Chelsea banned from signing players

antihenry said:
My anger at the ridiculous punishment aside I was just wondering what proof can FIFA actually have that the player (in this case Kakuta) was directly induced to breach his contract by Chelsea
Click to expand...

I think TeamBrianGB posted that the rule is guilty until proven innocent for Chelsea, so the burden of proof is on them, as odd as that seems.

antihenry said:
Players under contract, young and old, are being approached by other clubs all the time and now out of nowhere Chelsea are being used as a scapegoat. The severity of the punishment makes me think that it was intended as a strong message rather than a result of fair judgment.

Footballing authorities are waging a war they can't win. Platini's unrealistic plans on turning every club into a self sufficient one in a matter of a few years, the new anti-diving campaign that somehow overlooked the phenomenon for years only to make an example of a single player and now banning a club for two years from transfers because they believe some youngster they signed two years ago was approached illegally.

Who do they think they're kidding?
Click to expand...

Who do you think you're kidding? Ignoring the facts of the case doesn't change anything. The issue is not tapping up players, it's inducing a player to break his contract so that they can be signed for no fee. It's ridiculous to claim this is a common occurrence and that this is scapegoating. And the harshness of the punishment doesn't bother me as Chelsea have been continually guilty of the relatively minor offences like tapping up over the last few years. United fans have happily listed several such incidents in this thread, but have forgotten those Leeds lads Chelsea tapped up a few years back. So rather than paint this as similar to the Eduardo incident, a ridiculous comparison, you should keep in mind that it is a case where perennial rule-breakers have overstepped the mark of 'acceptable' contract crimes and been punished in line with Roma and others who have done the same.

As for the Pogba thing, from what's been posted in here it seems Le Havre are accusing the parents of breaking a verbal agreement following cash from United. That doesn't seem to be the same situation as far as I can see, but correct me if I'm wrong.
 
D'you think English fans will be made to wear Yellow Stars identifying themselves by the end of the season?
 
SecondFig said:
I think that's a very biased view of it - yes in the case of Macheda and Petrucci both players' families felt that they weren't being looked after by their Italian clubs, but equally the big clubs (not just United) do routinely strip clubs of their best young prospects and give them the bare minimum in financial recompense. For smaller clubs (note this does not include those such as Barca, Lazio or Roma) developing and selling youth is how they survive, so to have United or Chelsea come along and snatch your brightest prospect at 16 for next to nothing is a massive blow. Personally I have a lot of sympathy for clubs like Lens and Le Havre who have been raided time and time again by clubs like ourselves, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, and would go so far as to support UEFA's mooted "no transfers before 18" policy. It's be crude and come with it's own problems, but something needs to be done to allow young talented players to develop at smaller clubs.
Click to expand...



So they can marry have families but not be transfered mmmmmmmm seems wierd to me.

As I understand there was no contract with Pogba. Le Havre felt they had an agreement with his parents who decided not to change their minds when United made an offer ----- the financial inducement he accused United of making to Pidga's parents seemed to be an unsubstantiated allegation made by the Le Havre. In fact it appears it was United or Arsenal and he chose United.
 
This would never happen to say Real Madrid who break even more rules than Chelsea
 
spinoza said:
2 transfer windows just means Jan 2010 and summer 2010. It's not a massive problem for a club Chelsea's size. United could survive it easily, and we might even win something. It's just missed opportunities with targets going to rival clubs.
Click to expand...
:lol: no we can't, not if we want to stay competitive in the league and CL. Take off your red tinted glasses
 
red2deadboy said:
Though i always like it when chelski are fecked over, i believe this ruling is more related to EUFA and FIFA's dislike for all things english and particularly the premier leage. These feckers did not seem to give a flying feck when italian and spanish teams dominated the cups, flaunted rules regards recruiting players or used their spending power to go for players irrespective of other clubs stance (real madrid). Suddenly the premier league is all evil, the route of all that is wrong with the game.
Hope chelski take them to court and cite restriction of trade and get decision over turned and leave those feckers red faced.
Click to expand...


spot on m8!
 
antihenry said:
My anger at the ridiculous punishment aside I was just wondering what proof can FIFA actually have that the player (in this case Kakuta) was directly induced to breach his contract by Chelsea?

