City got lucky because they had Manchester in their name. At least Chelsea had decent fan base and infrastructure.
Chelsea given two-window transfer ban | Free to sign players in January
- Thread starter Zebs
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Slightly strange post? Chelsea were obviously a better team than City when our current respective owners took over. But we had/still have the bigger stadium/infrastructure and therefore bigger attendances. And since the takeover our infrastructure has further improved (South Stand expansion and training ground/CFA).
Agree that having United as our local rivals was a selling point though.
Because Chelsea were a better performing club on and off the pitch and not yo-yoing in and out of the Premier League. London was a selling point too.
“Giroud signed an 18-month contract but there is an option for Chelsea to extend his stay by a year.”
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...remier-league-chelsea-europa-league-hat-trick
I'm still not quite sure what we're arguing here. Obviously Chelsea were a better team when Roman took over than City when ADUG took over. I did post earlier in the day, I'm interested in how much Matthew Harding's prior investment helped Chelsea to become regular cup winners prior to Roman? I remember back in the day thinking that he'd invested mega-money comparatively, although google says it was "only" £26m. I always thought of City and Chelsea as fairly comparable in the late 80s/early 90s when I started supporting City, but by the mid-late 90s we were a complete mess while you were winning trophies.
The reasons why ADUG chose City over the other clubs they looked at (Everton, Villa, Newcastle etc.) are quite well established. All those clubs had reasonably sized stadiums and a decent fanbase so had obvious potential to grow. One of City's distinguishing features was the potential for expansion around the stadium (which has since been partially achieved with the CFA/Campus project) and the broader relationship with Manchester City Council (see the Manchester Life initiative to build 6,000 new homes). So ADUG's investment vision was broader than just Manchester City, it was the city in general. In addition, the price was right, Thaksin had run out of money so was desperate, and we were probably within weeks of administration so we were a very easy negotiation!
The rivalry and name recognition with United as our neighbours was also a big PR bonus, obviously.
For me one of the positives regarding the transfer ban. He's a decent footballer but he is unfortunately a beta male. He just gets scared in front of goal and never does anything noteworthy. He plays in the most attacking role of our midfield 3 yet he has got 0 goals and 2 assists in the league. A pretty pointless player that should be behind Loftus Cheek, Barkley and Mount.
Marko Van Ginkel. Seeing that name there, wow, what a blast from the past.
Better late than never. Eat it, chavs.
Curious to know whether Hazard will be blocked this summer
Weren't Chelsea's finances in a right mess before Roman came in? They could of done a Leeds
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/oct/17/newsstory.sport9
That’s a load of garbage tbh.Transfer ban while having an average squad. Plus Hazard leaving this summer or on a free next season. Beautiful.
Chelsea get away with too much stick because of how poisonous both PSG and City are. Chelsea are the EXACT same. They would be fighting mid to lower table had they not been taken over. So with that said, feck them.
Chelsea were consistently in and around the top four (just behind United and Arsenal) prior to Roman’s investment.
Ya you're right, they were destine to win 5 Leagues, 5 FA Cups, 3 League Cups, 1 CL and 1 EL regardless.
If they were lucky they might have won a domestic cup.
Considering how much money they'd pumped in without the adequate revenue to support it (or rich benefactor), Chelsea were more likely to be joining the likes of Villa, Leeds, Newcastle etc in their slide down the league than winning the big trophies if Roman hadn't come in.
It's got the point where it would be hilarious if Hazard doesn't actually leave, it would truly turn into the new "Roman will get bored" desperation line for opposition fans.
No doubt our trophy haul wouldn’t be as impressive. I was arguing your suggestion that Chelsea was the “exact” same as the other teams. Chelsea were a decent team in the 90’s and in and around the level of Tottenham pre Pochettino, it’s not like Chelsea was a plucked from obscurity.Ya you're right, they were destine to win 5 Leagues, 5 FA Cups, 3 League Cups, 1 CL and 1 EL regardless.
If they were lucky they might have won a domestic cup.
Weren't Chelsea on brink of administration when Roman took over? So good chance you would have been in lower league for few seasons.
We were negotiating a deal for Joe Cole during the summer pre Roman's takeover.
We weren't exactly loaded, but we weren't heading down to the Screwfix south either.
I know you're talking if Kovacic goes then there's a spot in midfield opened up for a younger player. But in general, the ban might not be as good as you think for young players. Chelsea will be forced to keep them around as back ups rather than sending them out on successful loans like Abraham, James and Mount have had this season. The worry is the same as if the Premier League increase the home grown players rule. Rather than getting more game time, they could end up being kept around simply to fill the quota but never playing, instead of going out on loan and actually getting game time. Will be a player-by-player basis though of course.
I'm not saying they were plucked from obscurity, but 15 years in football is a very long time and they could easily be building a new stadium and finishing top 4 (Spurs 2019) or more likely fighting in the championship/league 1 just like Leeds, Sunderland and Villa.
Looks like appeal rejected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48202945
They can only sign UK based U-16 players.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48202945
They can only sign UK based U-16 players.
Right decision, makes a mockery of the punishment whenever they are lifted temporarily. Would be fine if teams actually expected to win the appeal with CAS but they all appeal knowing they won't.
