Chelsea banned from buying any new players

[Rich]

I think this is a really positive step for FIFA to take, even if the ban is reduced or thrown out all together it at least shows thye are willing to take steps to try and stamp this sort of thing out in football, its nice to see that the top teams can't just bound in arrogantly and swallow up any player of their choosing without the consent of the player's current club or giving them anywhere near the appropriate level of compensation.

And for Chelsea to come out and say "its unprecendented at this level" is a bit of an exaggeration, i seem to remember Roma getting a ban for the Phillipe Mexes transfer a number of years ago.

It must be more than a little annoying to Chelsea supporters, but thats what you get when you have Peter Kenyon in charge of your club

[TheArsenal]

No, no, no. The best bit is:

FIFA have said if Chelsea fail in their appeal then the ban gets lengthened!!

Edited September 5, 2009 by TheArsenal

[Crybaby Bunting]

That's brilliant, it also means that every single team in the future that gets charged for similar offences may be wary of appealing.

But yeah, this is like the fourth time that this has happened and I'm sure that Chelsea got a suspended 3-point penalty from the Ashley Cole thing a while ago (which could result in that being enforced as well as this). I don't think they can get their way out of this, especially if each of the teams that have been wronged by Chelsea give evidence against Chelsea. It's pathetic that they've got this without prior warning, but that's what happens when you do dodgy things with contracted players.

[Big Red Fury]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this but from what I understand the player had signed an agreement I think when he was 14 to sign on professional terms when he turned 16. I believe that is a common occurrence in Europe, but anyway he had done that and Chelsea apparently came in and convinced him to not sign that contract, possibly by paying a large sum of money to the player's parents. Lens argued that this amounted to breach of contract and apparently FIFA agreed. The lines become a little blurred for me because in the US minors are allowed to breach contracts in most cases though I'm not sure how that would work in a case like this but I would think that the player would have some recourse for breaching, though the EU might not give minors the same powers.

[Crybaby Bunting]

There's a good chance that the guy got a fixed amount of money when he agreed to the pre-contract, which means that breaching that would not only be breaching the future contract, but he's also making money out of the club for doing so.

[Big Red Fury]

There's a good chance that the guy got a fixed amount of money when he agreed to the pre-contract, which means that breaching that would not only be breaching the future contract, but he's also making money out of the club for doing so.

I suppose I failed to mention that minors here also have to provide restitution in the case that they have already received goods of some sort when they want to breach a contract. I don't understand why the player couldn't just repay that money(likely out of Chelsea's pocket) and have all be forgiven.

[Crybaby Bunting]

Man United are thinking of suing Le Havre unless they drop their complaint to the FA.

Source

A Premier League team has illegally made an approach for a player from Crewe

Source

This isn't going to die down soon, and I'm glad it isn't.

[stokeriño]

Really seems like a knee-jerk defence from United. Much in the same way that most corporations these days seem to immediately yell "FUCK YOU, WE'LL SUE!" as soon as anyone mentions their name.

I mean, honestly (and I may just not understand the legal details well enough here): if they sue La Harve for these allegations, presumably the result of that depends almost entirely on whether La Harve's own case with FIFA deems their allegations to be true or false...thus saving United nothing in the meantime? A double-or-nothing stake, as it were?

Still, apparently the best defence is a good offence. If it's simply posturing to try and make La Harve back down so that the case is never even heard, that's pathetic.

Don't know about the Crewe one. Would that be an FA matter or would it go straight to FIFA as well? Not to mention that it would seem to be different from the others if only in the sense that the player didn't actually move. Whether that would change the punishment (if it actually happened etc. etc.), who knows.

[Guest Ringmaster]

Except it's not about Le Havre lodging a complaint with FIFA, it's about making allegations and probably has to do with the fact that Le Havre's chairman is going around the radio in France calling the Mancs crooks and thieves and referring to the club as a "distasteful cactus" (yeah, I don't get it either ). I don't really think this has to do with the complaint to FIFA, it's more about slander, which, sadly, all clubs seem prickly about nowadays.

[TheArsenal]

Really seems like a knee-jerk defence from United. Much in the same way that most corporations these days seem to immediately yell "FUCK YOU, WE'LL SUE!" as soon as anyone mentions their name.

I mean, honestly (and I may just not understand the legal details well enough here): if they sue La Harve for these allegations, presumably the result of that depends almost entirely on whether La Harve's own case with FIFA deems their allegations to be true or false...thus saving United nothing in the meantime? A double-or-nothing stake, as it were?

Still, apparently the best defence is a good offence. If it's simply posturing to try and make La Harve back down so that the case is never even heard, that's pathetic.

Don't know about the Crewe one. Would that be an FA matter or would it go straight to FIFA as well? Not to mention that it would seem to be different from the others if only in the sense that the player didn't actually move. Whether that would change the punishment (if it actually happened etc. etc.), who knows.

Surely it would just be a matter of "tapping-up". Now, IIRC, Chelsea got off with a suspended sentence, of I think 12 months when they tapped the husband of an X Factor judge.

