N Reg; A Flag of Convenience?
Thread Starter
I don’t think so Jon.
What we need is a more relaxed arrangement whereby minor mods acceptable in the US are applied to UK aircraft.
The LAA avenue needs to be opened up to a lot more UK GA.
The CAA appear to be in a mess at the moment.
I have a friend with a UK private licence but thousands of hours instructing in both fixed and floats in Canada over the last decade.
The CAA has wasted six months without telling him what he has to do to validate or achieve an instructor licence in the UK.
Transport Canada sent them all the info last October.
It appears the CAA no longer has pilots working for them.
What we need is a more relaxed arrangement whereby minor mods acceptable in the US are applied to UK aircraft.
The LAA avenue needs to be opened up to a lot more UK GA.
The CAA appear to be in a mess at the moment.
I have a friend with a UK private licence but thousands of hours instructing in both fixed and floats in Canada over the last decade.
The CAA has wasted six months without telling him what he has to do to validate or achieve an instructor licence in the UK.
Transport Canada sent them all the info last October.
It appears the CAA no longer has pilots working for them.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what you are saying is that we should swap the existing regulatory framework FAA regs lock stock and barrel, then I agree.
As most people here know, the reason so many of us choose to fly N reg aircraft is because it is much easier, both from the point of view of licensing (especially for IR holders) and management of maintenance, with no sacrifice of safety.
As most people here know, the reason so many of us choose to fly N reg aircraft is because it is much easier, both from the point of view of licensing (especially for IR holders) and management of maintenance, with no sacrifice of safety.
Thread Starter
I am saying that Jon.
When people start voting with their feet to take advantage of an easier regime it tells you something is wrong with the system.
What is needed in the UK is a stronger representation from the GA community.
When people start voting with their feet to take advantage of an easier regime it tells you something is wrong with the system.
What is needed in the UK is a stronger representation from the GA community.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft was originally an ex uk military and was registered on the g reg with full public transport certificate of airworthiness and type certificate as all Alouette’s 11 were made as civil aircraft not military aircraft it was then put on a Hungarian EASA airworthiness which is aligned with the uk CAA to give full control of the aircraft flying in uk airspace
Thread Starter
Fair enough but it appears the Hungarian register is convenient for ex military helicopters.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...-LFB_10-12.pdf
The bottom line on that accident for those who do not want to click on the link;
Let me highlight this part of the report.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...-LFB_10-12.pdf
The bottom line on that accident for those who do not want to click on the link;
The helicopter in which controversial Honister Slate Mine owner Mark Weir died had a counterfeit maintenance certificate.
And an investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch following the fatal crash near the Lake District tourist attraction revealed Mr Weir was not qualified to fly at night.
And an investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch following the fatal crash near the Lake District tourist attraction revealed Mr Weir was not qualified to fly at night.
Investigators said: “The engine was overhauled by an unapproved repair facility in Serbia and issued with a counterfeit EASA [European Aviation Safety Agency] Form 1.
“A number of serious airworthiness issues were identified with the helicopter during the course of the investigation.
“None of these issues could be directly linked to the cause of the accident, but did raise concerns regarding the way the helicopter was operated.”
The AAIB said the complexity and severity of the issues found and the fact that they are common to a number of other fatal accident investigations conducted of foreign-registered aircraft in the UK warranted a separate safety study.
“A number of serious airworthiness issues were identified with the helicopter during the course of the investigation.
“None of these issues could be directly linked to the cause of the accident, but did raise concerns regarding the way the helicopter was operated.”
The AAIB said the complexity and severity of the issues found and the fact that they are common to a number of other fatal accident investigations conducted of foreign-registered aircraft in the UK warranted a separate safety study.
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 23rd Mar 2019 at 15:00.
@md600d: you confused me quite about the Alouette 11 type. I could find no trace of such an aircraft, and suppose you mean the Alouette II ? Call it nitpicking if you will, I was entirely lost. You owe me one!
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 23rd Mar 2019 at 15:53.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North west
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My aircraft is on the N reg and I find it to be excellent. It is definietly more convienent to be able to apply a wider range of STC's if need be, and generally seems a far better thought out system.
I do find it a bit annoying that it's somehow painted as some sort of disguise for questionable operations and operators.
Generally the N reg aircraft I see seem to be in far better condition than what I see on the G.
