Chelsea banned from signing players until January 2011

Fuhrer

Chelsea cant get any new players but it doesnt mean they cant get a replacement for Kenyon.

Bubs101

Whatever about the ridiculous transfer embargo but Kakuta got fined over 600,000 pounds and he's only 18 and presumably on a youth contract. Fifa really really need to sort out a fair fining system for players.

MementoMori

Bubs101 wrote: »

Whatever about the ridiculous transfer embargo but Kakuta got fined over 600,000 pounds and he's only 18 and presumably on a youth contract. Fifa really really need to sort out a fair fining system for players.

I would imagine that this is probably based on what he's earning at Chelsea / what he got as a signing on bonus.

I remember reading an article a while back about the wages that some of the youth players Chelsea had signed were on. I remember if being massively tasty money for 17/18 year olds

I don't think it would be a fine of such magnitude if say it was a player at Derry City for example.

Bubs101

selpher wrote: »

Didn't the same thing happen Roma with Mexes? They we're banned for 1 year I think. Can't see Chelsea getting worse than that.

Stuff on the Mexes/Roma/Auxerre situation:

Mexes related:
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind=1/newsid=221873.html
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind=1/newsid=226948.html
http://www.uefa.com/footballeurope/news/kind=2/newsid=280479.html

And:
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/news/kind=1/newsid=313525.html
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/news/kind=1/newsid=324602.html

Basically originally they were banned from registering new players for 12 months (two windows), but after appealing to the CAS got it lifted before the end of that window in August. So it will likely be the same for Chelsea and it will be gone before January:D:D:D:D

Fuhrer

If I recall some Swiss team were allowed to sign players while the decision was in appeal.

Sizzler

the_pm_of_17 wrote: »

Can we have a caption competion for this

So whats he saying?

Oh John, you're such a bitch...

Unearthly

Great news.

Shame they didn't relegate them a few divisions while they were at it.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

MementoMori wrote: »

I would imagine that this is probably based on what he's earning at Chelsea / what he got as a signing on bonus.

That's part of it, also the value of his remaining contract at the previous club, and the money they have spent on his development is taken into consideration.

From Uefa regs:

In all cases, the party in breach shall pay compensation. Subject to the provisions of Art. 20 and annex 4 in relation to Training Compensation, and unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation for breach shall be calculated with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport, and any other objective criteria. These criteria shall include, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the Former Club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a Protected Period.

Deliverance XXV

the_pm_of_17 wrote: »

Maybe the player signed will be their saviour. Is he even any good?

:pac:

Sizzler wrote: »

Can we have a caption competion for this

So whats he saying?

Oh John, you're such a bitch...

I think he just saw Petr Cech's headgear for the first time...

The ban will be appealed and sadly will probably be reduced.

Melion

Fúcking delighted, and i really hope its upheld. It will put an end to the likes of Harry Redknapp etc freely tapping up players.

premierstone

Melion wrote: »

Fúcking delighted, and i really hope its upheld. It will put an end to the likes of Harry Redknapp etc freely tapping up players.

Once again this has nothing to do with tapping up players :mad:

Fuhrer

Melion wrote: »

Fúcking delighted, and i really hope its upheld. It will put an end to the likes of Harry Redknapp etc freely tapping up players.

Nothing to do with Tapping up...

pokerface_me

Bit harsh on Chelsea, but it is a seedy part of the game that i thought was long gone, we all know about the tapping up of players, this will always happen, but its a different story when you just signed a contract with another club.

Melion

They encouraged him to break his contract, is that not the same thing?

If ive mis-understood then i apologise.

pokerface_me

Melion wrote: »

They encouraged him to break his contract, is that not the same thing?

If ive mis-understood then i apologise.

I think its a bit different, my terms of tapping up is to unsettle a player and you try get your man eventually when he rocks the boat at his current club and they agree eventually to sell him, but just breaking your contract and signing for another club without permission is a bit more serious.

CHD

Seems to be deserved tbh. Pretty sickening though that we are going to miss next summer's window. Hopefully its cut down to just Jan.

Pity we are made the example but if we did the crime etc etc

Now FIFA you better be consistant now you have done this and also ban Harry Redknapp from being anywhere near football again.

Bob the Seducer

You would think Chelsea would have learned from the settlement they had to make to Man Utd after doing something similar with John Obi Mikel.

Fifa didn't have the cojones to do anything about that one once the clubs involved were satisfactorily reimbursed. Surely the brain trust at Chelsea realised after that incident that signing players who are under contract with someone else is a bad idea.

