Originally Posted by Count Duckula

Exactly, what is so hard to understand there? Whether or not Lyn owned him prior to us signing him is irrelevant. Either we were signing a player owned by Lyn or we were signing a free agent (in which case Lyn owe us money, too). In both cases Mikel signed a legally binding contract with us, irregardless of who did or did not own him before that.

Chelsea then proceeded to poach him, and FIFA rectified that by saying that Chelsea owed us money. They had taken a player who, to all intents and purposes, was our player. He had signed the contract.

The issue here was whether Lyn owned the player previously. If they did, then they're entitled to keep the money paid to them by both United and Chelsea. If they didn't (which clearly is the case), then Mikel was effectively a free agent. But that doesn't render the contract that he signed with United null and void, because he signed a legally binding contract there.

All this represents is that Lyn were in no position to earn money out of him, which they did. The contracts he later signed with Manchester United and Chelsea will not be affected by this ruling, since they weren't related.