Edited September 8, 2009 by TheArsenal

[Big Red Fury]

Rennes are claiming City have committed an ever more clear-cut example in signing Jeremy Helen than Chelsea did. Except Lens filed the allegations right away and Rennes have said nothing for 7 months until all this happens. Strange. And we have the players ITC papers, which the French Federation somehow received "by mistake". Seems a bit to me like when you have your favorite baseball card and you trade it for a shit player and then realize that you traded it for a shit player and try to say "Nuh uh you cheated that was a mistake"

*EDIT* Also supposedly the unnamed Prem team is Liverpool.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Big Red Fury

[King Ellis]

Liverpool, really? That would surprise me, I always thought the two clubs had a good relationship.

[TheArsenal]

Rennes are claiming City have committed an ever more clear-cut example in signing Jeremy Helen than Chelsea did. Except Lens filed the allegations right away and Rennes have said nothing for 7 months until all this happens. Strange. And we have the players ITC papers, which the French Federation somehow received "by mistake". Seems a bit to me like when you have your favorite baseball card and you trade it for a shit player and then realize that you traded it for a shit player and try to say "Nuh uh you cheated that was a mistake"

*EDIT* Also supposedly the unnamed Prem team is Liverpool.

The Kakuta transfer happened more than TWO YEARS ago.

[Crybaby Bunting]

Wasn't the whole idea that the Kakuta thing has been dragging on for ages, they were just waiting for FIFA to go through the entire legal process?

Which could explain why so many clubs are being quick to complain, because they know that it could take equally as long to go through the process so want to make their cause clear early on (so clubs may be forced to give them a settlement to cover it up)

The Man City one is kinda funny though, considering their situation. But by not giving the club a settlement already it means that either A) They have no clue about it or B) They feel they have a good enough case to appeal.

[Big Red Fury]

Rennes are claiming City have committed an ever more clear-cut example in signing Jeremy Helen than Chelsea did. Except Lens filed the allegations right away and Rennes have said nothing for 7 months until all this happens. Strange. And we have the players ITC papers, which the French Federation somehow received "by mistake". Seems a bit to me like when you have your favorite baseball card and you trade it for a shit player and then realize that you traded it for a shit player and try to say "Nuh uh you cheated that was a mistake"

*EDIT* Also supposedly the unnamed Prem team is Liverpool.

The Kakuta transfer happened more than TWO YEARS ago.

I know it did, that's how long it takes for FIFA to do something conclusive. It's all a joke. I'm all for clubs being protected but when you get situations where you tie these kids into contracts sometimes as early as 13, it's all a bit farcical. Just ban transfers before they are 18, but making these kids sign agreements at 13 like the Helen deal that aren't even optional (his vested when he became a youth international) is all a bit ridiculous. These are kids, their rights need to be protected.

*EDIT* To borrow some verbiage from Blatter, it's akin to making these kids slaves.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Big Red Fury

[Crybaby Bunting]

FA hands in suspect deals to Fifa

The Football Association has sent a number of transfers to the world governing body Fifa for investigation.

"We have referred 15 cases to Fifa since January 2008," said the FA.

The paperwork has been done by the FA's transfer auditors Quest, a corporate investigations company that in the past has probed Premier League transfers.

All of them are international in nature and fall outside of the FA's remit, while Fifa is also probing other cases forwarded to them by the FA.

"In accordance with the 2008 Players' Agents Regulations, these cases fall under the Fifa disciplinary committee," said a Fifa spokesman.

Earlier this month Fifa banned Chelsea from signing any new players until January 2011 after they were found guilty of inducing Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007.

The Blues are in the process of appealing against Fifa's ruling.

The Mail on Sunday reported that the Premier League were unhappy because they had not been made aware of the list of suspicious transfer deals.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8265556.stm

I can't think of many teams that haven't bought an international player since January 2008, either this means we're going to see a lot of last minute rounds of shush money or we're going to see 10+ clubs all fucked.

Edited September 21, 2009 by The General

[Animalxer]

I love the fact that it's always the French that complain about this stuff. Tattle-Tails ¬_¬

[Crybaby Bunting]

It's usually French clubs who can get away with signing these players thanks to a legal loophole which can allow them to sign players on a pre-contract from age 16 (or younger) without any salary cap.

Meaning that they can get players from the Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Ghana amongst other countries on contracts that are more than other teams can legally afford to pay.

[stokeriño]

Manchester United have been cleared by Fifa to sign 16-year-old Paul Pogba.

French club Le Havre had claimed that they had agreed a contract with the midfielder for the current season before he went to United.

But a judge appointed by Fifa ruled that, because of his age, Le Havre could not have got an agreement for Pogba to sign a professional contract.

Chelsea were handed a transfer ban in September for inducing Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007.

"Manchester United are pleased to confirm that the Football Association has been authorised by Fifa to register Paul Pogba as a Manchester United player with immediate effect," said a statement released by the club.

The ruling means United have not broken any Fifa rules - particularly the one dealing with the protection of minors.

Fifa has advised the Football Association to register Pogba as a United player immediately.

Le Havre are able to appeal against the decision.

The judge decided Pogba was still an amateur because he only received normal expenses for playing for his club.

Last month United threatened to take legal action against the French club unless they stopped making allegations about the deal.

I'm confused. Kakuta was also 16 when he joined Chelsea in 2007. If we're to take the first bit I bolded, then exactly how valid was the contract that he's supposed to have breached?

But then there's the second bit I bolded, which seems to be an entirely disparate piece of reasoning. Was his age the factor, or was it the manner in which he was being paid?

Make your minds up, FIFA. :/