 05:33 - Jan 13 with 1181 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 17:35 - Jan 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not know your educational background but i would guess a few of the readership are unfamiliar with 'Public liability insurance', 'Public indemnity insurance 'and the concept of "duty of care". I have had to learn of these thing through being a freelancer.
Nor will they have considered FIFA's own liability for the actions of an agent they had registered as being competent.
No one else has raised these issues that may or may not be relevant. |
You know what these things are but don’t know when they are used - or by whom.
Rendering that knowledge and input useless in this case.
I know about fruit farming, but it’s also useless to this case.
There is a reason nobody mentioned it, because it’s ludicrous and doesn’t apply for obvious reasons.
You are trying to say that someone booking transport with a company has to check the pilot or drivers license (the pilot upon booking was fully qualified David Henderson by the way)… and that the person booking must request a mechanical report from the company (of which we know nothing of with regards to the state of the plane other than some texts from Sala who is not qualified in aviation).
THEN you think Nantes are responsible??
If it wasn’t such a tragic event this would be laughable. All because you made a stance that Cardiff “did nothing wrong” (because you didn’t know anything about the case) and now can’t back down.
For shame. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 05:42 - Jan 13 with 1180 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 22:24 - Jan 12 by STID2017 |
Ultimately people have died, and instead of all the parties reaching amicable financial agreements and compensating all that they should, there has been this horrific haggling.
At the end of the day gives the impression money matters more than lives, whatever the ins and outs of the case |
Why should there be agreements? Nantes just want the binding contractual deal honoured,
Cardiff were the only ones haggling.
Nantes sold Cardiff their best player and agreed to sell for £15m. Contracts were signed, they released the player from employment and that was that.
But you reckon because he died shortly after, largely due to Cardiff being cheap and offering him an inconvenient flight and him having to find one himself…. they should retrospectively reduce the fee?
As I said at the time, there will be no haggling or agreements being reached with regards to the amount. They bought him for £15m and they will pay £15m, that’s all there is to it.
They will be able to sue via two avenues;
1) David Henderson. They can absolutely sue him as he has been found to have been at fault for their loss. But there is no chance the man would have anything worth suing for, it probably wouldn’t even cover the legal fees needed to sue him.
2) The company that owned the plane. But again due to the way American registration law is for planes operating outside of America, it’s very unlikely they will ever be found. No insurance claim will be put in for the plane so I would assume they will remain untraceable.
In short, it’s over. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cardiff on 14:34 - Jan 13 with 1085 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 05:33 - Jan 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
You know what these things are but don’t know when they are used - or by whom.
Rendering that knowledge and input useless in this case.
I know about fruit farming, but it’s also useless to this case.
There is a reason nobody mentioned it, because it’s ludicrous and doesn’t apply for obvious reasons.
You are trying to say that someone booking transport with a company has to check the pilot or drivers license (the pilot upon booking was fully qualified David Henderson by the way)… and that the person booking must request a mechanical report from the company (of which we know nothing of with regards to the state of the plane other than some texts from Sala who is not qualified in aviation).
THEN you think Nantes are responsible??
If it wasn’t such a tragic event this would be laughable. All because you made a stance that Cardiff “did nothing wrong” (because you didn’t know anything about the case) and now can’t back down.
For shame. |
I understand "duty of care" I understand the basics Public indemnity insurance and the public liability insurance. I am not an expert in the fine detail. I trust in other experts to guide me through my life in safety and good practice.
I while working on a transport related business as a freelance was obliged to be have the insurance cover for £5m and £2m per anum for PI and PL respectively and paid over £500 to allow me to work in this field. The client I worked for forced me to have this cover to protect me, them and its client. They executed their "duty of care".
This duty of care meant that cowboys and corner cutters were not allowed in the regulated field of railway travel. There are regulations for air travel as well.
Cardiff city may have 'carried the can' (financially) between two inadequately regulated fields.
The field of a football agents who have had a poor reputation in football in the past. There are stories of 'brown paper bag' deals done in motorway services. They exist in what is perceived a light regulation framework. This does not necessarily apply in this case.
The second field is unregulated air transport. I am not expert in this but was directed to this practice by what I read in the Guardian and WoL. They called it the "grey market".
Disasters happen when a combination of negative factors all align from my experience. There is only one entirely innocent party and that is the footballer. Everyone else has had their collar felt.
