Just In, chelsea found Guilty by FA

BrookieD

from the BBC sport The FA have found Cole, Chelsea and "The Speical one" Guilty of tapping up charges....

More to follow


Click Here for Story

~Rebel~

Good Stuff. Heh, just went to football 365 to see if was any more updates on it and noticed a few type-o's just under saying
"Bent Excited After Compleying £25m Charlton Move"
Funny how much difference a . can make!

<edit> they fixed the decimal point thing almost straight away

LizardKing

What can they do to reprimand them for this .. just a fine or can they ban them from game for a few months or something ???

~Rebel~

Heres the story from Football365

- http://www.football365.com/news/premiership_news/story_153898.shtml

Jose Mourinho and Chelsea have been found guilty of `tapping up' Ashley Cole at a hotel meeting in which the England and Arsenal defender was deemed a compliant participant.

Cole jetted in from New York to attend today's meeting at Premier League headquarters personally, hours after playing for England in yesterday's 3-2 win over Colombia.

He was found in breach of Premier League rule K5, which prohibited him from approaching Chelsea with a view to negotiating a transfer, without permission from Arsenal.

Chelsea were determined to have broken rule K3, forbidding them approaching Cole by any means while under contract. Cole's deal still has two years left to run.

Mourinho was in breach of rule Q, governing managers' conduct.

The Premier League acted following newspaper reports in January that Cole, Mourinho and Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon met at the Royal Park Hotel at Lancaster Gate, London, launching an investigation seven days after the initial allegations.

Charges against Cole, Mourinho and Chelsea were made in March, with an independent commission hearing the case on May 17-18.

All parties have 14 days in which to appeal.

A statement from the Premier League confirmed that the chairman of the independent commission, Sir Phillip Otton, was continuing to take "statements
of mitigation'' with a view to delivering appropriate sanctions to Cole, Chelsea and Mourinho.

Details of punishments following the guilty verdicts were expected later today.

Chelsea's `super agent' Pini Zahavi was also alleged to have been at the Lancaster Gate meeting, as was Cole's representative Jonathan Barnett.

However, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Premier League and therefore there could not be any imposition on them today, however the Premier League can pass on the independent commission's findings to the Football Association.

The charges were laid on March 23, after the Premier League carried out initial investigations, with a view to seeing if there was a case for anyone to answer.

Mourinho led Chelsea to the Barclays Premiership title in his first season at Stamford Bridge.

Chelsea seem likely to avoid the maximum penalty of being docked points, possibly from the start of next season, or a block on transfer activity this summer.

It appears more likely they will instead be fined - possibly up to £250,000 - with one of the biggest financial penalties ever handed out, but still relatively small change for billionaire owner Roman Abramovich.

Cole seems set to face a fine, which would be likely to place greater strain on his relations with Arsenal, while Mourinho could face a similar punishment.

The fines are expected to dwarf the Premier League's existing record to Liverpool of £20,000 for making an illegal approach to Christian Ziege, while he was at Middlesbrough in 2000.

The Germany defender was fined £10,000, while Aston Villa were more recently warned and ordered to pay costs for making an illegal approach to James Beattie in 2004.

The record fine meted out to an English club currently stands at the £1.5million which Tottenham were ordered to pay after being found guilty of illegal payments to players in 1994.

Cole's legal team had been understood to be considering a defence that players should be entitled to talk to other clubs at any time during their contracts.

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger had warned of "chaos'' if they had succeeded.

redspider

A fine for Chelsea/Abramovich even of 250k is like taking some sand from the Arabs - absolutely useless. Even a fine against a player is of no use.

I think the best way to hit clubs is to dock them points. So, for Chelsea, although the tapping up did occur last year, they would have to take off points this year for the punishment to have any effect. They could take off points for the season just gone, but with Chelea's large lead it wouldnt make any difference. The FA (and Uefa) need rules in place as to what the punishment should be for these types of things. I would think that 3 pts may be enough for single breaching negotiation/approach regulations.