Players under contract, young and old, are being approached by other clubs all the time and now out of nowhere Chelsea are being used as a scapegoat. The severity of the punishment makes me think that it was intended as a strong message rather than a result of fair judgment.

Footballing authorities are waging a war they can't win. Platini's unrealistic plans on turning every club into a self sufficient one in a matter of a few years, the new anti-diving campaign that somehow overlooked the phenomenon for years only to make an example of a single player and now banning a club for two years from transfers because they believe some youngster they signed two years ago was approached illegally.

Who do they think they're kidding?
Click to expand...


They don't have to have evidence, it only need be circumstantial- i.e. if a player breaks his contract and then joins another club FIFA assume the recieving club was directly involved without any evidence of such. I heard that from a QC on SSN, who offers advice to the FA and has sat on their disciplinary panels, who thought the case was odd and the penalty was overtly harsh.
 
They'll appeal which will take till after the January window to sort out and they'll end up only missing next summer.
 
ALX8725 said:
:lol: no we can't, not if we want to stay competitive in the league and CL. Take off your red tinted glasses
Click to expand...

We could easily survive the next 2 seasons with the current squad and if enough youth step up we could make it 3. Ferguson has been signing for the long term for ages now. Keeping the muppets happy doesn't equal success.
 
L13R1922SS.jpg
 
Team Brian GB said:
They don't have to have evidence, it only need be circumstantial- i.e. if a player breaks his contract and then joins another club FIFA assume the recieving club was directly involved without any evidence of such. I heard that from a QC on SSN, who offers advice to the FA and has sat on their disciplinary panels, who thought the case was odd and the penalty was overtly harsh.
Click to expand...

If this is true, that makes it even more ridiculous.
 
charleysurf said:
They'll appeal and it'll be sorted out. It's probably illegal to stop a private company hiring new people.
Click to expand...

They are free to hire them but not to play them, no legal breach there.

I expect it to be overturned as they could make a strong case about the African Cup of Nations posing a problem and FIFA probably have enough pressure on this count already. Ideally they then just get it cut down to the next Summer window :lol:

It would be devastating for them, delaying the gradual replacement of an ageing squad until January 2011 could cost them dearly for 2-3 seasons, not just this one. It wouldn't be fair, but it would be funny, particularly Kenyon being roasted by Roman for not sorting it out :lol:

He screwed us on Ronaldinho and Robben with his "wheeling and dealing" before leaving for Chelsea, it's about time his approach to transfers comes back to bite him in the arse.
 
I'm sure it's been said a hundred or so times already in this thread but Uefa and Fifa are throwing their toys out of the pram because of the money in the English game. They realise it's taken a bit of a hit this past 6 months or so so they're trying to kick us whilst it's down.

First they make an example of Arsenal, when players have been diving are fecking ages. Then they try to bring in new rule changes regarding income and now they've gone completely over the top with Chelsea.

We're next.
 
x42bn6 said:
I thought Chelsea were barred from registering players, not just signing them - so no free signings either.
Click to expand...

Registering refers to registering players to play in specific competitions, they can still sign players, loan them out or just keep them in the squad for training - but they can't play them in any FIFA sanctioned competitions (i.e. everything of worth)
 
Laphroaig said:
This should hit them bad considering they've already an aging squad. In Jan 2011 Carvalho will be 32, Cashley 30, Lampard 32, Drogba 32, Anelka 31, Terry 30, Ballack 34, Joe Cole 29, Deco 33, Malouda 30, Ferreira 32 and Belletti 34. And many of them another year older before the summer window opens. It'll be a busy January for them.

That too. Will Essien, Drogba, Kalou and Mikel all go there?
Click to expand...