Glico Man

The ban is fully justifiable considering this is the 3rd time in the last 5 years or so that they have been involved in dodgy dealings, 1st was the whole Ashley Cole tapping up affair, 2nd was Obi Mikel and now this.

They will probably get their ban reduced but I sincerely hope they don't.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time,

OR

in other words, it's only illegal if you get caught

mayordenis

CHD wrote: »

Seems to be deserved tbh. Pretty sickening though that we are going to miss next summer's window. Hopefully its cut down to just Jan.

Pity we are made the example but if we did the crime etc etc

Now FIFA you better be consistant now you have done this and also ban Harry Redknapp from being anywhere near football again.

very commendable level headed response there, and yes aul arry is a blight on the game.

Soby

Jesus i thought the thread title was a joke or something..wdf:(

~Rebel~

i would say the Mikel issue definitely played a part. They clearly showed with this incident they took no notice of the punishment they got and so this time it was a proper punishment instead of just monetary.

iregk

I find it funny the amount of people on here complaining about FIFA/UEFA having a bee in their collective bonnets about English teams and this is an excuse to nail one of them to the cross. Man you lot need to stop worshiping Sky Sports and the Sun.

The fact of the matter is Chelsea clearly broke the rules. Now while there is a difference between getting a player to breach his contract and tapping up both are serious cases. FIFA & UEFA can't go after anyone too much with regards to tapping up as they'd have to take down the majory of Europes finest, including but not limited to Chelsea, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Real, Milan etc...

This is possibly the first clear cut case of contract manipulation. The Jon Obi one was so complicated it couldn't have gotten any worse even if you looked at it through a kaleidoscope. Being the first (or first to get caught!) Chelsea are rightfully being hung out to dry. There is nobody else to blame here but themsleves. They will appeal and chances are will get it reduced to a 6 month ban or something so I don't think there will be an issue around next summer and sure nobody really buys/sells in Jan any way.

Kakuta is a fabulous player and its a shame his head was turned this way and he will now be remembered for this.

The ban will be overturned next year. They never follow through with bans like this .

GLaDOS

What do they mean when they say "encouraged to break contract"? As in he did something stupid to get his contract ripped up or he just signed for chelsea whilst in contract for Lens?

Or am I way off?

missingtime

I haven't read a whole thread but when this happened to Roma; Roma appealed and FIFA reduced the length to just one transfer period.

I can see them doing the same here. And then perhaps increasing the fine.

Rekop dog

Had to laugh at this because Sam Allardyce has made a career out of tapping up players.
Although i've absolutely no sympathy for Chelsea because of the way the club dealt disgustinely with the Adrian Mutu situation!

thomond2006

We have "Bloodgate" in rugby and now "Transfergate" in football.

CHD

Rekop dog wrote: »

Had to laugh at this because Sam Allardyce has made a career out of tapping up players.
Although i've absolutely no sympathy for Chelsea because of the way the club dealt disgustinely with the Adrian Mutu situation!

Yeah that has sickened me too. Giving him a deadline to cough up millions. Too many idiots run Chelsea.

JPA

I would just like to say that I didn't create this thread, I just replied but some how I am first.

herbieflowers

If they appeal it, is it likely that the process will drag on for ages, suspending the embargo in the interim?

therecklessone

ScienceNerd wrote: »

What do they mean when they say "encouraged to break contract"? As in he did something stupid to get his contract ripped up or he just signed for chelsea whilst in contract for Lens?

Or am I way off?

FIFA's Regulation for the Staus and Transfer of Players [2005]

Article 13 Respect of Contract

A contract between a Professional and a club may only be terminated on expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement.

Article 17 Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause

The following provisions apply if a contract is terminated without just
cause:

1. In all cases, the party in breach shall pay compensation. Subject to the
provisions of Art. 20 and annex 4 in relation to Training Compensation,
and unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation
for breach shall be calculated with due consideration for the law of
the country concerned, the specifi city of sport, and any other objective
criteria. These criteria shall include, in particular, the remuneration and
other benefi ts due to the player under the existing contract and/or
the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of fi ve years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the
Former Club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether
the contractual breach falls within a Protected Period.

2. Entitlement to compensation cannot be assigned to a third party. If
a Professional is required to pay compensation, the Professional and
his New Club shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment. The
amount may be stipulated in the contract or agreed between the parties.

