• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Ho Say Liao, Chelski kenna ban!!

Wayne Piew

Alfrescian
Loyal
Chelski will have virtually the same squad from now to January 2011.
They have an aging squad, particularly as Ballack, Lampard, Drogba, Anelka, Carvalho, Deco, Ashley Cole, all are approaching or are already in their 30s.:eek:
Good news for Sir Alex as Man United and Chelski always seem to be rivals for the same player's signature.
Franck Ribery and Sergio Aguero for Man U!:biggrin:



Chelsea have been banned from signing any new players until January 2011.

The punishment was meted out by world governing body Fifa after the club was found guilty of inducing Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007.

A Fifa statement said the Blues would not be able to register new players in the next two transfer windows.

Chelsea insist they will "mount the strongest appeal possible" and say the sanctions are "totally disproportionate to the alleged offence".

A statement from the Premier League club, who will make their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), added: "We cannot comment further until we receive the full written rationale for this extraordinarily arbitrary decision."

Fifa's dispute resolution chamber (DRC) ruled French winger Kakuta, now 18, must also pay compensation of 780,000 euros (£682,000), for which Chelsea are "jointly and severally liable".

Lens lodged a complaint with Fifa after Chelsea signed Kakuta two years ago.

Now the DRC has ruled the player breached his contract with Lens and Chelsea induced him to do so.

Fifa's statement said: "The French club had lodged a claim with Fifa seeking compensation for breach of contract from the player and requesting also sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player and the English club for breach of contract and inducement to breach of contract.

"The DRC found that the player had indeed breached a contract signed with the French club. Equally, the DRC deemed it to be established that the English club induced the player to such breach."

Chelsea must pay additional "training compensation" of 130,000 euros (£114,000) to Lens, while the player has been banned from playing in official matches for four months.

Kakuta ended 2007/8, his first season with Chelsea, as the youth team's top scorer and was voted the academy's player of the year.

He played five times for the youth team and twice for the reserves in his second season before it was brought to an abrupt end in February when he suffered a double fracture of his ankle.

The Lille-born youngster has never played for Chelsea's first team, although he is back to full fitness and has been featuring in the reserves this season.

Fifa's decision to ban Chelsea means they will not be able to sign players in the January and summer 2010 transfer windows.

"Chelsea are banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods," said the Fifa statement.

Lens president Gervais Martel said he felt the judgement was fair and would send out a warning message to any clubs breaking the rules.

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

"Chelsea didn't follow the rules. They contacted the player when he wasn't even 16 and while he had been contracted to our training group from the age of eight.

"The financial sanction isn't over the top given the nature of the infringement, but it's really quite significant when it comes to not being able to recruit players.

"It's an important message given that protecting up-and-coming youth players who are contracted to clubs is an issue being followed closely by Uefa president Michel Platini."

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

This was punishment for signing Egypt goalkeeper Essam El Hadary in 2008 before his deal with Al-Ahly had expired.

Like Kakuta, El Hadary received a four-month ban from playing.

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.

In the meantime, Chelsea have found themselves in the firing line - and leading sports lawyers said the decision to punish the Blues is a warning shot to the game's biggest clubs.

"This is an example of Fifa showing just how important it views the regulations," Dan Harrington, of sports business law firm Couchman Harrington Associates, told the BBC.

"The ramifications at the club are potentially huge."

Chelsea were fined in 2005 by the Premier League for tapping up Arsenal defender Ashley Cole.

That case may have been a factor in Fifa's punishment, according to Adam Morallee, of London law firm Mishcon de Reya.

"With Ashley Cole it was £300,000, but it didn't matter," he said, referring to what is a relatively small sum for a club backed by billionaire Roman Abramovich.

"This does matter. It's a case of a governing body laying down a punishment that actually affects a big club."

Oliver Hunt, of online law, thinks clubs will think twice before inducing a player to break a contract.

"To be effectively banned from two transfer windows is a huge, huge sanction," he told the BBC.

"That sanction is in the regulations and people will now take it very, very seriously. If I'm a lawyer advising my club, I would ensure at all times they are not seen to be inducing that breach of contract."