And for the player, probably missing 4 games. If a Manager is involved, also a stadium/communications ban for 4 matches. (They should be made to watch a match at the FA headquarters or something, juvenile perhaps, but effective).

The time of fining clubs and players money is long gone as it is no longer effective as a deterrent.

Redspider

ps: can they not just arrest Roman and put him in jail for 9 years and take away all his money (like Khodorkovsky)? seems fair to me.

A Dub in Glasgo

Chelsea were fined £300,000 and given a suspended three-point deduction for their involvement.

Arsenal defender Cole was handed a £100,000 fine, while Blues manager Jose Mourinho will have to pay £200,000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/4596209.stm

So it is effectively a signing on fee for RA to pay - £600k. A suspended 3 point deduction.. WTF!

eirebhoy

I actually think a suspended x amount of points is they way to go. As long as Chelsea are cought tapping up someone else within a certain time limit of a season or more, they will be deducted points. It should be like the legal system. First offence, get off lightly. From then on in there'll be stronger action. No fixed punishments.

Memnoch

just out of curiosity, why is tapping up such a big deal? I don't see why players shoulnd't be allowed to talk to whomever they please? After all once they sign a contract they still can't break it willy nilly without repurcussions. So why this bid deal about it? I'm not saying in regards to chelsea specifically but just in general?

Football is competitive so is getting good players? Why not leave it open ?

Chucky the tree

jesus, if what bannor says about real having proof of them tapping up ronaldo, they must be delighted. Thats a fairly useful bargining tip.

Big Ears

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So it is effectively a signing on fee for RA to pay - £600k. A suspended 3 point deduction.. WTF!

Well it effectively means £600,000 towards the new Wembley or grass roots football in England and that Chelsea act like every other club and tap up in private using just agents and phone calls .

case n basket

Meaningless fine for Chelsea, Arsenal are the real losers here. Because Arsenal have justly persued this, Cole is in a difficult position and could now leave. If he doesn't, he'll probably end up on a bigger contract than he would have been before the controversy (which will cost Arsenal far more monetarily than Sibneft).

PHB

What is a suspended deducation? Could they get it imposed next season in like November for any sort of offense or does it have to be tapping up?

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

What is a suspended deducation? Could they get it imposed next season in like November for any sort of offense or does it have to be tapping up?

I presume a suspended deduction is the same as a suspended sentence. Doesn't say how long a period though. Probably infinite.

Mossy Monk

ban them from the transfer market they should

Gileadi

totally outragous fine i think,if it had been west brom tapping up some player you rarely heard of do you think they would have got a 300,000 grand fine??? becuase whats the diffrence

also united have been playing that game a fair bit in the past few years with robben or rvn saying he was at old trafford without clubs permission so abit of hypocracy (sp) if united fans come out screaming for blood....USA USA

TheMonster

Gileadi wrote:

if united fans come out screaming for blood....USA USA

Post that before you went to school did you? Does your teacher not teach you to use punctuation?

TheMonster

eirebhoy wrote:

I presume a suspended deduction is the same as a suspended sentence. Doesn't say how long a period though. Probably infinite.

From BBC

A fine of £300,000 and 3 points will be deducted, only to be activated in the event of a Rule K3 offence being committed during the 2005/06 Premier League season and at the discretion of the Disciplinary Commission dealing with that further offence

LizardKing

They ALL appear to be putting in appeals to the findings ... The fines although large are really nothing to a club like Chelsea and the money Mourinho and Cole earn they can pay up without much of a dent in there pockets ... I think Kenyon Should have been fined too or perhaps given fifty lashes or exiled ....

eirebhoy

I doubt they're going to go tapping up anyone now next season as they risk losing 3 points so I think it was a fair punishment. Certainly fairer than Liverpool's fine for tapping up Ziege.