Moderator
I've spent 35 years working within Transport Canada's airworthiness regulatory system, and by osmosis, the FAA system. With my less complete understanding of the UK CAA system. I can see that Transport Canada's system was initially inspired by a combination of our UK heritage, and a largely military origin. Over the recent decades, we in industry have been able to convince Transport Canada that many of the more burdensome military origin regulations were excessive, and did not improve safety, and they have been removed or dialed back.
It is apparent to me that the FAA system was more a product of the US government wanting to get as many citizens flying planes as possible after WW2. Thus, things were made reasonably easy, imposing regulations only where there was a clear need for them. From my UK heritage, it seemed more apparent that flying and airplane ownership in the UK was somewhat more reserved for a certain segment of society - who could afford a military type operation for their aircraft.
Due to ICAO privileges, ICAO compliant aircraft are generally welcomed in other nation's airspace, though must be operated to also respect their rules. I have flown Canadian registered aircraft in the US, Caribbean, Scandinavia and Europe, and always felt very welcomed. But, while outside Canada, I try to behave like a guest in airspace, rather than flying by entitlement, as I do in Canada. One of my planes is a Canadian "Owner Maintenance" aircraft, which though type certified, I have voluntarily removed from having a full C of A. As such, it is not accepted in any other nation, so may never leave Canada - it's okay, Canada has lots of room to fly, it does not need to leave!
In my opinion, an obvious decline in private GA ownership, and recreational flying will reduce any momentum to further ease the regulatory structure. Transport Canada staff have told me that they would welcome a regulatory change to greatly simplify the operation (mostly maintenance and modification) of light GA aircraft, but there is just not enough resource to dedicate to creating the regulatory change (which means that there are not enough taxpayers insisting that government time be spent on that). The regulatory structure to maintain a GA plane has eased toward less burdensome and found a "happy place", though modification is still overly burdensome.
For those people who can lobby their regulator for simpler regulation around GA aviation, excellent! But as the staff of the regulator naturally turns over by retirement and hiring, what is happening is that the new hires who are coming to regulate our aircraft are no longer the old, experienced, relaxed ex military people who apply their wisdom, and let things succeed, but rather, new university graduates of business, engineering, or administrative disciplines. They do not have the self confidence to just apply a light touch to a request for change, but will instead dive headlong into understanding every corner of it - if the boss allows the dedication of resource. And, you gotta know, that the Boeing 737 Max 8 goings on are going to intensify the trend toward more intensive review of everything, aircraft certification is not going to ease up for a while! If the regulator cannot afford the resource for the new, less industry experienced staff member to wholly understand, that person will be reluctant, and things will languish - as long as the citizen applicant tolerates it! Literally, a couple of my projects with Transport Canada have stopped, simply because my client died while waiting for a delayed project to advance through the system.
From my perspective, we in GA right now, best get used to working in whatever system we have. Yes, we may affect change, though by the time change is effective, it'll be for the next generation more than us!
It is apparent to me that the FAA system was more a product of the US government wanting to get as many citizens flying planes as possible after WW2. Thus, things were made reasonably easy, imposing regulations only where there was a clear need for them. From my UK heritage, it seemed more apparent that flying and airplane ownership in the UK was somewhat more reserved for a certain segment of society - who could afford a military type operation for their aircraft.
Due to ICAO privileges, ICAO compliant aircraft are generally welcomed in other nation's airspace, though must be operated to also respect their rules. I have flown Canadian registered aircraft in the US, Caribbean, Scandinavia and Europe, and always felt very welcomed. But, while outside Canada, I try to behave like a guest in airspace, rather than flying by entitlement, as I do in Canada. One of my planes is a Canadian "Owner Maintenance" aircraft, which though type certified, I have voluntarily removed from having a full C of A. As such, it is not accepted in any other nation, so may never leave Canada - it's okay, Canada has lots of room to fly, it does not need to leave!
In my opinion, an obvious decline in private GA ownership, and recreational flying will reduce any momentum to further ease the regulatory structure. Transport Canada staff have told me that they would welcome a regulatory change to greatly simplify the operation (mostly maintenance and modification) of light GA aircraft, but there is just not enough resource to dedicate to creating the regulatory change (which means that there are not enough taxpayers insisting that government time be spent on that). The regulatory structure to maintain a GA plane has eased toward less burdensome and found a "happy place", though modification is still overly burdensome.
