Chelsea banned from signing players until January 2011

Niska

ShooterSF wrote: »

Over who?

Paul Pogba from Le Havre, maybe?

Kirby

ShooterSF wrote: »

Over who?

Ah don't be naiive. Nearly all the clubs do it. The only difference is chelsea were stupid about it and got caught. They will probably get a reduction on appeal to just January. Back to normal for next summer.

Headshot

Niska wrote: »

Paul Pogba from Le Havre, maybe?

never mind I found it

if utd did anything wrong i would presume FIFA would also punish utd

that hasnt happened and Le harve from my understanding havent even reported utd

therecklessone

ShooterSF wrote: »

Over who?

Headshot wrote: »

over Italian youngsters I would guess

Niska wrote: »

Paul Pogba from Le Havre, maybe?

English clubs' pursuit of the best of European talent while morally questionable is nowhere near on the same scale as what Chelsea have done in this case.

The problem for many continental sides is that employment law and football association rules prohibit young players from signing professional contracts in their countries until the age of 18, English sides can offer lucrative deals to these kids as early as 16 and succeed in "stealing" the best young talent from mainland Europe.

It is something which should be snuffed out, and Platini has identified it as an aim of his Presidency. Of course, it doesn't help that cause when people compare the practise to child slavery, but that's an aside.

therecklessone

Kirby wrote: »

Ah don't be naiive. Nearly all the clubs do it. The only difference is chelsea were stupid about it and got caught. They will probably get a reduction on appeal to just January. Back to normal for next summer.

Are people actually reading the thread or just jumping to conclusions about what has happened?

A player broke his contract in contravention of Article 17 of FIFA's transfer regulations, this is not a leak to a favoured journo, it's not a cheeky interview with Sky Sports on deadline day, it's not even nudge nudge wink wink does the wife like photography...

If it was happening all the time there would be uproar, and we would most definitely hear about it. While there are a great many unsavoury things happen in the world of football transfers, I can guarantee you this event is in the minority.

dannydiamond

Tbh I don't find this one bit surprising.

The reality is that this probably happens on a regular basis whether it's 'tapping up', 'encouraging players to break their contracts' or other under the table stuff.

It was only a matter of time really before fifa had a lock on a case and decided to make an example of a club.I guess Chelsea can consider themselves unlucky that it's them but i'd guess it would always be a big club so that the message was sent loud and clear to the rest.

I wouldn't be so sure that the punishment would be reduced on appeal either.
I guess it depends on how far fifa want to go to make a point.
Do they want to send out a warning or do they want to scare the sh1t out of clubs to the point where it more or less ends now?

If they stick by their guns and impose the original punishment,that'll stop an awful lot of these type of dealings,my guess is they know already how the appeal will pan out and I wouldn't be putting any money on Chelsea having any success on appeal.

As I said Chelsea were unlucky it was them,it probably could have been any number of big clubs to hang as an example.

Edit to say,what a position for Chelsea players to negotiate contract extensions and the like,merry christmas lads.:pac:

therecklessone

dannydiamond wrote: »

It was only a matter of time really before fifa had a lock on a case and decided to make an example of a club.I guess Chelsea can consider themselves unlucky that it's them but i'd guess it would always be a big club so that the message was sent loud and clear to the rest.

I wouldn't be so sure that the punishment would be reduced on appeal either.
I guess it depends on how far fifa want to go to make a point.
Do they want to send out a warning or do they want to scare the sh1t out of clubs to the point where it more or less ends now?

If they stick by their guns and impose the original punishment,that'll stop an awful lot of these type of dealings,my guess is they know already how the appeal will pan out and I wouldn't be putting any money on Chelsea having any success on appeal.

If you read the thread you'll know:

1. This is not the first time this has happened, Roma received a similar punishment when Philipe Mexes joined them from Auxerre.

2. They appealed the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is an independent entity, who reduced their transfer ban from two windows to one.

It doesn't matter a jot what FIFA are hoping to achieve with this judgement, the appeal will be to the CAS, and they will listen to both sides before issuing a judgement in accordance with FIFA regs, national law, and precedence established in previous cases.

It will be reduced.

Slash/ED

This only happened because UEFA actively try and sabotage English football because they hate it for no real reason obviously imo, Andy Gray says it so it must be true

dannydiamond

therecklessone wrote: »

If you read the thread you'll know:

1. This is not the first time this has happened, Roma received a similar punishment when Philipe Mexes joined them from Auxerre.