Gileadi

1st monster no i didnt post it before school for your information,afaik most secondary schools are finished by now anyway be the amount of people around the public parks during the day

is there any precedent of a cheif exec being fined before by the FA,as far as i recall its always down to the club to pick up the fines

also i dont think this is going to stop much of the tapping up that goes on in chelsea and most clubs presumably just it will teach them to be far more discreet about it,when you think about it it was idiocy of chelseas part to go into a hotel room and you would think kenyon would have known better even if JM didnt

TheMonster

Everyone does it. I think what annoys people here is how blatant and open Chelsea were about it, as if they thought they were above the law.

abccormac

Coles solicitor has said the fine will be appeales in the civil courts if necessary. If the appeal succeeds, it would have massive implications for the game as a whole. This could be the beginning of something as big as the bosman case. Cole is claiming that preventing him from speaking to other potential employers while under contract is an unfair restraint on trade, and from a legal point of view he may be right. If anybody here wants to leave their job they only have to give a few weeks notice, and Coles legal team are apparently going to argue that a football player shouldn't be any different.

Ping Chow Chi

in The Sun it said that this sort of thing is allowed in most other Euro contries already.

It does seems strange that you would not be allowed to talk to potential employers without your current employers say so.

LizardKing

Football players should be different ... they earn about 5 times our average annual salaries every week .. The clubs are investing an astronomical amount of money in them and should be "in the loop" if the player is looking around for new clubs , so they can think about selling off there asset ... otherwise he can wait for his contract to expire and go on a free ...

redspider

Memnoch wrote:

just out of curiosity, why is tapping up such a big deal?

The problem with approaches is that it can affect the players performance. In this case, Arsenal were competing with Chelsea, so if Chelsea can influence a player with lucrative contracts, it can affect results and benefit Chelsea. This is unlike say other jobs, for eample, say someone working in a factory. Their day to day job is unlikely to be severely impacted if offered a job elsewhere as the number of workers available in the marketplace to do the job with the same skill level is very large and the market is open, ie: new factories can open up at any time and compete.

Football is an unusual marketplace in many respects and it will be continually tested as to whether its rules and regulations are legal/fair/etc. eg: salary caps in the 50's, freedom of contract (Jimmy Hill) in the 60's, freedom of movement (Bosman) in the 90's.

There are other problems with the sport not yet addressed. For example, players out on loan. Should it be allowed that say an Arsenal player is put out on loan and he plays against teams which are competing against Arsenal? That gives the larger clubs the advantage of having 1.something teams playing each weekend! That has to change imo. Players should be allowed to go out on loan, but not to play in any competition in which the loaning club is competing. eg: Crespo saying that he wanted to beat Liverpool in the CL final because of what they did to Chelsea, or indeed Crespo playing against Man U!

Redspider

redspider

abccormac wrote:

Coles solicitor has said the fine will be appeales in the civil courts if necessary. If the appeal succeeds, it would have massive implications for the game as a whole. This could be the beginning of something as big as the bosman case. Cole is claiming that preventing him from speaking to other potential employers while under contract is an unfair restraint on trade, and from a legal point of view he may be right. If anybody here wants to leave their job they only have to give a few weeks notice, and Coles legal team are apparently going to argue that a football player shouldn't be any different.

Yes, there are employment laws that protect you. However, you need to think abou football in a different way at times. It is a sport with rules. For example, it could bring in a rule that if a player is deemed to have been affected by an approach, then perhaps the reprimand may be, you are not allowed to play in the league for the following season. It doesnt prevent a club from employing the player though, so employment and playing are two different things.

Football and the Law have a lot of collisions to go through in time.