Not the end cuz it says in the article:
"The club can now appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
I thought that's what we were waiting on.
"The club can now appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
I thought that's what we were waiting on.
At least it is one less team competing for the middle of the table players we will be in for.
So article says ban partially upheld.
Was always going to be with FIFA. CAS appeal is where it matters anyway. Will be reduced down to two windows ( 1 year) and possibly delayed to allow us a window.
Was always going to be with FIFA. CAS appeal is where it matters anyway. Will be reduced down to two windows ( 1 year) and possibly delayed to allow us a window.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who will they be then?At least it is one less team competing for the middle of the table players we will be in for.
Unless a player actively pushes for a move or has a year left on their contract, it's very easy for clubs to just refuse bids nowadays.
I can't see many champing at the bit to play for United at the moment and most of the better players are tied down to long-term contracts.
God knows. We are probably fecked.
FIFA says we're still allowed to sign youth players, despite the ban being in place because of the dodgy signing of youth players.
Weird.
Weird.
FIFA were likely never going to overturn their own ruling which is why many of us suspected a date with CAS.
"No surprises here, and Chelsea will now appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Expect the CAS to stay Chelsea’s ban on registering new players until the appeal is concluded, thereby allowing Chelsea to conduct business as usual this summer."
"Expect Chelsea to file a statement of appeal before the CAS within the next few days along with a request for provisional measures under Rule R37 to stay (temporarily lift) the ban while the appeals process is ongoing."
I queried earlier on Twitter what would happen if our appeal got lodged, but CAS didn't answer in time, would it get lifted regardless due to a valid appeal yet to be judged on...
"No surprises here, and Chelsea will now appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Expect the CAS to stay Chelsea’s ban on registering new players until the appeal is concluded, thereby allowing Chelsea to conduct business as usual this summer."
"Expect Chelsea to file a statement of appeal before the CAS within the next few days along with a request for provisional measures under Rule R37 to stay (temporarily lift) the ban while the appeals process is ongoing."
I queried earlier on Twitter what would happen if our appeal got lodged, but CAS didn't answer in time, would it get lifted regardless due to a valid appeal yet to be judged on...
UK based youth players. The ban relates to signing youth players from abroad.
I expect CAS to rule against us as well.
Punishment is pointless if if delayed so we can sign who we need anyway.
Punishment is pointless if if delayed so we can sign who we need anyway.
The CAS in previous cases have taken roughly 3 months or so from date of appeal lodged, to the hearing. So that 'could' take us to August. While the appeal is lodged and under consideration, you'd expect them to lift the ban anyway, as a valid appeal is ongoing, therefore judgement is not final. Which is exactly what that sports lawyer on Twitter claimed.
CAS may not rule the entire thing in our favour, they may reduce the ban to January 2020 and increase the fine. There is a few scenarios.
Kinda ridiculous that FIFA have basically said today that we have partially won in a sense, as the signing of under 16's is now allowed.
'Chelsea FC categorically refutes the findings of the FIFA Appeal Committee. It acted in accordance with the relevant regulations and will appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).'
It would be mental to punish us before a conviction which is why i am amazed at FIFA's stance.
If we get found not guilty and after denied a transfer window we could take both FIFA and CAS to the cleaners in a tribunal.
FIFA wouldn't refuse the appeal if there was any chance of us winning at CAS. The Spanish clubs were test cases and precedent has been set in all the appeals failing. FIFA are absolutely confident (and I imagine rightly so) that we won't win at CAS.
You have been convicted though?
correct, but when you appeal; that conviction is not full and final. FIFA were never really going to rule against their own decision, everyone almost expected it to end with CAS as previous cases have, including Barca and both Madrids. The issue is those cases took about 2-3 months each to get to a hearing and then a further few weeks before a final decision, so if that is the case now; which is likely, it takes us into August when the window closes.
Under rule R37 a stay of ban (temp. freeze/suspension), would come into place as the appeal process is ongoing and still under consideration. We have confirmed today an appeal is going to the CAS. After reading how R37 works and seeing people discuss it, I would expect us to almost certainly be able to trade this summer. With a ban for Jan 20 and summer 20.
Apart from losing Hazard. Chelsea will be fine if they can't shift this ban.
I did have to laugh that the ban as a result of dodgy youth signings has been partially lifted, so that they can sign youth players.
Yep.
Tammy Abraham
Fikayo Tomori
Mason Mount
Reece James
Jayson DaSilva
All done well on loan. Plus Pulisic is coming so their transfer ban could have come in a much worse time all things considered.
And that list is just for starters.
There are experienced ones like Zouma, Aina, Bagayoko and Musonda. They will be quite alright
Giroud and luiz out of contract I think as well
No right to recall morata in the loan agreement.
Genuinely not sure if they can extend the loan or purchase higuain as it was agreed before the ban?... Same with kovacic
CHO long term injury
Keppa, cabellero, green
Azpi, Alonso, zapacosta, emerson
Rudiger, Christiansen, zouma, Cahill
Kante, jorginiho, ampadu, drinkwater, bakayoko
Barkley, RLC, mount
Pulisic, CHO, Pedro, William
Abraham, batshuai,
Looks lacking in goals and CHO out for a while.