For those people who can lobby their regulator for simpler regulation around GA aviation, excellent! But as the staff of the regulator naturally turns over by retirement and hiring, what is happening is that the new hires who are coming to regulate our aircraft are no longer the old, experienced, relaxed ex military people who apply their wisdom, and let things succeed, but rather, new university graduates of business, engineering, or administrative disciplines. They do not have the self confidence to just apply a light touch to a request for change, but will instead dive headlong into understanding every corner of it - if the boss allows the dedication of resource. And, you gotta know, that the Boeing 737 Max 8 goings on are going to intensify the trend toward more intensive review of everything, aircraft certification is not going to ease up for a while! If the regulator cannot afford the resource for the new, less industry experienced staff member to wholly understand, that person will be reluctant, and things will languish - as long as the citizen applicant tolerates it! Literally, a couple of my projects with Transport Canada have stopped, simply because my client died while waiting for a delayed project to advance through the system.
From my perspective, we in GA right now, best get used to working in whatever system we have. Yes, we may affect change, though by the time change is effective, it'll be for the next generation more than us!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the maintenance attractions of N-reg. Questionable operations and operators also need some sort of disguise!
My concern, in the light of Sata, is how the heck do I find out who the actual owner of an N-Reg aircraft is, should they be involved in some sort of incident at my airfield?
Don't think the Delaware trust will give a stuff!
Thread Starter
In answer to your question xrayslpha the US register can be searched in the same way as the UK. It is only foreign based aircraft using a trust that hides the identity of the true owner.
I think for some operators the ability to hide behind a Delaware trust is more important than the cost saving on maintenance. A lot of high end private jet aircraft are actually owned by brass plate companies in places such as the Cayman Islands.
The rules for N registration are simple.
A person may not “N” Register an Aircraft on the FAA Registry in the United States unless the aircraft is (a) owned by a citizen of the US, including US “citizen corporations”; (b) owned a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the US; or, (c) owned by a non-citizen corporation when the corporation is organized under the laws of the US and the aircraft is based in, and primarily used in the US. See 49 U.S.C. 44102, 44103, and 14 CFR § 47.3 of the FAR. Essentially, any corporation which owns the Aircraft must be either a U.S. “citizen” corporation, or, if it is a foreign corporation, it has to qualify to do business in the US as well as use the aircraft primarily in the US.
In order to be considered a US citizen for FAA purposes, at least 2/3 of the Board of Directors and Officers must be citizens of the United States
The trusts get around this problem with a crafty bit of paperwork.
To qualify our non-citizen clients, the common stock shares are issued to a Voting Trustee who is also a US citizen. This Voting Trustee issues Certificates of Beneficial Stock Ownership to the actual non-citizen owner of the Delaware corporation. Once these conditions are met, the Delaware corporation is considered to be a “citizen” by the FAA, and the Aircraft is allowed to be registered on the U.S. Registry. (See 14 CFR §47.8 and related subsections of the FAR’s). Of course, to remain registered with the FAA, the Aircraft must also be maintained to the manufacturer’s and U.S. standards.
We assist our foreign clients by establishing a US citizen corporation or a trustee corporation to hold title to the aircraft on their behalf, thereby enabling the aircraft to be “N” Registered with the FAA. At the same time, our clients retain full operational control of the aircraft pursuant to executed and FAA recorded operating agreements. The trusts and corporate structures that we establish are all specifically approved by the FAA, and following the closing, our clients are free to fly worldwide.
I think for some operators the ability to hide behind a Delaware trust is more important than the cost saving on maintenance. A lot of high end private jet aircraft are actually owned by brass plate companies in places such as the Cayman Islands.
The rules for N registration are simple.
A person may not “N” Register an Aircraft on the FAA Registry in the United States unless the aircraft is (a) owned by a citizen of the US, including US “citizen corporations”; (b) owned a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the US; or, (c) owned by a non-citizen corporation when the corporation is organized under the laws of the US and the aircraft is based in, and primarily used in the US. See 49 U.S.C. 44102, 44103, and 14 CFR § 47.3 of the FAR. Essentially, any corporation which owns the Aircraft must be either a U.S. “citizen” corporation, or, if it is a foreign corporation, it has to qualify to do business in the US as well as use the aircraft primarily in the US.
In order to be considered a US citizen for FAA purposes, at least 2/3 of the Board of Directors and Officers must be citizens of the United States
The trusts get around this problem with a crafty bit of paperwork.