You projection of the case in simple black and white terms does not stand up to scrutiny. [Post edited 13 Jan 2023 17:15]
| |
| |
| Cardiff on 20:02 - Jan 13 with 1014 views | felixstowe_jack |
On the Cardiff website site it says Cardiff will now have to pay £20 million instead of the original £15 million. The extra £5 million includes extra interest payments and court fees.
Just shows how expensive it is to take legal action with any guarantee of winning any court case. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 20:10 - Jan 13 with 979 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 14:34 - Jan 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I understand "duty of care" I understand the basics Public indemnity insurance and the public liability insurance. I am not an expert in the fine detail. I trust in other experts to guide me through my life in safety and good practice.
I while working on a transport related business as a freelance was obliged to be have the insurance cover for £5m and £2m per anum for PI and PL respectively and paid over £500 to allow me to work in this field. The client I worked for forced me to have this cover to protect me, them and its client. They executed their "duty of care".
This duty of care meant that cowboys and corner cutters were not allowed in the regulated field of railway travel. There are regulations for air travel as well.
Cardiff city may have 'carried the can' (financially) between two inadequately regulated fields.
The field of a football agents who have had a poor reputation in football in the past. There are stories of 'brown paper bag' deals done in motorway services. They exist in what is perceived a light regulation framework. This does not necessarily apply in this case.
The second field is unregulated air transport. I am not expert in this but was directed to this practice by what I read in the Guardian and WoL. They called it the "grey market".
Disasters happen when a combination of negative factors all align from my experience. There is only one entirely innocent party and that is the footballer. Everyone else has had their collar felt.
You projection of the case in simple black and white terms does not stand up to scrutiny. [Post edited 13 Jan 2023 17:15]
|
You are losing me now.
So you are saying exactly what I said. That knowing these things is irrelevant, if they are irrelevant to the case (which they are). So what point are you making?
Then you are telling me that my view of the case, which has since been backed by courts, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny…. Even though the only scrutinisation you have attempted is by making some fantasy story that those that book public or commercial transport are responsible for the driver, which needless to say is bonkers.
You are also saying because agents make deals off the record it means it’s illegal to book a flight? Your jumping from one thing to another in order to justify something completely unrelated is utterly bizarre.
Feel free to scrutinise what I said, I’d be fascinated what angle you take.
Until then, there has been absolutely no scrutinisation of what I’m saying at all, and there is a reason for that. It’s the facts of the matter which I have been saying long before legal minds confirmed and ruled on the matter.
Fair to say I have a fair grasp on it.
I remember you telling me he must have been insured not so long ago and saying I can’t be right that he wasn’t… turned out he wasn’t as Cardiff tried to sue a company for not telling them he had to be.
Stick with me kid, you aren’t debating with Chief now. This is your doctor. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 21:00 - Jan 13 with 949 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 20:02 - Jan 13 by felixstowe_jack |
On the Cardiff website site it says Cardiff will now have to pay £20 million instead of the original £15 million. The extra £5 million includes extra interest payments and court fees.
Just shows how expensive it is to take legal action with any guarantee of winning any court case. |
And they were guaranteed to lose which makes it even stupider.
I hope they sue Nantes for the same reason. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 21:05 - Jan 13 with 964 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Cardiff on 20:02 - Jan 13 by felixstowe_jack |
On the Cardiff website site it says Cardiff will now have to pay £20 million instead of the original £15 million. The extra £5 million includes extra interest payments and court fees.
Just shows how expensive it is to take legal action with any guarantee of winning any court case. |
I'm not sure it includes the legal costs. The first payment was 5.3 million but with interest it became 7 million. Does that mean the total fee becomes 21 million and legal costs are extra again? | | | |
| Cardiff on 15:52 - Jan 14 with 868 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 20:10 - Jan 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
You are losing me now.
So you are saying exactly what I said. That knowing these things is irrelevant, if they are irrelevant to the case (which they are). So what point are you making?
Then you are telling me that my view of the case, which has since been backed by courts, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny…. Even though the only scrutinisation you have attempted is by making some fantasy story that those that book public or commercial transport are responsible for the driver, which needless to say is bonkers.
You are also saying because agents make deals off the record it means it’s illegal to book a flight? Your jumping from one thing to another in order to justify something completely unrelated is utterly bizarre.
Feel free to scrutinise what I said, I’d be fascinated what angle you take.
Until then, there has been absolutely no scrutinisation of what I’m saying at all, and there is a reason for that. It’s the facts of the matter which I have been saying long before legal minds confirmed and ruled on the matter.
Fair to say I have a fair grasp on it.