That's an old squad. Brings a new meaning to the term Chelsea Pensioners.
 
I get the feeling these mickey mouse administrators at UEFA and FIFA think they can make this shit up as they go along. They're in for a rude awakening when CAS or a proper court get hold of them.
 
Team Brian GB said:
A critical part of the case is that FIFA doesn't have to prove collusion between player and prospective club, you have to be able to prove you didn't entice a player rather them prove you did, that is one of the ridiculous parts of it.
Click to expand...

clearly chelsea are victims here. jesus.
 
Maybe already been said but Real ,Barca or the top Italian teams would have gotten away with this and probably have,FIFA are only too happy to punish an English Premiership team
 
oh oh.....

EXCLUSIVE: Manchester United are put under FIFA spotlight for pursuit of Le Havre's Paul Pogba



By Matt Lawton
Chief Football Correspondent
Last updated at 11:45 PM on 03rd September 2009


article-0-06479EA9000005DC-299_233x329.jpg
Cash offer: Pogba

Manchester United could be the next club hit with a transfer ban after being accused of snatching another young French star from his club.

FIFA are investigating allegations made by Le Havre that the Barclays Premier League champions offered cash to France Under 16 captain Paul Pogba to lure him to Old Trafford.

United argue that Pogba was not under contract with the French club when he signed for United in July. Le Havre claim otherwise and have lodged a complaint with FIFA.

A statement from Le Havre said: ‘United offered very high sums of money to the parents with the aim of obtaining the transfer of their son.

‘At a time when parties are speaking out against the “trading of minors”, Manchester United does not hesitate to uproot a 16-year-old kid.’

United deny the allegations. A club spokesman said: ‘It is complete nonsense. Everything has been done within FIFA guidelines.’
 
I'm pissed.

If this didn't happen to Real Madrid I don't understand how it can happen to Chelsea. FIFA is absurd at times. If anyone has been totally worth of such a ban, it should be Madrid, and then maybe you can have the face to proceed and investigate Chelsea.

feck FIFA, feck Madrid, feck City.


And feck Liverpool too, feck them twice, just for the sake of it.
 
MUFC07 said:
I'm pissed.

If this didn't happen to Real Madrid I don't understand how it can happen to Chelsea. FIFA is absurd at times. If anyone has been totally worth of such a ban, it should be Madrid, and then maybe you can have the face to proceed and investigate Chelsea.

feck FIFA, feck Madrid, feck City.


And feck Liverpool too, feck them twice, just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

and who have madrid done this too?
 
phelans shorts said:
and who have madrid done this too?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to Tapping up in general.

And I've seen them done it in SouthAmerica with some Brasilians too, years ago they signed a young one that had barely played and didn't even have a professional contract or somethgin (I remember because a mexican paper was following the story since a team here was monitoring the situation too) and Madrid took him, then the kid and the story both disappeared.

I'll look for the note, it's from about 2002 more or less.
 
MUFC07 said:
I'm referring to Tapping up in general.

And I've seen them done it in SouthAmerica with some Brasilians too, years ago they signed a young one that had barely played and didn't even have a professional contract or somethgin (I remember because a mexican paper was following the story since a team here was monitoring the situation too) and Madrid took him, then the kid and the story both disappeared.

I'll look for the note, it's from about 2002 more or less.
Click to expand...

Alex said:
Manchester United, what s the difference between poaching a 16 year old and a 24 year old?
Click to expand...

this isn't about tapping-up though, which madrid are guilty off, this is about inducing a player to breach contract.
 
How can this be an issue when the fecking president of FIFA says that players cannot be treated like slaves.
 
Gael Kakuta timeline | Chelsea - Times Online

"June 2007 Kakuta turns 16 and Chelsea believe he is free to sign for them. According to Lens, he is under contract to them, having signed a pre-contract agreement at the age of 14, which comes into effect on his 16th birthday."

Isn't it the same thing that Le Havre are accusing United of? I seem to remember something about so called pre-contract agreement taking place in Pogba's case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.