To qualify our non-citizen clients, the common stock shares are issued to a Voting Trustee who is also a US citizen. This Voting Trustee issues Certificates of Beneficial Stock Ownership to the actual non-citizen owner of the Delaware corporation. Once these conditions are met, the Delaware corporation is considered to be a “citizen” by the FAA, and the Aircraft is allowed to be registered on the U.S. Registry. (See 14 CFR §47.8 and related subsections of the FAR’s). Of course, to remain registered with the FAA, the Aircraft must also be maintained to the manufacturer’s and U.S. standards.
We assist our foreign clients by establishing a US citizen corporation or a trustee corporation to hold title to the aircraft on their behalf, thereby enabling the aircraft to be “N” Registered with the FAA. At the same time, our clients retain full operational control of the aircraft pursuant to executed and FAA recorded operating agreements. The trusts and corporate structures that we establish are all specifically approved by the FAA, and following the closing, our clients are free to fly worldwide.
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 25th Mar 2019 at 01:08.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you have it the wrong way round here. I am thinking that all men are humans, but not all human are men.
I can see the maintenance attractions of N-reg. Questionable operations and operators also need some sort of disguise!
My concern, in the light of Sata, is how the heck do I find out who the actual owner of an N-Reg aircraft is, should they be involved in some sort of incident at my airfield?
Don't think the Delaware trust will give a stuff!
I can see the maintenance attractions of N-reg. Questionable operations and operators also need some sort of disguise!
My concern, in the light of Sata, is how the heck do I find out who the actual owner of an N-Reg aircraft is, should they be involved in some sort of incident at my airfield?
Don't think the Delaware trust will give a stuff!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: london
Age: 60
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Over the intervening years N reg aircraft have popped up everywhere in Europe and it now appears to be a semi global flag of convenience "
Or the choice of discerning pilots who chose to avoid the worst parts of EASA oversight and take advantage of the ease and pragmatism of the USA pilot certification process? Convenient? certainly. Flag of convenience - not so much. The safety standards are just as high, but the attitude to general aviation is somewhat more helpful. For a start , anyone on a N reg has avoided the UK CAA to JAR to EASA to Brexit unknown saga.
And what about those N reg aircraft that belong to US airlines ? also popping up on a regular basis.... So where is the difference?
Or the choice of discerning pilots who chose to avoid the worst parts of EASA oversight and take advantage of the ease and pragmatism of the USA pilot certification process? Convenient? certainly. Flag of convenience - not so much. The safety standards are just as high, but the attitude to general aviation is somewhat more helpful. For a start , anyone on a N reg has avoided the UK CAA to JAR to EASA to Brexit unknown saga.
And what about those N reg aircraft that belong to US airlines ? also popping up on a regular basis.... So where is the difference?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies:
The original question was a flag of convenience, so I was assuming foreign-based/operating N-reg. Not American Airlines!
"Authorities" may well be able to find out the owners behind a trustee-N-reg, but what about airfield operators? Doubt that. Try pursuing a Delaware corporation for an unpaid fuel bill, landing fee or perhaps an insurance claim?
Ironically, if you wanted to hide you could do it much closer at home: try a Scottish limited partnership with an Cayman-style overseas company as one of the partners. (Alleged to be very popular wth Russian money-launderers!) .
So, yes, I agree that cost of maintenance is - in most cases - the main driver of foreign N-reg. But it also has a certain reputation!
ps. For disclosure: We actually own our airfield through a Scottish LP, but have dropped the (non-foreign!) limited company as a general partner!
The original question was a flag of convenience, so I was assuming foreign-based/operating N-reg. Not American Airlines!
"Authorities" may well be able to find out the owners behind a trustee-N-reg, but what about airfield operators? Doubt that. Try pursuing a Delaware corporation for an unpaid fuel bill, landing fee or perhaps an insurance claim?
Ironically, if you wanted to hide you could do it much closer at home: try a Scottish limited partnership with an Cayman-style overseas company as one of the partners. (Alleged to be very popular wth Russian money-launderers!) .
So, yes, I agree that cost of maintenance is - in most cases - the main driver of foreign N-reg. But it also has a certain reputation!
ps. For disclosure: We actually own our airfield through a Scottish LP, but have dropped the (non-foreign!) limited company as a general partner!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Mike Flynn
I can do so by three examples relating to my own aircraft which is on the N register and is registered under one of these trusts. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is a requirement under US law that the aircraft be registered to a US entity and that is the only reason for this structure.
1. Shortly after my aircraft was ferry flown from the US to England, I received a letter to my home postal address from the Canadian Aviation Authority wanting payment of en route navigation charges.
