Go Back   RedCafe.net > Football Discussion > Manchester United Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 4th September 2009, 05:35   #1 (permalink)
Reserve Team Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: on your nerves
Posts: 1,243
United confident of avoiding Pogba punishment

Manchester United are adamant their recent capture of French youngster Paul Pogba was conducted 'within UEFA guidelines' in the wake of Chelsea's shock transfer ban.


Under a FIFA punishment imposed on Thursday, Chelsea have been prevented from signing new players in the next two transfer windows, meaning they must wait until January 2011 to strengthen their squad.

The ban relates to the signing of Lens youngster Gael Kakuta in 2007 after FIFA ruled that Chelsea induced the player to break his contract with the French club. However, the London side have pledged to mount the 'strongest appeal possible' against the decision.

United's conduct in the signing of Pogba from Le Havre has also been scrutinised as the French club were furious to see the youth international move to Old Trafford during the summer, but the English champions are certain they have done nothing wrong.

"It is complete nonsense," a spokesman for United said. "Everything has been done within UEFA guidelines."

Le Havre managing director Alain Belsoeur is determined to fight United though, telling The Times: "We are still pursuing our case. It is a very serious case. We are confident that we'll win because it is in the best interests not just of our club but of sport.

"We spend 5 million euros [£4.3m] on our academy every year out of a turnover of 12 million euros [£10.5m]. It is a huge investment. We do that to give a chance to our players to develop for our first team, not to be an academy for others.

"What is the point of investing in an academy if the players leave at 16? This is clearly a message from FIFA to protect the education system.''



This is not good news.
talking robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 05:54   #2 (permalink)
Protomuppet
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cnut's home
Posts: 25,818
No it isn't. If I was Platini I would think it twice before issuing a 2 transfer window ban on United. Some may not liking it.

devilish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 06:32   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: freguson y u rest the ginger prawn hes most importntat playr n he cn done us much betr! Sell all them stinkiers like carick/cuberley/ and old man giggs shud go to retardment castle!
Posts: 10,835
Meh. It's not our fault that we use differences in national law to our advantage.
Makki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 06:57   #4 (permalink)
First Team Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makki View Post
Meh. It's not our fault that we use differences in national law to our advantage.
Pardon? If not our fault, who's is it?
Ekeke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 06:57   #5 (permalink)
Protomuppet
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cnut's home
Posts: 25,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makki View Post
Meh. It's not our fault that we use differences in national law to our advantage.
They use differences (work permit rules) in their own national laws to their advantage too.
devilish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 07:48   #6 (permalink)
First Team Sub
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hard? With legs like those? I've seen more meat on a butchers pencil.
Posts: 7,696
Even if we get a transfer ban from Fifa, some will still try to blame Glazer for not signing anyone.
muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 07:52   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ____
Posts: 42,275
I said earlier that ralphie will claim it is a conspiracy involving the Glazers and SAF so they dont have to spend any money
Alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 07:57   #8 (permalink)
Reserve Team Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,686
Always annoying to see United in the headlines and hear the ABU's whine about it, but I'm confident that the club haven't done anything wrong here.
SirAF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 08:00   #9 (permalink)
Wimbledon Prediction Champion 09
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Shame on you Shane Vendrell. You little bastard!
Posts: 10,324
At minimum Evra will get 4 match ban.
Giggsy PO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 08:32   #10 (permalink)
First Team Sub
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ▲ You Are Here? - Maybe you think we were all a sheet in the wind's eye. But I'll tell you I was sober
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirAF View Post
Always annoying to see United in the headlines and hear the ABU's whine about it, but I'm confident that the club haven't done anything wrong here.
Why? It all comes down to whether or not Pogba had signed a pre-contract agreement. If he and his parents signed it, then took our offer and broke that agreement, we're fucked.
SecondFig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 08:38   #11 (permalink)
Protomuppet
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cnut's home
Posts: 25,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondFig View Post
Why? It all comes down to whether or not Pogba had signed a pre-contract agreement. If he and his parents signed it, then took our offer and broke that agreement, we're fucked.
I doubt that he had signed yet.
devilish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 08:39   #12 (permalink)
First Team Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: I may be the devil, but i'm not a monster
Posts: 12,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondFig View Post
Why? It all comes down to whether or not Pogba had signed a pre-contract agreement. If he and his parents signed it, then took our offer and broke that agreement, we're fucked.
However if we were unaware of said contract, then we should get out with only a compensation payment.
mariachi-19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 08:41   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ____
Posts: 42,275
I dont see how you can hold a minor to a contract regardless, although maybe you are considered an adult in Europe when 16, but that brings up the point why were his parents involved. Thus, if he is going to be held to a contract which essentially his parents signed for him, HE IS BEING TREATED LIKE A SLAVE. That is unacceptable to Monsieur Blatter so I think it should be ok, oh wait we aren t Real Madrid
Alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 08:42   #14 (permalink)
First Team Sub
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ▲ You Are Here? - Maybe you think we were all a sheet in the wind's eye. But I'll tell you I was sober
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by marchi-91 View Post
However if we were unaware of said contract, then we should get out with only a compensation payment.
Possibly - but breaking a contract (and our alleged financial encouragements to his parents) is a lot more serious than signing a free agent. So honestly, I suspect we'll either get the lad for sod all (he was only at their fecking academy for 2 seasons), or we get a transfer ban for encouraging him to break his contract.
SecondFig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 09:35   #15 (permalink)
No Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 30,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilish View Post
No it isn't. If I was Platini I would think it twice before issuing a 2 transfer window ban on United. Some may not liking it.