Redspider

Balfa

It doesn't really matter how big a deal tapping up is. It's against the rules, and so they should be punished. And whoever said chelsea should be given the same punishment as some team in the lower divisions, you're off yer head. Punishment in the judicial system always takes the defendants net worth into account :rolleyes:

Jivin Turkey

Balfa wrote:

Punishment in the judicial system always takes the defendants net worth into account :rolleyes:

Yeah, like rich people always get worse sentances than poorer people :rolleyes:

Chelsea are getting screwed in comparison to what Liverpool got. But despite the fines I doubt they really care about the money, its more the principal. Apparently the contacts were all made between the agents and that Mourinho had very little to do with it, if thats the case and knowing his ego I cant see him taking the punishment lying down.

applehunter

This happens all the time. Chelsea are bing made an example of to try and deter a it happening in future.

Really boring and uninteresting story.

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PHB

Hey Jiven, you ever hear Man Utd supporters bitch about the length of time the ban for Rio was?

Chelsea, welcome to the top, examples will be made

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Hey Jiven, you ever hear Man Utd supporters bitch about the length of time the ban for Rio was?

Chelsea, welcome to the top, examples will be made

I dont understand what this is trying to prove. I dont hear too many Chelsea fans bitching.

Jaap Stam played for a top club and didnt get a lengthy ban for a positive drugs test. Was that an example being made?

PHB

Ain't that many Chelsea fans on this board, but on other boards they are seriously bitching at the 3 point suspensions, not about the money, cause you know it don't matter.
CHelsea are now at the top, and if they do something wrong and get caught, and the FA want to stop that act in general, they will be made an example of

Jaap Stam played for a top club and didnt get a lengthy ban for a positive drugs test. Was that an example being made?

The English FA like to make examples of top clubs, and FIFA likes to support that, since you know, they hate the English clubs.

redspider

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Jaap Stam played for a top club and didnt get a lengthy ban for a positive drugs test. Was that an example being made?

The Jaap Stam case is a very interesting one. Essentially he was playing in England for Man U, and was off-loaded rapidly to Italy (after his fall-out with Ferguson) and lo and behold in no time at all he was caught for drug taking. The type of drug he was taking was also of the sort that must be used long-term and on a regular basis to have a positive effect, so in all likelihood (99.9%) he was taking this drug whilst at Man U (and whilst playing for Holland!). Drugs testing is left to national associations to handle, but in the Jaap Stam case there was a clear difference between England's system and Italy's.

I dont know or didnt look-up the severity of the punishment that Stam got, but perhaps one reason why his punishment may have been lenient is that the Italian FA thought that he was on the drugs before he entered Serie A.

In terms of the fairness in football, it seems unfair that a player can play in one league and not get tested whilst in another league a player would get caught. I'm not happy with the way that drugs are tested for in football across Europe, say compared with other sports. There's also a fine line between drugs and performance enhancing foods, as Arsene Wenger knows For me, there are drugs problems remaining in the sport and could become a big issue at some point, via a whistleblower/book or something. Uefa and the associations are partially complicit I think.

Redspider

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Ain't that many Chelsea fans on this board, but on other boards they are seriously bitching at the 3 point suspensions, not about the money, cause you know it don't matter.
CHelsea are now at the top, and if they do something wrong and get caught, and the FA want to stop that act in general, they will be made an example of

Chelsea have been more than "made an example of". The total fine is twenty times the previous record for a tapping up (by Liverpool hardly a "small" club). The have also received this three point suspended penalty.

PHB

Thats what making an example of is, giving an overly punishing punishment. There were people who didn't take drugs tests who were literally just ignored, forgiven! So in a sense, Rio's punishment was infinity times the previous bans.
When Liverpool did it they did it with some tact, Chelsea for their blazze attitude in this whole affair have brought this upon themselves. This in turn made the FA want to make an example of them.

TheMonster

Agree PHB - The FA will readily admit that tapping goes on(usually behind the scenes and is very hard to prove) but the fact Chelsea were so upfront and open about it made it easy for them to be made an example of. Being so open Chelsea basically made a statement that they have enought money that don't care about being caught. The threatened points deduction might change that.
If they found guilty of tapping up the Nigerian kid could the sanction be introduced straightaway.

PHB

If thats the case, I'd imagine it would be 3 points + more, considering the precedent set now