2. They appealed the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is an independent entity, who reduced their transfer ban from two windows to one.

It doesn't matter a jot what FIFA are hoping to achieve with this judgement, the appeal will be to the CAS, and they will listen to both sides before issuing a judgement in accordance with FIFA regs, national law, and precedence established in previous cases.

It will be reduced.

That's a huge assumption to make considering we don't know all the facts and even if we did,i'm presuming none of us are in a position to second guess fifa or a court of arbitration for that matter.

The rest of us are just guessing but you seem pretty certain.
Fifa hardly took this decision lightly and I honestly have no idea how this would work but would they really hand out such a severe punishment if they knew it would be overturned? Just to make a point?

therecklessone

dannydiamond wrote: »

That's a huge assumption to make considering we don't know all the facts and even if we did,i'm presuming none of us are in a position to second guess fifa or a court of arbitration for that matter.

The rest of us are just guessing but you seem pretty certain.
Fifa hardly took this decision lightly and I honestly have no idea how this would work but would they really hand out such a severe punishment if they knew it would be overturned? Just to make a point?

The punishment they handed out today was in accordance with their own regulations, as quoted by me in an earlier post this evening. The same applied when they passed judgement on Roma for the Mexes affair. THE CAS assessed the case as handled by FIFA and reduced the judgement.

Based on the information made public to date there is very little difference between the two cases.

I think my conclusion is on slightly more solid ground than your own tbh.

dannydiamond

therecklessone wrote: »

The punishment they handed out today was in accordance with their own regulations, as quoted by me in an earlier post this evening. The same applied when they passed judgement on Roma for the Mexes affair. THE CAS assessed the case as handled by FIFA and reduced the judgement.

Based on the information made public to date there is very little difference between the two cases.

I think my conclusion is on slightly more solid ground than your own tbh.

Easy tiger.:)

Fair enough, I was asking your opinion as you obv seem to have a better handle on the situation than me but I still think it's pure folly to be making any assumptions on a situation we know very little about.

Btw I didn't make any assumptions,I freely admit i'm guessing,as are you.

I'll will ask you again would fifa hand out this punishment knowing a precedent has already been set and that it's likely to be reduced,just to try and make an example of a high profile club?
This could very well be what they set out to accomplish.
It's certainly plausible,depending how they operate of course.

Would they care about 'saving face' so to speak?
The other side of it is that they handed out a punishment that might stand and send a clear message.

I guess it all depends on their ultimate goal here and how they generally go about their business.

Mars Bar

(For those joining the convo on this page...)

Oh Oh. Looks like us United fans could be joining Chelsea in the bold corner. But he hasn't signed yet?!

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5536462,00.html

Mr Alan

another article re:Utd being in the same situation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6820875.ece

JPA

Mr Alan wrote: »

another article re:Utd being in the same situation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6820875.ece

That guy sure is tall.

dannydiamond

Mr Alan wrote: »

another article re:Utd being in the same situation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6820875.ece

United and Chelsea with no transfers next summer, ahh, don't let me dream.:)

Royale with Cheese

I'll be surprised if Wenger doesn't go out and do this right now, just so he has an excuse for not signing any players next time round.

Mr Alan

pretty sure Gillette & Hicks are on the phone to Rafa now bollocking him for not doing the same

jank

I wonder if the 2 guys behind him are from Lens.:pac:

jaykay74

evad_lhorg wrote: »

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

A bit like this perhaps. Carlos, can we retire yet...

angel01

jank wrote: »

I wonder if the 2 guys behind him are from Lens.:pac:

PMSL, that made me laugh, I reckon Roman will be so angry about this

CHD

evad_lhorg wrote: »

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

And will retire like veterans with gold medals for the 09/10 EPL title :pac:

therecklessone

dannydiamond wrote: »

I'll will ask you again would fifa hand out this punishment knowing a precedent has already been set and that it's likely to be reduced,just to try and make an example of a high profile club?
This could very well be what they set out to accomplish.
It's certainly plausible,depending how they operate of course.

They have no choice, it is set out in their rule book that the punishment is a ban for two transfer windows, I've quoted it and put it in bold type so it will stand out, I don't see how they can hand out any other punishment or they will hand even more ammunition to Chelsea (and Sion from Switzerland who are in the process of appealing a similar judgement) for their appeal to the CAS.