2. A few months ago, I was involved in an airprox in Germany when a microlight pilot flew across the track of an ILS on which I was being vectored. Within a week, I had received an email to my personal email address from the German equivalent of the AAIB asking for my account of what happened and for copies of my relevant documents.
3. Depending on the routes in Europe that I fly, I occasionally receive invoices to my home address for navigation charges.
In all of these cases, the only possible source of this information is from my N number.
I hope this helps!
I can do so by three examples relating to my own aircraft which is on the N register and is registered under one of these trusts. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is a requirement under US law that the aircraft be registered to a US entity and that is the only reason for this structure.
1. Shortly after my aircraft was ferry flown from the US to England, I received a letter to my home postal address from the Canadian Aviation Authority wanting payment of en route navigation charges.
2. A few months ago, I was involved in an airprox in Germany when a microlight pilot flew across the track of an ILS on which I was being vectored. Within a week, I had received an email to my personal email address from the German equivalent of the AAIB asking for my account of what happened and for copies of my relevant documents.
3. Depending on the routes in Europe that I fly, I occasionally receive invoices to my home address for navigation charges.
In all of these cases, the only possible source of this information is from my N number.
I hope this helps!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously doubt N-registered aircraft flying abroad have increased in number. I rather suspect the effect is simply the other registrations genocide on Freedom and especially General Aviation. In my surrounding the N-regs were there for as long as I am flying and whoever had let trust-owned N-reg aircraft will always do again. No, the trust is solely a vehicule to adjust legally on foreign ownership and it does not protect any privacy, that is a myth.
Thread Starter
@ Mike Flynn
I can do so by three examples relating to my own aircraft which is on the N register and is registered under one of these trusts. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is a requirement under US law that the aircraft be registered to a US entity and that is the only reason for this structure.
1. Shortly after my aircraft was ferry flown from the US to England, I received a letter to my home postal address from the Canadian Aviation Authority wanting payment of en route navigation charges.
2. A few months ago, I was involved in an airprox in Germany when a microlight pilot flew across the track of an ILS on which I was being vectored. Within a week, I had received an email to my personal email address from the German equivalent of the AAIB asking for my account of what happened and for copies of my relevant documents.
3. Depending on the routes in Europe that I fly, I occasionally receive invoices to my home address for navigation charges.
In all of these cases, the only possible source of this information is from my N number.
I hope this helps!
I can do so by three examples relating to my own aircraft which is on the N register and is registered under one of these trusts. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is a requirement under US law that the aircraft be registered to a US entity and that is the only reason for this structure.
1. Shortly after my aircraft was ferry flown from the US to England, I received a letter to my home postal address from the Canadian Aviation Authority wanting payment of en route navigation charges.
2. A few months ago, I was involved in an airprox in Germany when a microlight pilot flew across the track of an ILS on which I was being vectored. Within a week, I had received an email to my personal email address from the German equivalent of the AAIB asking for my account of what happened and for copies of my relevant documents.
3. Depending on the routes in Europe that I fly, I occasionally receive invoices to my home address for navigation charges.
In all of these cases, the only possible source of this information is from my N number.
I hope this helps!
However their identity is hidden from public view.
I bought a PA32 in Ohio in 1989, flew it to Australia and later sold it on. It then went to the NZ register before crossing the Pacific again to end up in Arkansas.I can still track the ownership to this day.
Delaware Trusts prevent that.
They all appear to be registered in Wilmington which is by no stretch of the imagination a large city.
This from a site there.
All aircraft and yachts, under our administration are registered to individual owner trustee corporations. This is important because the Trust agreement which the beneficial owner of the aircraft or yacht will have to sign will include indemnities in the event that the trustee is sued. Where an individual or a Trust company which registers itself directly as the owner of the aircraft or yacht is sued then they will claim against you under its indemnity. Where the Trustee is a separate trustee corporation for your use only, then you get the added protection of being able to rely on its limited liability for your protection."
Lots of corporations (with international presences) are registered in Delaware. Lots of opportunity for corporate ownership.
Lots of corporations (with international presences) are registered in Delaware. Lots of opportunity for corporate ownership.
I guess ,as Murgatroyd demonstrated at Barton ,the criminal element will always ignore legislation.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the answer is that pilots or the real owners can not hide behind the N trust address when it comes to air traffic services.
Thread Starter
The owner of the Sala aircraft (I understand ) played no part in this saga Jon.
