Chelsea banned from buying any new players

[METALMAN]

It was forced upon Livingston for five years or something.

[Crybaby Bunting]

The more I think about it, the more I fear that Newcastle HAVE been given a similar suspension. Their only two signings this summer was a loan guy and a free agent... both would probably be the grey area as far as this is concerned ¬_¬

[IAceI]

Isn't Newcastle just a case of Ashley isn't going to put more funds into something he clearly doesn't want and as long as he's in charge then no one else can put in any money to the club. Hence why they've sold all the players who don't want to play in the championship and re-signed a player who couldn't get a contract anywhere else and loaned a player who, despite one thousand loan deals, can't get a permanent contract to save his life.

That was my assumption on the Newcastle part. Not a case of they can't because they're not allowed but they can't because they aren't able to.

[Herr Matzat]

This is shit, they might actualy win something important if they are forced to work as a team instead of just a bunch of overpayed players comming and going.

And of cause you can´t ban them from signing players. But it´s Fifas game, nd if the Fifa sais that this player is not alowed to play he issent.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Michael Matzat on a Plane

[Lord Nibbler]

This happened to Roma when they signed Mexes. They appealed and it got reduced to 1 transfer window.

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

[stokeriño]

Sure, Matzat... Chelsea's squad is just a bunch of individuals who keep coming and going, they don't work as a 'team'. That's why the senior squad has barely changed in the last two years, and each of the last three coaches have cited the team resolve/cohesion/spirit/etc. as one of Chelsea's greatest strengths. :/

[Nerf]

stoke's a Chelsea fan then?

I hope they are denied an appeal. Their entire squad is just a team of players that are paid tons. I don't agree with Matzat's comment about 'coming and going' but he's right in the sense that the only reason Chelsea are half as good as they are now is because they've got a billionaire's backing, and it's ridiculous.

[stokeriño]

I fail to see where Matzat said that. Of course Chelsea are only as good as they are because they've had the 'sugar daddy' money. Just like most other teams would be better/worse off by varying degrees if they did/didn't have the financial support their owners lend them.

(The exception is QPR, who apparently no amount of money can improve )

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Chelsea and Spurs are the two top teams that have really started well so far this season and the thing they have in common is very minimal first time changes since January.

I know that the only change Tottenham have really made with new players up to now was starting Bassong. Apart from that the other ten have been in and around the first team for months and months now. Of course that will be forced to change now that Modric is busted up...But the media seem to be talking about the squad "togetherness" at Spurs and, as stok said, Chelsea's team is also very stable looking these days and there seems to be a good attitude between the players.

That's partly why embargo or not, I personally think Chelsea will win the league this season...

[TheArsenal]

I like this simply because on the first page in the "Recently added topics" bit it reads:

"Chelsea banned from buying new players by stokerino"

I thought, 'Where did he get that kind of power?'

[stokeriño]

I was drunk, I swear!

[stokeriño]

Chelsea's official response (nothing unexpected, of course):

Chelsea will mount the strongest appeal possible following the decision of FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber over Gaël Kakuta.

The sanctions are without precedent to this level and totally disproportionate to the alleged offence and the financial penalty imposed.

We cannot comment further until we receive the full written rationale for this extraordinarily arbitrary decision.

[Darloboy]

Fantastic news, too bad it'll get reduced or probably even thrown out on appeal.

[Guest Ringmaster]

It's good to see Chelsea being punished for cheating.

This. Guess Frank Arnesen's youth scouting is going to have to pay off now

FIFA's making an example of Chelsea and I fully expect this to be downgraded to maybe one window, but it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of scoundrels. This is what you get for trying to get Mutu to retire :@. And dodgy dealings :@.

It'd be nice if FIFA started doing this more often. Well, as long as Harry Redknapp stops tapping up players, that is

[Blue Rosler]

Apparently they upheld the ban of Al Kuwait when they got them. I really hope they stick to their guns and keep it till 2011.

[stokeriño]

The latest rumour is that Manchester United might be next, for a supposed illegal approach for Paul Pogba (who?) from La Harve.

The question I'm wondering is...why does it mostly seem to be French clubs?

[Liam]

I've got no real issue with Chelsea being banned, but I find it ludicrous that teams like Man United, who have done this for years, have managed to avoid something similar.

It's somewhat similar to the Eduardo diving incident, as they seem to have chosen one team (or player in the Eduardo incident) to arbitrarily punish, out of many others they can probably do as well.

EDIT: Didn't see Stoker's post....cool.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Jushin 'Thunder' Liam

[YI]

This is incredibly injust and harsh.

It's almost as bad as the Mutu thi... ¬_¬

But seriously, I'm getting the feeling that if this stands, then it's going to cause one hell of a predicament for many other clubs. I'm sure there was at least two Manchester United players who broke their contracts with an Italian club to join, and there's also Jonas at Newcastle which could fuck things up for our future if we ever get promoted and need new players >_<

The Jonas thing was a bit different from what I remember...he'd put in a transfer request, they were like "alright"...but when bids came in for him they were like "fuck off"...so he had rights to terminate his contract. It was dodgy, but there was definitely something to do with an accepted transfer request in there.

And the reason we haven't signed anyone is just that Ashley doesn't (rightfully to be honest) want to throw even more money into something he's already apparently selling at a loss.

Edited September 4, 2009 by YI

[Baddar]

The latest;

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.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Baddar D

[Bryan Blade]

Bout time for them. They shoud of done this when they tapped up cole