I remember you telling me he must have been insured not so long ago and saying I can’t be right that he wasn’t… turned out he wasn’t as Cardiff tried to sue a company for not telling them he had to be.
Stick with me kid, you aren’t debating with Chief now. This is your doctor. |
Saying "booking a flight is not illegal" is a cop out. As a registered FIFA agent he had a duty of care.
Duty of care meant insuring the return trip. Probably no insurance company would insure it as they are smart people that do not cover risky activities with out a huge premium. They would have wanted details of the plane's owner, aviation history, aviation firm (you said did not exist) and possibly the pilot.
This would have seen the flight not go ahead under normal circumstances. it is not a hard concept to understand. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 16:08 - Jan 14 with 856 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Cardiff on 15:52 - Jan 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Saying "booking a flight is not illegal" is a cop out. As a registered FIFA agent he had a duty of care.
Duty of care meant insuring the return trip. Probably no insurance company would insure it as they are smart people that do not cover risky activities with out a huge premium. They would have wanted details of the plane's owner, aviation history, aviation firm (you said did not exist) and possibly the pilot.
This would have seen the flight not go ahead under normal circumstances. it is not a hard concept to understand. |
When I’m travelling I take out my own travel insurance that covers flights. Only costs a couple of quid. I’ve never had to furnish any travel insurance company with details of the pilot, aviation history or anything like that. |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 17:23 - Jan 14 with 831 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 16:08 - Jan 14 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
When I’m travelling I take out my own travel insurance that covers flights. Only costs a couple of quid. I’ve never had to furnish any travel insurance company with details of the pilot, aviation history or anything like that. |
You probably travel with ABTA cover or equivalent for holidays. ABTA registered companies have rigorous obligations to keep to. You insurance cover probably requires using firms with established duty of care obligations
You multi trip cover probably does not cover small firms with dubious record keeping. It is in the fine print.
Duty of care is defined as follows.
(Duty of Care is about individual well being , welfare, compliance and good practice).
The agent to be FIFA registered probably had to sign up to these obligations. That means he had to ensure the trip was fully insured in my view. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 17:35 - Jan 14 with 808 views | bennytheblue |
| Cardiff on 17:23 - Jan 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You probably travel with ABTA cover or equivalent for holidays. ABTA registered companies have rigorous obligations to keep to. You insurance cover probably requires using firms with established duty of care obligations
You multi trip cover probably does not cover small firms with dubious record keeping. It is in the fine print.
Duty of care is defined as follows.
(Duty of Care is about individual well being , welfare, compliance and good practice).
The agent to be FIFA registered probably had to sign up to these obligations. That means he had to ensure the trip was fully insured in my view. |
Getting on that flight here was akin to asking anyone in the pub for a lift home at closing time, with the guy who props up the bar saying he will do as the regular driver isn’t about…..madness |  | | |
| Cardiff on 17:52 - Jan 14 with 784 views | felixstowe_jack |
Good point for Cardiff today to keep Wigan in bottom three. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 17:54 - Jan 14 with 775 views | NotLoyal |
| Cardiff on 17:52 - Jan 14 by felixstowe_jack |
Good point for Cardiff today to keep Wigan in bottom three. |
And themselves in the bottom four 😂 |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 18:10 - Jan 14 with 758 views | union_jack |
| Cardiff on 17:52 - Jan 14 by felixstowe_jack |
Good point for Cardiff today to keep Wigan in bottom three. |
😂 |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 18:19 - Jan 14 with 736 views | Whiterockin |
| Cardiff on 17:52 - Jan 14 by felixstowe_jack |
Good point for Cardiff today to keep Wigan in bottom three. |
If Wigan had won they would still be in the bottom three. |  | | |
| Cardiff on 18:23 - Jan 14 with 729 views | union_jack |
| Cardiff on 18:19 - Jan 14 by Whiterockin |
If Wigan had won they would still be in the bottom three. |
I think Felix is saying it with a bit of sarcasm tbh. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 18:24 - Jan 14 with 716 views | Whiterockin |
| Cardiff on 18:23 - Jan 14 by union_jack |
I think Felix is saying it with a bit of sarcasm tbh. |
Whoosh went straight over me  | | | |
| Cardiff on 18:47 - Jan 14 with 690 views | pete |
| Cardiff on 18:19 - Jan 14 by Whiterockin |
If Wigan had won they would still be in the bottom three. |
cardiff sack their manager now in last 40 mins | | | |
| Cardiff on 18:49 - Jan 14 with 675 views | builthjack |
Oh dear |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.