United confident of avoiding Pogba punishment

talking robot · Sep 4, 2009

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.

devilish · Sep 4, 2009

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.

Makki · Sep 4, 2009

Meh. It's not our fault that we use differences in national law to our advantage.

Ekeke · Sep 4, 2009

Makki said:
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?

devilish · Sep 4, 2009

Makki said:
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.

muller · Sep 4, 2009

Even if we get a transfer ban from Fifa, some will still try to blame Glazer for not signing anyone.

Alex · Sep 4, 2009

I said earlier that ralphie will claim it is a conspiracy involving the Glazers and SAF so they dont have to spend any money

SirAF · Sep 4, 2009

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.

Giggsy PO · Sep 4, 2009

At minimum Evra will get 4 match ban.

SecondFig · Sep 4, 2009

SirAF said:
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 fecked.

devilish · Sep 4, 2009

SecondFig said:
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 fecked.

I doubt that he had signed yet.

mariachi-19 · Sep 4, 2009

SecondFig said:
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 fecked.

However if we were unaware of said contract, then we should get out with only a compensation payment.

Alex · Sep 4, 2009

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

SecondFig · Sep 4, 2009

marchi-91 said:
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.

Drifter · Sep 4, 2009

devilish said:
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

prateik · Sep 4, 2009

talking robot said:
"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

Interval · Sep 4, 2009

I feel its empty threats to just make us up our payment to them. Pretty much like Levy's 'All Proving' Dossier

Mitch Conor · Sep 4, 2009

prateik said:
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.

charleysurf · Sep 4, 2009

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.

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?

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 feck.

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.

noodlehair · Sep 4, 2009

That's an article from ages back. They've just added an extra paragraph about Chelsea to the start

charleysurf · Sep 4, 2009

noodlehair said:
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.

noodlehair · Sep 4, 2009

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

Adzzz · Sep 4, 2009

More chance of SAF being arrested for Kidnap to be honest.

charleysurf · Sep 4, 2009

noodlehair said:
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.

noodlehair · Sep 4, 2009

charleysurf said:
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.

Striker10 · Sep 4, 2009

Mitch Conor said:
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

charleysurf · Sep 4, 2009

noodlehair said:
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.

noodlehair · Sep 4, 2009

charleysurf said:
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.

charleysurf · Sep 4, 2009

noodlehair said:
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.

Pogue Mahone · Sep 4, 2009

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?

charleysurf · Sep 4, 2009

Pogue Mahone said:
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.

topper · Sep 4, 2009

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

Maroon Lucifer · Sep 4, 2009

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).

OneUnited24 · Sep 4, 2009

Mitch Conor said:
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...

CnutOfAllCnuts · Sep 4, 2009

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.

Elliott · Sep 4, 2009

OneUnited24 said:
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?

jim · Sep 4, 2009

Elliott said:
We offered Pogba's parents jobs?

I thought that was fairly standard issue.

Addis · Sep 4, 2009

Not arsed to be honest.

We'll be fine, if we've done the same then so has every top European club. Hope we don't get any punishment except a few tuts.

Oh my, where has my conscience gone?

Crerand Legend · Sep 4, 2009

Pogue Mahone said:
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 · Sep 4, 2009

CnutOfAllCnuts said:
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

United confident of avoiding Pogba punishment

Full Member

Juventus fan who used to support United

QUITTER

Full Member

Juventus fan who used to support United

Full Member

New Member

Ageist

Wimbledon Prediction Champion 09

Full Member

Juventus fan who used to support United

Full Member

New Member

Full Member

American

Full Member

Level

Holy CRAP BALLS!!

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored

"It's like..."

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored

"It's like..."

Astrophysical Genius - Hard for Grinner

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored

"It's like..."

"Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored

"It's like..."

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored

The caf's Camus.

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored

Clown

Full Member

Full Member

Bald Boring Cnut

Likes Loan Stickies

In most joy

New Member

New Member

New Member