When these arrangements get complicated where does responsibility rest for those who fly the aircraft and their passengers if disaster strikes.
How far down the line do you pass the buck?
The McKays were the agents in the transfer of the player and stood to make a considerable commission.
They appear to place the blame on David Harrison who has avoided answering the key questions as to how Ibbotson was flying the Malibu on what was clearly a charter.
The lawyers are now involved and Cardiff have stated they are not going to pay.
source https://www.theguardian.com/football...invalid-nantes
When these arrangements get complicated where does responsibility rest for those who fly the aircraft and their passengers if disaster strikes.
How far down the line do you pass the buck?
The McKays were the agents in the transfer of the player and stood to make a considerable commission.
They appear to place the blame on David Harrison who has avoided answering the key questions as to how Ibbotson was flying the Malibu on what was clearly a charter.
The lawyers are now involved and Cardiff have stated they are not going to pay.
Cardiff will tell Fifa that Emiliano Sala’s move from Nantes was invalid when they respond to a complaint over their refusal to pay the Ligue 1 club his £15m transfer fee.
The 28-year-old Argentinian striker died in a plane crash in the Channel on 21 January, two days after the Premier League club had announced him as their record signing “subject to international clearance”.
It is understood that Cardiff will tell football’s world governing body that Sala was not eligible to play in the Premier League at the time of his death and was free to join another club had he so wished.
Fifa has given Cardiff until 3 April to respond after Nantes lodged a complaint over the Welsh club’s refusal to pay the first £5m instalment of the Sala transfer fee.
It is understood Sala’s Cardiff contract was rejected by the Premier League because it contravened signing-on fee rules. Sala died before a revised one could be signed and there is a dispute about whether he had agreed to do so.
Cardiff will also tell Fifa that the non-fulfilment of legally-binding clauses in the transfer agreement they struck with Nantes for the player made the deal invalid. Without these clauses being fulfilled, Cardiff will argue that Sala was entitled to join another club.
A Cardiff spokesperson said: “The club is aware of the Fifa request for response by 3 April and is processing that accordingly. We have nothing further to comment on it at this stage.”
Nantes’ lawyers wrote to Cardiff on 5 February asking for the first of three annual payments to be paid within 10 working days. The deadline was extended but, with no payment received, Nantes took the matter to Fifa’s dispute resolution chamber.
A club spokesperson was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying: “FC Nantes has completed all the required paperwork to complete the Emiliano Sala transfer. Thus, Fifa registered the international transfer certificate on 21st January 2019 at 5.30pm. Nantes is fully compliant with Fifa rules.
“As for Emiliano Sala’s registration in the Premier League, FC Nantes has no information about it. And if it could be a problem for Cardiff, it is not a problem for Nantes.”
The 28-year-old Argentinian striker died in a plane crash in the Channel on 21 January, two days after the Premier League club had announced him as their record signing “subject to international clearance”.
It is understood that Cardiff will tell football’s world governing body that Sala was not eligible to play in the Premier League at the time of his death and was free to join another club had he so wished.
Fifa has given Cardiff until 3 April to respond after Nantes lodged a complaint over the Welsh club’s refusal to pay the first £5m instalment of the Sala transfer fee.
It is understood Sala’s Cardiff contract was rejected by the Premier League because it contravened signing-on fee rules. Sala died before a revised one could be signed and there is a dispute about whether he had agreed to do so.
Cardiff will also tell Fifa that the non-fulfilment of legally-binding clauses in the transfer agreement they struck with Nantes for the player made the deal invalid. Without these clauses being fulfilled, Cardiff will argue that Sala was entitled to join another club.
A Cardiff spokesperson said: “The club is aware of the Fifa request for response by 3 April and is processing that accordingly. We have nothing further to comment on it at this stage.”
Nantes’ lawyers wrote to Cardiff on 5 February asking for the first of three annual payments to be paid within 10 working days. The deadline was extended but, with no payment received, Nantes took the matter to Fifa’s dispute resolution chamber.
A club spokesperson was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying: “FC Nantes has completed all the required paperwork to complete the Emiliano Sala transfer. Thus, Fifa registered the international transfer certificate on 21st January 2019 at 5.30pm. Nantes is fully compliant with Fifa rules.
“As for Emiliano Sala’s registration in the Premier League, FC Nantes has no information about it. And if it could be a problem for Cardiff, it is not a problem for Nantes.”
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 25th Mar 2019 at 15:53.