Yep it would be serious business in the transfer forum
Drifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 09:52   #16 (permalink)
First Team Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 19,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by talking robot View Post

"We spend 5 million euros [£4.3m] on our academy every year out of a turnover of 12 million euros [£10.5m]. It is a huge investment. We do that to give a chance to our players to develop for our first team, not to be an academy for others.


surely their annual turnover is greater than 12m euros

and the last part of the statement makes no sense . he wasnt on a contract , he moved to another club . boo hoo
prateik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 10:03   #17 (permalink)
First Team Sub
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oh Teddy Teddy
Posts: 5,530
I feel its empty threats to just make us up our payment to them. Pretty much like Levy's 'All Proving' Dossier
Interval Level is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 10:03   #18 (permalink)
Holy CRAP BALLS!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by prateik View Post


surely their annual turnover is greater than 12m euros

and the last part of the statement makes no sense . he wasnt on a contract , he moved to another club . boo hoo
they claim he signed a pre-contract with them, witnessed by his parents.
Mitch Conor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 10:32   #19 (permalink)
Talks sense
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9,612
Seems a bit strange that nothing on this has been heard from Le Havre in months until some journo from the Times rings them up in the wake of the Chelsea ruling.

Quote:
They claim to have a pre-contract agreement signed by the player - and witnessed by his parents - in November 2006 that committed him to a professional contract from his 16th birthday, in March. Instead, the player allegedly walked away and turned up at Old Trafford.
So they are talking about a pre-contract agreement signed when he was 13 that he would sign a professional contract when he was 16?
How the hell can an agreement like that be right?

And is this the same kind of contract that Kakuta was on?

Quote:
Chelsea claim that Kakuta was playing as an amateur for Lens’ youth academy and, as he was not registered with the French Football Federation, was available to sign for them as a free agent. But at a hearing in Zurich last week, Fifa’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled against them.

The DRC adjudged that Kakuta had a valid contract with Lens and that he was offered inducements to break it by Chelsea in June 2007.
On the Chelsea forums it seems to be thought that yes, this was some kind of pre-contract agreement that you sign a full contract at age 16.

Signing a pre-contract agreement at age 13 that you will sign a professional contract at age 16 seems dodgy as fuck.

But on the face of it you would think that United wíll suffer the same punishment as Chelsea as the scenario seems to be the same.
charleysurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 10:45   #20 (permalink)
"It's like..."
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Flagg
Posts: 2,095
Send a message via MSN to noodlehair
That's an article from ages back. They've just added an extra paragraph about Chelsea to the start
noodlehair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 10:50   #21 (permalink)
Talks sense
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodlehair View Post
That's an article from ages back. They've just added an extra paragraph about Chelsea to the start
But the situations do seem to be the same. Pre-contract agreements to stay at the club after 16 being broken. So we've got to expect the same punishment. Le Havre are certainly going to pursue this if they have seen Lens make money out of it.

Just hope nothing happens before next Summers transfer window because that could be an important one for United.
charleysurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 10:54   #22 (permalink)
"It's like..."
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Flagg
Posts: 2,095
Send a message via MSN to noodlehair
Not really.

Chelsea were somehow proven to have direct involvement in influencing the player to break his contract. Either Chelsea have been incredibly fecking stupid, or that's just not going to stand up on appeal.

Still, nothing wrong with inciting a bit of panic among the transfer muppets
noodlehair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:00   #23 (permalink)
Astrophysical Genius
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Don't Put My Swag on a Pedestal, I'll leave you like Owen Hargreaves at a Medical, passing me ain't credible
Posts: 21,983
More chance of SAF being arrested for Kidnap to be honest.
Adzzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:06   #24 (permalink)
Talks sense
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodlehair View Post
Not really.

Chelsea were somehow proven to have direct involvement in influencing the player to break his contract. Either Chelsea have been incredibly fecking stupid, or that's just not going to stand up on appeal.