They have to follow their own rulebook, it is up to the CAS to decide if leniency is to be applied.

Fuhrer

CHD wrote: »

And will retire like veterans with gold medals for the 09/10 EPL title :pac:

Just like they did with the 06/07, 07/08 and 08/09 titles?

yeah

Redsoxfan

Am I correct to assume that under this FIFA law, FIFA or the complainant club don't have to prove inducement, the club who sign the player are assumed to have induced them to break their contract?

therecklessone

Redsoxfan wrote: »

Am I correct to assume that under this FIFA law, FIFA or the complainant club don't have to prove inducement, the club who sign the player are assumed to have induced them to break their contract?

If you read back to the Article I quoted about 40 odd posts ago you'll get your answer.

MementoMori

A very good article in the Guardian on the whole case. From the sounds of this, I think there looks to be little chance of Chelsea getting the whole thing completely over-turned and the a ban of only one transfer window is the best they can hope for. Also from this I think there is a pretty realistic chance of the two-transfer window ban being upheld.

Also an article from the Independent which gives an insight into how much some of the youngster at Chelsea are making. £100k a year at 17 :eek:

Fifa should be applauded for making a stand on honouring contracts
Chelsea may find appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the principle of honouring a contract tough going

Fifa's stand should be applauded, not derided. The Gaël Kakuta case follows several episodes in which former clubs of talented young players, often in Italy, have howled with outrage that their teenagers have been "poached" or "robbed" by ruthless English clubs waving wads of money.

Chelsea have figured in a few of those accusations, as did Manchester United for signing Federico Macheda at 16; Lazio's president, Claudio Lotito, described the environment then as "a proper cattle market".

Yet the Italian clubs had no rights in those cases; they were vulnerable because of their own regulations, which prohibit young players from signing contracts until they are 18. With Kakuta, it was different. He was playing in France, for Lens, who say they had a contract with him. Fifa's Dispute Resolution Chamber moved in, to apply clear rules which enforce a solid principle: contracts in football must be honoured. Fifa's regulations set out that any club which signs a player who has a valid contract with another club is considered to have induced that breach of contract. The penalties – fines, suspensions and the one we had barely heard of until this: banning clubs from signing any more players for one or two transfer windows – all have precedents.

While English football reeled in shock and Chelsea, although not denying that Kakuta had a contract, protested that the penalty was "without precedent to this level and totally disproportionate to the alleged offence", the Lens president, Gervais Martel, was taking it calmly.

"We expected this kind of decision," he said. "The player was under contract with us, and they came and stole him away."

Chelsea have said they will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but in recent cases the CAS has encouraged Fifa by upholding its rulings. In January the CAS upheld a Fifa penalty against the Al Kuwait sports club which was very similar to the one imposed on Chelsea. Al Kuwait were found to have sacked an Estonian player, Vjatseslav Zahovaiko, in breach of his valid contract. The club was fined $120,000 (£73,500) and, like Chelsea, banned from signing new players for two transfer windows.

The case being cited to give Chelsea hope was in 2005, when the CAS reduced a Fifa sanction against Roma, who were found guilty of inducing the centre-half Philippe Mexès to breach his contract with Auxerre. Still, the CAS upheld the ban on Roma signing players, reducing the period from two transfer windows to one.

There are several other cases in which the CAS has upheld Fifa rulings over players breaking their contracts, and FC Sion, of Switzerland, are currently appealing to the CAS against a two-transfer-window ban imposed in May.

Fifa has publicly welcomed the CAS when it has backed the sanctions, saying the regulations are dedicated to "defending contractual stability in football".

So Chelsea are on a stickier wicket, and Fifa surer of its ground, than some might have thought when the news first broke and the ban on signing players seemed, on these shores, unheard of.

If Chelsea are to appeal, they may have to argue that they did not do what Fifa found they did – we have been given scant details so far – or that somehow Kakuta's contract with Lens was not valid. It might safely be assumed that the DRC members are not complete fools and will have considered the issues fully, knowing that Chelsea were certain to appeal to the CAS. If the facts are upheld, the appeal will be on the severity of the punishment, and there the Al Kuwait case could stand as a precedent. Where a club has been found guilty of inducing a player to breach a contract, the CAS has upheld a two-transfer-window ban.

The case is not what it seemed at first, that Fifa had finally been able to get tough on rich clubs who poach young talent being nurtured by smaller clubs around Europe and elsewhere in the world. Nor does it have anything to do with that other stain on football's treatment of young people, the trafficking of fledgling talent across continents, by men who hope to make pots of money somewhere along the chain.

This one is more straightforward: Chelsea wanted Kakuta. No great scouting insight was necessary because he was an outstanding young player at European youth level, known to all the clubs. Chelsea signed him at 16, presumably paying him very well to join the multinational hopefuls in Roman Abramovich's academy. Chelsea's only problem, Fifa have found, is that Kakuta already had a contract, and breaking that is not allowed.

Those in English football inclined to a knee-jerk criticism of Fifa, or Sepp Blatter, for supposedly having it in for English football should perhaps think instead about applauding the world governing body for taking a stand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/sep/04/chelsea-fifa-contracts-transfer-ban

Player profile: A midfield prodigy blighted by injury at Stamford Bridge
By Sam Wallace

The coaches that work under Frank Arnesen at Chelsea's academy grade their young players according to three standards. Grade C are the kids on scholarship deals, earning £100 in traditional apprentice wages. Grade B earn £40,000-£75,000 with the potential for more. But Grade A are gold-plated, on salaries of £100,000 plus.

Gaël Kakuta, it goes without saying, is Grade A. He was part of an elite group of young players at Chelsea lured to the club with the promise of a professional deal that was signed on his 17th birthday, 21 June, last year. Under Football Association guidelines, 17 is the earliest date a professional deal can be signed but Kakuta, and his family, did not come from France on the off-chance of a deal. They came on a promise.

The youth development programmes at big English football clubs have grown out of all recognition since Howard Wilkinson introduced the academy system to the nation in 1998. Since then, hampered by the academy system's geographical restrictions, and punitive compensation costs for poaching young English players, the clubs have increasingly looked abroad where their financial clout has enabled them to cherry-pick some of the best of teenage talent.

Kakuta fitted the bill for Arnesen's new wave of teenage recruits. He had the full repertoire of tricks, he was fast, physically strong and a goalscorer. His predominantly left-footed style might have counted against him but he could cut in from the left wing and take players on. Despite his diminutive stature – 5ft 8in – he could compete with players two years or more ahead of him in age groups.

Arnesen badly needed one of his young charges to break through. Kakuta showed some great early promise. In his first season at the club, 2007-2008, he won the academy's scholar of the year award, playing in the Under-18s team that reached the FA Youth Cup final before being beaten by Manchester City's academy side.

In the season just gone, Kakuta scored a dazzling goal against Manchester United in the FA Youth Cup second round. He made a few more appearances before he suffered a double ankle fracture in February in a game against the academy for young players run by Glenn Hoddle in Spain.

Details are sketchy about the player's life in England. Kakuta is thought to have a sister in east London and , as with many teenage boys right across English football, those lucrative wages will probably support a network of family members.

Kakuta was always destined to be a star but there will be extra scrutiny on him now. The £680,000 fine he will not have to worry about – Chelsea will pick that up. If he can keep his nerve as the spotlight falls on him, he should still have a very successful career to look forward to.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/player-profile-a-midfield-prodigy-blighted-by-injury-at-stamford-bridge-1781381.html

CHD

Fuhrer wrote: »

Just like they did with the 06/07, 07/08 and 08/09 titles?

yeah

They weren't in wheelchairs then.

Soby

CHD wrote: »

And will retire like veterans with gold medals for the 09/10 EPL title :pac:

And the Champions League;)

Redsoxfan

therecklessone wrote: »

If you read back to the Article I quoted about 40 odd posts ago you'll get your answer.

Thanks-I thought I had read it somewhere before .

What is the position if a player's agent approaches a club and tells them his client is willing to break a contract I wonder? Or even the player themselves? (I'm not suggesting that is the case here)

Soby

Chelsea could be allowed to sign new players in the January 2010 transfer window despite a Fifa ban.

Football's governing body handed out a ban until 2011 after they found the Blues guilty of inducing Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007.

But Chelsea could get a reprieve if they delay lodging any appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas).

Cas has indicated that if Chelsea take the full 21 days to appeal, their ban may be frozen while a decision is made.

"It depends on the filing date of the appeal," Cas secretary general Matthieu Reeb told BBC Sport.

"If we have an appeal within the next week, it seems realistic we will have a hearing in November and a decision in December.

"If it goes a little longer, we'd have to wait until next year but then we'd have a problem with the January transfer period.

"So there is a possibility of Chelsea requesting a stay of the Fifa decision so it is frozen until the final decision of Cas is rendered.

"This means the enforcement of the Fifa decision would not be immediate. It could be postponed and then if the sanction was finally confirmed by Cas, the suspension would be postponed to the next transfer window."

As it stands, Chelsea are barred from registering any new players, nationally, or internationally, during the January or summer 2010 transfer windows.

The Blues have already confirmed that they will launch the "strongest possible appeal" and they have 21 days to do so from when they receive Fifa's full decision.

The Cas decision can be appealed only before the Swiss Supreme Court.

Manchester United could also face an investigation after it emerged that another French club, Le Havre, are going to ask Fifa to look into Paul Pogba's move to Old Trafford last month.

Fifa say they are yet to receive any complaint over the transfer of the 16-year-old midfielder.

United told BBC Sport last month that Le Havre's accusations that they had stolen the French youngster were "complete nonsense".

A French football agent, who wishes to remain anonymous for professional reasons, told BBC Sport: "If Lens or Le Havre were legally able to sign the two players to contracts they would definitely have done it already.

"But French law prevents players from signing contracts if they under 16 and haven't achieved the requisite level at school.

"The clubs can make agreements with these players that say they will give them a contract when they have attained the right educational qualification of turned 16.

"It is a pre-contract. It is called an 'accord de norm sollicitation' in French. It is a written agreement between club and player.

"That is what Kakuta and Pogba had. Fifa is clearly now saying these accords are as good as contracts, while Chelsea and Manchester United are saying they are not."

Fifa punished Switzerland's FC Sion for a similar offence to Chelsea's in April and the club was told it could not sign players until the 2010 off-season.

Sion have appealed to Cas, which has frozen the sanctions while it considers the case, allowing the club to trade before the current season began. A ruling is expected later this year.

Italian club Roma were banned from signing players for two transfer windows in 2004, over their move for Auxerre's Philippe Mexes, after they appealed to Cas and their suspension was reduced to one window.

The arbitration panel will be made up by one judge selected by Chelsea, one by Lens and the chairman will be from Cas

So basically if we wait to give our appeal until the last second the hearing wont be till 2010,so until the hearing happends their gonna let us sign players in the Jan transfer window.

CHD

Woop. Buy our way out imo.

mudokon

"It is a pre-contract. It is called an 'accord de norm sollicitation' in French. It is a written agreement between club and player.

"That is what Kakuta and Pogba had. Fifa is clearly now saying these accords are as good as contracts, while Chelsea and Manchester United are saying they are not."

This has to be one of the main points for the CAS to determine in this case.

I'm no legal expert but surely these pre-contracts have a shelf life? If a professional contract is not signed between the two parties when the legal age has been reached for a professional contract do these agreements become null & void?

If not how long do these agreements run on for after the legal age has been reached?

Bubs101

Yeah the pre contract sounds like absolute bollox to me. There's no way Kakuta's wages at Chelsea could have been matched by Lens and if he didn't have a proper contract then he should have chased the money and a comperable level of talent. Surely he can't be forced to sign an unfair contract because he gave an agreement at 14

Xavi6

Hitler's back, and it's quality -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRjNBkKktlc

Redsoxfan

Xavi6 wrote: »

Hitler's back, and it's quality -

Just beat me to it

Soby

Xavi6 wrote: »

Hitler's back, and it's quality -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRjNBkKktlc

:pac::pac:

And We're Stuck with that c*** who sticks mobile phones up his arse

And Blatter...We Already bought him a lifetime suppy of marshmallows,But he still wants more

That was the two highlights.That and when the lads who supported Man U before had to walk out:pac:Quality

Jackobyte

This happened to a Swiss club before... While they were appealing the ban was temporarily suspended so they stocked up on players in that time... Then had it reduced to a single year (instead of two)

Panthro

papagormo wrote: »

as a fan, im disappointed but im thinking as long as we get back the loaned out players of this season, we should be able to weather this kind of storm.

top of my head im thinking of players such as:
sinclair loaned to wigan
di santo loaned to blackburn
ryan bertard loaned to reading
michael machcienne loaned to wolves
jack cork loaned to coventry
miroslav stoch loaned to fc twente

im sure theres one or two others that have 1st team potential that i havent mentioned.

well my hopes of getting back the loaned out players appears to have taken a bit of a blow.