3. In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions
shall also be imposed on any player found to be in breach of contract
during the Protected Period. This sanction shall be a restriction of
four months on his eligibility to play in Offi cial Matches. In the case
of aggravating circumstances, the restriction shall last six months. In
all cases, these sporting sanctions shall take effect from the start of
the following Season of the New Club. Unilateral breach without just
cause or sporting just cause after the Protected Period will not result
in sporting sanctions. Disciplinary measures may, however, be imposed
outside of the Protected Period for failure to give due notice of termination
(i.e. within fi fteen days following the last match of the Season).
The Protected Period starts again when, while renewing the contract,
the duration of the previous contract is extended.

4. In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions
shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract or
found to be inducing a breach of contract during the Protected Period.
It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club
signing a Professional who has terminated his contract without just
cause has induced that Professional to commit a breach. The club
shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two Registration Periods.

5. Any person subject to the FIFA Statutes and FIFA regulations (club
offi cials, players’ agents, players etc.) who acts in a manner designed
to induce a breach of contract between a Professional and a club in
order to facilitate the transfer of the player shall be sanctioned.

Charlie

Bandit12

Just heard the news.:pac: Gutted for Chelsea

angel01

To be honest, I find it astounding, yes tapping up players is wrong but there are a hell of a lot of clubs at it. Why not punish them... surely Real should have been punished over their pursuit over Ronaldo?

I see Chelsea are appealing, I would expect this to be overturned.

Mars Bar

angel01 wrote: »

To be honest, I find it astounding, yes tapping up players is wrong but there are a hell of a lot of clubs at it. Why not punish them... surely Real should have been punished over their pursuit over Ronaldo?

I see Chelsea are appealing, I would expect this to be overturned.

Did ya read the thread?! It's not tapping up players that's the problem, it's a player being approached and signed by another club when the contract (which isn't out) hasn't been mutually terminated between player and club. That's the problem here...

Real only unsettled Ronaldo, they didn't actually buy him when his contracted wasn't terminated with United.

angel01

mars bar wrote: »

Did ya read the thread?! It's not tapping up players that's the problem, it's a player being approached and signed by another club when the contract (which isn't out) hasn't been mutually terminated between player and club. That's the problem here...

Real only unsettled Ronaldo, they didn't actually buy him when his contracted wasn't terminated with United.

But isn't that what tapping up is?

The Muppet

angel01 wrote: »

To be honest, I find it astounding, yes tapping up players is wrong but there are a hell of a lot of clubs at it. Why not punish them... surely Real should have been punished over their pursuit over Ronaldo?

I see Chelsea are appealing, I would expect this to be overturned.

There is a lot of hear say and suspicion that hell of a lot of clubs are at it but only a small few(Chelsea, Villa, Liverpool) have ever been found guilty of it. Clubs can't be punished because of a suspicion.

Mars Bar

angel01 wrote: »

But isn't that what tapping up is?

Well, I would class tapping up as just talking publicly about a player and unsettling him without actual talks...but that's just how I see it.

All Real Madrid had to say was "We would love to see Ronaldo play here some day"...it was enough to persuade Ronaldo to terminate his contract and join them. He didn't actually go and sign for Real whilst playing with United, that's what happened here in the Chelsea case.

Barr

Seems very harsh to say the least , I'm guessing with will get overturned .

Headshot

Barr wrote: »

Seems very harsh to say the least , I'm guessing with will get overturned .

how is it "very harsh" ?

Mars Bar

Harsh on the young lad if he was mislead by Chelsea into signing...

Which would make the ban all the more plausible on the club.

Fuhrer

Barr wrote: »

Seems very harsh to say the least , I'm guessing with will get overturned .

Seems like a strong upholding of the law but yeah, will probably be overturned.

Dozen Wicked Words

We will have a better idea on what Chelsea end up with after the powers that be rule on a very similar case with FC Sion, who were found guilty in April. They are waiting to hear their appeal.

evad_lhorg

Headshot wrote: »

how is it "very harsh" ?

most of their players will be in wheelchairs by the time they can buy new ones.

TonyD79

Considering they didnt overturn the 15 million Mutu-Chelsea case then why do people think this will be overturned?

What happened here anyways? Someone catch the boy having dinner with Kenyon?:p

Mr. Presentable

The appeal will result in a similar punishment to Roma's. Why are so many Man U fans celebrating? They're next in the firing line

ShooterSF

nipplenuts wrote: »

The appeal will result in a similar punishment to Roma's. Why are so many Man U fans celebrating? They're next in the firing line

Over who?

Daemos

thomond2006 wrote: »

We have "Bloodgate" in rugby and now "Transfergate" in football.

Better copyright that befors SSN snap it up

Headshot

ShooterSF wrote: »

Over who?

over Italian youngsters I would guess