Still, nothing wrong with inciting a bit of panic among the transfer muppets
I have to wonder how much proof Lens had though. I kind of doubt they had evidence of brown paper envelopes etc. It may all have been hearsay, but enough to convince a FIFA hearing looking to give a big English club a kicking. The evidence against United may be much the same.
charleysurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:11   #25 (permalink)
"It's like..."
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Flagg
Posts: 2,095
Send a message via MSN to noodlehair
Quote:
Originally Posted by charleysurf View Post
I have to wonder how much proof Lens had though. I kind of doubt they had evidence of brown paper envelopes etc. It may all have been hearsay, but enough to convince a FIFA hearing looking to give a big English club a kicking. The evidence against United may be much the same.
It's a three month old article with some blurb about Chelsea added to it. It doesn't tell you anything unless you want it to.
noodlehair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:17   #26 (permalink)
"Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football club"
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Conor View Post
they claim he signed a pre-contract with them, witnessed by his parents.
I don't know why they said witnessed by his parents for. Why don't they just show the document/signature rather than posturing
Striker10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:18   #27 (permalink)
Talks sense
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodlehair View Post
It's a three month old article with some blurb about Chelsea added to it. It doesn't tell you anything unless you want it to.
The only important information is that in the both the Chelsea and United cases a player broke a pre-contract agreement that they would sign a full contract at age 16 and instead ended up a big English club.

On the face of it United will get the same punishment as Chelsea.
charleysurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:26   #28 (permalink)
"It's like..."
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Flagg
Posts: 2,095
Send a message via MSN to noodlehair
Quote:
Originally Posted by charleysurf View Post
The only important information is that in the both the Chelsea and United cases a player broke a pre-contract agreement that they would sign a full contract at age 16 and instead ended up a big English club.

On the face of it United will get the same punishment as Chelsea.
No, on the face of it, the player will get the same punishment, and that's only going by some dodgy newspaper article.
noodlehair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:31   #29 (permalink)
Talks sense
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodlehair View Post
No, on the face of it, the player will get the same punishment, and that's only going by some dodgy newspaper article.
We'll see. It'll probably be months before FIFA handle it.
charleysurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:40   #30 (permalink)
Poster of the year 2008
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons from a deckchair"
Posts: 59,522
It's the English press linking the two cases to make old news newsworthy again.

How can we be accused of inciting someone to breach their contract when they haven't actually signed a contract?
Pogue Mahone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 11:46   #31 (permalink)
Talks sense
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone View Post
It's the English press linking the two cases to make old news newsworthy again.

How can we be accused of inciting someone to breach their contract when they haven't actually signed a contract?
No, it seems that this is a about a pre-contract to sign a professional contract when you turn 16. Same as in the Kakuta case.

I guess the idea was that the French clubs wanted a guarantee they were going to get paid if the developed a player and he ended up leaving them before signing professional terms.
charleysurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 12:03   #32 (permalink)
Clown
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I love librarians
Posts: 15,111
the time is fast coming ...perhaps if United get the same punishment as chelsea ..when clubs will challenge these FIFA EUEFA rules in a court of law . the Brown stuff will then really hit the fan
topper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 12:09   #33 (permalink)
Reserve Team Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Klaksvík, Faroe Islands
Posts: 3,733
Can someone explain the difference between a "pre-contract" and a "professional contract". Because they are being talked about here as equally binding, even if the former is signed by a minor (which doesn't make sense).
Maroon Lucifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 12:31   #34 (permalink)
First Team Sub
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Conor View Post
they claim he signed a pre-contract with them, witnessed by his parents.
Wasnt it a verbal contract which the parents agreed on? But when United came knocking and offered his parents a job they took their son and came to United - Personally morally it is wrong what we did but i dont think we broke any rules...
OneUnited24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 14:20   #35 (permalink)
Bald Boring Cnut
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,184
If we are guilty of the same as Chelsea, I hope we get the same punishment.

United, Liverpool, Arsenal - they have all cherry picked Europe for youngsters, and I find it hard to believe they have done this more legally than Chelsea.
CnutOfAllCnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 14:24   #36 (permalink)
Likes Loan Stickies
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneUnited24 View Post
Wasnt it a verbal contract which the parents agreed on? But when United came knocking and offered his parents a job they took their son and came to United - Personally morally it is wrong what we did but i dont think we broke any rules...
We offered Pogba's parents jobs?
Elliott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 14:32   #37 (permalink)
In most joy
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Redcafe, circa 2006
Posts: 3,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott View Post
We offered Pogba's parents jobs?
I thought that was fairly standard issue.
snootyjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 14:36   #38 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone View Post
It's the English press linking the two cases to make old news newsworthy again.

How can we be accused of inciting someone to breach their contract when they haven't actually signed a contract?
Exactly scum press like the Mirror were always going to get a link to us no matter how loose.
Crerand Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 14:38   #39 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts View Post
If we are guilty of the same as Chelsea, I hope we get the same punishment.

United, Liverpool, Arsenal - they have all cherry picked Europe for youngsters, and I find it hard to believe they have done this more legally than Chelsea.
And Euorpean teams have not, two words Real Madrid
Crerand Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2009, 14:38   #40 (permalink)
First Team Sub
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ▲ You Are Here? - Maybe you think we were all a sheet in the wind's eye. But I'll tell you I was sober
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott View Post
We offered Pogba's parents jobs?
I don't think so, we offered them money and possibly a house. We did offer to find Macheda's dad a job, but apparently he didn't take the offer. We also offered Petrucci's dad a job as a groundsman - don't know if he took that offer or not. But I don't think we offer every young players' parents jobs at OT, though I'm sure United offer to help them find jobs in the UK.
SecondFig is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06.

Back to top


Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO