City reported to Fifa

Karmafaerie · 08-09-2009 10:00am #1

Rennes have confirmed they have reported Manchester City to Fifa over the alleged poaching of French youngster Jeremy Helan.

City boss Mark Hughes snapped up the teenage defender earlier this year after he reportedly opted against seeing out his first professional contract with Rennes.

The Clairefontaine academy player had been wanted by Manchester United in 2008, but the Ligue 1 outfit dug in their heels over his departure.

With The Red Devils out of the picture City moved in, much to the anger of Rennes who insist that his pre-contract agreement tied both him and the club to a contract if he represented France at youth level.

Transfer ban
If found guilty of inducing a youngster to break a contract City could well find themselves in hot water with football's governing body after Chelsea were recently banned from signing new players until January 2011 over their pursuit of Gael Kakuta

Although Rennes' technical director Pierre Dreossi does not expect a decision to be made anytime soon, he fully expects big-spending City to face ramifications over their actions.

City are understood to be adamant in their belief that they have not induced a breach of contract in a case which is further complicated by the fact that Helan and Rennes are at odds, legally, over what he initially signed up to.

Consequences
"Manchester City must now realise the consequences of their attitude in the Helan case as it is even more illegal than Kakuta," Dreossi told The Independent.

"We have referred this to Fifa. For us it was strange to have no discussion from City and now, in the week after the Fifa declaration on Chelsea, I would hope that it will be the same thing for Manchester City.

"Kakuta signed up for just a possibility of a full contract. For Helan there was definitely one there, under the terms of the pre-contract agreement, because he had played for his country.

"Manchester United said it was not possible to negotiate with us but for City now this is dangerous, though we are not expecting a decision from Fifa for perhaps several years."

Oppps.

anplaya · 08-09-2009 10:08am

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Oppps.

yawn.everyone knows stuff like this has been going on for years really,just all coming out in the media now.id say every club has been involved in something like this,nothing new.saw this on the news this morning and wasnt surprised in the least.

jesus_thats_gre · 08-09-2009 10:09am

Could they have managed to **** it up already?

Xavi6 · 08-09-2009 10:14am

To put a positive spin on things, it seems they're only reporting big clubs :cool:

jaykay74 · 08-09-2009 10:20am

Xavi6 wrote: »

To put a positive spin on things, it seems they're only reporting big clubs :cool:

I think wealthy is the term you were reaching for

SlickRic · 08-09-2009 10:48am

i'm just laughing at how all of a sudden everyone's coming out of the woodwork.

i know the katuka deal has given all these youth set-ups an opportunity to air their grievances, but i have a feeling it might become a bit of a joke...especially if the Pogba farce was anything to go by.

Hobart · 08-09-2009 11:01am

jaykay74 wrote: »

I think wealthy is the term you were reaching for

zing....

Mitch Connor · 08-09-2009 11:03am

City are, unsurprisingly, denying that they have done anything wrong.

I know we are getting on to hypocritical ground here, but does anyone else think the actions claimed by the french sides are wrong? For the Helan and Pogba cases (maybe the Kakuta case too, i don't know) the French clubs are saying they have pre-contracts signed by the kids at the age of 13, and that is the basis of their complaints.

Does anyone else think it is wrong that a 13 year old should be allowed to sign, and be held to a contract of such importance?

I do believe the clubs deserve compensation for the time, and money, that they have invested in the development of these kids, but to claim ownership of them from the age of 13 simply seems wrong imo.

whatawaster · 08-09-2009 11:06am

Mitch Connor wrote: »

City are, unsurprisingly, denying that they have done anything wrong.

I know we are getting on to hypocritical ground here, but does anyone else think the actions claimed by the french sides are wrong? For the Helan and Pogba cases (maybe the Kakuta case too, i don't know) the French clubs are saying they have pre-contracts signed by the kids at the age of 13, and that is the basis of their complaints.

Does anyone else think it is wrong that a 13 year old should be allowed to sign, and be held to a contract of such importance?

I do believe the clubs deserve compensation for the time, and money, that they have invested in the development of these kids, but to claim ownership of them from the age of 13 simply seems wrong imo.

Is it not more wrong for foreign clubs to then themselves claim ownership of them, offer inducements to their parents and then, with about 90% certainty, dump them when they are 18 or 19?
Almost nothing about this system is right, but it is what it is.

Mitch Connor · 08-09-2009 11:11am

whatawaster wrote: »

Is it not more wrong for foreign clubs to then themselves claim ownership of them, offer inducements to their parents and then, with about 90% certainty, dump them when they are 18 or 19?
Almost nothing about this system is right, but it is what it is.

But i don't see foreign clubs claiming ownership of them, not from the age of 13 like these french clubs are doing. As for inducements, i couldn't care less if City (or United, or Chelsea) offered the family a home in Manchester (or London) as an incentive to sign their first pro contract with them as opposed to another club, just like with senior players a club may offer more wages or a bigger signing on fee or other such contract clauses.

United missed out on Gascoigne when he left Newcastle, because Spurs offered to buy his family a house in London. nothing wrong with that imo, they negotiated better than United did.

Karmafaerie · 08-09-2009 11:17am

Mitch Connor wrote: »

But i don't see foreign clubs claiming ownership of them, not from the age of 13 like these french clubs are doing. As for inducements, i couldn't care less if City (or United, or Chelsea) offered the family a home in Manchester (or London) as an incentive to sign their first pro contract with them as opposed to another club, just like with senior players a club may offer more wages or a bigger signing on fee or other such contract clauses.

United missed out on Gascoigne when he left Newcastle, because Spurs offered to buy his family a house in London. nothing wrong with that imo, they negotiated better than United did.

It's not just French clubs.

Ask the Spanish clubs what they think of English clubs poaching their youngsters.

Pique, Fabregeas, Pacheco etc.

Mitch Connor · 08-09-2009 11:23am

Karmafaerie wrote: »

It's not just French clubs.

Ask the Spanish clubs what they think of English clubs poaching their youngsters.

Pique, Fabregeas, Pacheco etc.

whatever, the nationality of the club is unimportant to my point. I don't think it is right that a club should be able to tie a 13 year old down to a contract.

Yes, if the player leaves after years of tuition the club should be compensated, and they should automatically (imo) be entitled to a percentage, proportionaly to his time at the original club, of what he is later sold for. United, or any other club, shouldn't be able to grab kids form other academies completely free - compensation should be due. However, i simply think that until a player actually signs a pro-form, he should be free to chose where he feels his football development would be best served. This could be helped by Uefa/Fifa implementing a rule where the age that a player can sign his first pro-form is uniform throughout every country and league.

whatawaster · 08-09-2009 11:27am

I personally believe that no club should be allowed sign foreign youngsters under the age of 18, and if they choose to do so after the age of 18 the original club gets compensation every time that player is transferred.
It would help protect the young players as well as help clubs in small countries, ie: Ireland

Mitch Connor · 08-09-2009 11:35am

whatawaster wrote: »

I personally believe that no club should be allowed sign foreign youngsters under the age of 18, and if they choose to do so after the age of 18 the original club gets compensation every time that player is transferred.
It would help protect the young players as well as help clubs in small countries, ie: Ireland

Too rigid imo - this is real life we are talking about too, there has to be some freedom of movement, especially within Europe. You simply can't stop kids moving countries in such a blanket manner imo. What if there is a 14 year old kid playing for an italian side. His parents, for whatever reasons, believe a move to England, or Spain (whereever) is right for them as a family - say the parents have been offered their dream jobs there. You are saying that the family either has to turn down that opportunity, leave the kid behind, or have the kid give up on his football dream.

Look at Messi as a very high profile example. Signed to Barcelona at 12 or 13 as his club in Argentina couldn't afford the medical treatment he needed at the time (growth hormones i think). Barcelona were a better club for Messi to be at, in every respect. Had he not been allowed to move there, we might not have seen him become the talent he has since become.

With regards to signing a player over the age of 18 and the original club having to be compensated for every subsequent move, I would completely disagree with that. At that point he will have signed his first pro contract, and once his club sell him on I don't see why they should be able to claim percentage of sale from anyone but the club they sell him too.

Headshot · 08-09-2009 11:56am

City a big club = lol

Cant wait to see how this turns out and why any youngster would go to city at this moment in time is beyond me

Mitch Connor · 08-09-2009 12:02pm

Headshot wrote: »

City a big club = lol

Cant wait to see how this turns out and why any youngster would go to city at this moment in time is beyond me

with all the signings, maybe you do have a point. But, over the last 5 years or so City have brought through a number of talented players and have always given them a chance. Onuha, Richards, Ireland, Johnson, Sturridge etc. there youth team is also still very strong and they have a good academy set up. not a terrible choice for a young footballer.

Headshot · 08-09-2009 12:07pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

with all the signings, maybe you do have a point. But, over the last 5 years or so City have brought through a number of talented players and have always given them a chance. Onuha, Richards, Ireland, Johnson, Sturridge etc. there youth team is also still very strong and they have a good academy set up. not a terrible choice for a young footballer.

That was before the money came in,money always changes things

Xavi6 · 08-09-2009 12:13pm

Headshot wrote: »

That was before the money came in,money always changes things

True, look at how successful United's youth academy has been since the 'Gelden Generation' in the early 90s before they started winning things regularly and bringing in the big bucks.

mike65 · 08-09-2009 12:15pm

Crewe are having a moan as well, unnamed club (read Liverpool) nicking talent.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iA87ax5OOcY8DoazARkrYk7aosiA

Flavour of the month...

fullstop · 08-09-2009 12:15pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

To put a positive spin on things, it seems they're only reporting big clubs :cool:

So why are they reporting City

Pro. F · 08-09-2009 12:17pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I know we are getting on to hypocritical ground here, but does anyone else think the actions claimed by the french sides are wrong? For the Helan and Pogba cases (maybe the Kakuta case too, i don't know) the French clubs are saying they have pre-contracts signed by the kids at the age of 13, and that is the basis of their complaints.

Does anyone else think it is wrong that a 13 year old should be allowed to sign, and be held to a contract of such importance?

I do believe the clubs deserve compensation for the time, and money, that they have invested in the development of these kids, but to claim ownership of them from the age of 13 simply seems wrong imo.

I would think that if the development clubs are to be rewarded then long contracts are needed. Maybe the longer the contracts (within reason) the better for the kids too - if it reduces the likelyhood of the kids moving around and being gambled on by the big clubs and then left out to dry when it doesn't work out.

With regards to the fact of whether 13 year olds should be committing to big long contracts I don't think there is a problem as long as their parents are the actual ones doing the signing and therefore making the decisions, which i presume is the case. Then it's just like many other big decisions that parents have to make for their kids.

I presume that youth developement in Europe would benefit from standardised UEFA youth contract regulations. If i understand correctly the problem is that the different nations have different contract law ?

I think it would be a good idea if there was no international transfers of kids until the age of 18 or so. Although i haven't thought that through very much so maybe there is a terrible flaw in that idea.

String · 08-09-2009 12:38pm

Fifa "confirms" complaint

Fifa has confirmed it is investigating a complaint by Rennes against Manchester City over the signing of Jeremy Helan.

Rennes' technical director Pierre Dreossi revealed that the French club had lodged a complaint to Fifa after City's signing of Helan earlier this year.

Sky Sports News understands Rennes lodged their complaint with Fifa as early as last Spring as Rennes believe the 17-year-old was poached from them by City.

Fifa said in a statement: "We can confirm that there is a case pending with Fifa's Player Status Department involving Jeremy Helan, Stade Rennais FC and Manchester City."

If found guilty of inducing a youngster to break a contract, City could well find themselves in hot water with football's governing body after Chelsea were recently banned from signing new players until January 2011 over their pursuit of Gael Kakuta.

However, City are expected to contest the complaint, and are likely to argue that there was already a civil court dispute in France between Helan and Rennes before they signed the teenager.

This is starting to be a joke. Next liverpool or arsenal.... Fifa definitly just picking on english clubs. Loads of European definitly guilty of paying parents etc

whatawaster · 08-09-2009 12:43pm

DrMorphine wrote: »

Fifa "confirms" complaint

This is starting to be a joke. Next liverpool or arsenal.... Fifa definitly just picking on english clubs. Loads of European clubs could be guilty of paying parents etc

slight flaw in your argument there

whatawaster · 08-09-2009 12:47pm

DrMorphine wrote: »

happy sir?

no. now you're making uninformed assumptions.
It's not the paying off parents that i think is the issue, it's breaching contracts and in particular clubs encouraging young players to do so.

String · 08-09-2009 12:50pm

whatawaster wrote: »

no. now you're making uninformed assumptions.
It's not the paying off parents that i think is the issue, it's breaching contracts and in particular clubs encouraging young players to do so.

Final say comes down to the parents. Young players need parents signature for transfers

Dave147 · 08-09-2009 1:01pm

You also spelled definitely wrong. Twice.

Unearthly · 08-09-2009 1:02pm

Fifa have only punished Chelsea so far. The rest are just complaints received.

Hardly massive proof there is an anti English club agenda going on.

Soby · 08-09-2009 3:56pm

This is actually getting ridiculous..Its more these clubs are getting jealous they lost players now and just reporting clubs left right and centre..If its a case City and Utd are innocent i hope they do go forward and sue

Pro. F · 08-09-2009 5:52pm

Interesting article on the guardian today. I didn't realise the ban on international under 18 transfers was so far along. I wonder will/are the big clubs be able to get around it very easily by getting jobs for the parents and such.

The Chelsea chief executive, Peter Kenyon, believes rival clubs are shocked that Fifa banned them from signing players over their deal for the French teenager Gaël Kakuta.

Kenyon said at a European Club Association (ECA) meeting that Kakuta was also shocked that his move in 2007 was judged as a breach of contract. Fifa last week ruled on a complaint by Lens, and imposed a transfer ban on Chelsea until January 2011.

"I think there is a general shock," Kenyon told reporters. "Gaël is shocked like a lot of other people. He is a very good young man, he is a good professional. He wants to develop his career and he has just been selected for international duty."

Kenyon said Chelsea had to "ensure that he is fully supported at what is a difficult time for him."

He said Kakuta's move was "in no way" a case of child trafficking – the phrase the Uefa president, Michel Platini, has used to describe international transfers of players aged under 18, and said Chelsea would mount the strongest possible appeal against the decision.

The case will eventually be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport but no timetable has been set for the hearing or verdict.

The subject of signing young players was highlighted at the assembly in Geneva of the ECA, which represents 144 of Europe's wealthiest clubs. Kenyon, who sits on the lobby group's 15-man ruling board, said he was not at odds with the ECA's support for moves by Uefa and Fifa to ban international transfers of under-18s.

"It has been talked about for the last 12 months and Chelsea have signed up fully to the ECA and Uefa's position, along with Fifa's," Kenyon said. "But we need to separate our overall position with the specific case. The fact we are appealing tells you our position."

The Uefa general secretary, David Taylor, who also attended the ECA meetings, said Chelsea should not have been surprised at the Fifa transfer ban.

"This is the general direction in which we are heading," Taylor said. "All groups agreed that there should be this transfer ban on minors. We are now looking specifically at ways and means of how that can be implemented."

Fifa regulates international transfers and allows some exceptions for under-18s to move, if their parents move countries to work or their new club is close to a neighbouring border.

A third exception exists for transfers within the 27-nation European Union, because its labour laws class 16- and 17-year-olds as workers with equal rights to free movement. Taylor said Uefa and Fifa are working on a detailed proposal to help persuade the EU to close that loophole.

"Until it is implemented we have the current system," he said. "Any decisions or cases must rely not on what might be the case in the future, but what is the case just now."