Pat Nevin told BBC Radio 5 live that club's have been guilty of "tapping up" players for years.

"It has gone on forever," said the ex-Chelsea winger. "If it's done in a really subtle way, usually clubs can get away with it. If Chelsea have made a mistake on this one, it's a very, very heavy price to pay."
 

Ah Guan

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is actually head talent scout Frank Arnesen's undoing

But credit must be given to this man who discovered Jaap Stam, Ronaldo, Van Nistelrooy and Robben
 

Ah Guan

Alfrescian
Loyal
no need to be so happy.
Red Devils mayl be next.

All big teams are guilty of poaching young players

Chelsea is just the first to be slapped with the FIFA ban

There is talk that Man U will be subjected to the same over a French youth player Paul Pogba .... But I hope no one else gets banned by this stupid rule
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
I don't agree with the ban and I don't think what the big clubs are doing is that bad. It may not be totally ethical, but what is totally ethical in the modern world?
Some people claim that this is akin to enticement, horse trading, the rich luring the poor, etc etc.
I disagree. In horse trading, the horses have no say. In these cases, the player and his family members / advisers had the right to choose.
As for enticement and the rich luring the poor, doesn't this happen everyday in life in all aspects of life? If the player is old enough, then the club which first spots him should sign him on a contract, which allows the club to be compensated in the event that another club comes in for him. If the player is not old enough to sign a contract, then why is the player considered "bound" to the club which first spotted him? Should they be considered to "own" him just because they were the first to spot him?
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
The punishment was meted out by world governing body Fifa after the club was found guilty of inducing Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007.

Fifa's dispute resolution chamber (DRC) ruled French winger Kakuta, now 18, must also pay compensation of 780,000 euros (£682,000), for which Chelsea are "jointly and severally liable".

Lens lodged a complaint with Fifa after Chelsea signed Kakuta two years ago.

Now the DRC has ruled the player breached his contract with Lens and Chelsea induced him to do so.

Fifa's statement said: "The French club had lodged a claim with Fifa seeking compensation for breach of contract from the player and requesting also sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player and the English club for breach of contract and inducement to breach of contract.

"The DRC found that the player had indeed breached a contract signed with the French club. Equally, the DRC deemed it to be established that the English club induced the player to such breach."




Lens president Gervais Martel said he felt the judgement was fair and would send out a warning message to any clubs breaking the rules.

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

"Chelsea didn't follow the rules. They contacted the player when he wasn't even 16 and while he had been contracted to our training group from the age of eight.

"It's an important message given that protecting up-and-coming youth players who are contracted to clubs is an issue being followed closely by Uefa president Michel Platini."


In the meantime, Chelsea have found themselves in the firing line - and leading sports lawyers said the decision to punish the Blues is a warning shot to the game's biggest clubs.

"This is an example of Fifa showing just how important it views the regulations," Dan Harrington, of sports business law firm Couchman Harrington Associates, told the BBC.

"The ramifications at the club are potentially huge."

Chelsea were fined in 2005 by the Premier League for tapping up Arsenal defender Ashley Cole.

That case may have been a factor in Fifa's punishment, according to Adam Morallee, of London law firm Mishcon de Reya.

"With Ashley Cole it was £300,000, but it didn't matter," he said, referring to what is a relatively small sum for a club backed by billionaire Roman Abramovich.

"This does matter. It's a case of a governing body laying down a punishment that actually affects a big club."

Oliver Hunt, of online law, thinks clubs will think twice before inducing a player to break a contract.

"To be effectively banned from two transfer windows is a huge, huge sanction," he told the BBC.

"That sanction is in the regulations and people will now take it very, very seriously. If I'm a lawyer advising my club, I would ensure at all times they are not seen to be inducing that breach of contract."

I don't agree with the ban and I don't think what the big clubs are doing is that bad. It may not be totally ethical, but what is totally ethical in the modern world?
Some people claim that this is akin to enticement, horse trading, the rich luring the poor, etc etc.
I disagree. In horse trading, the horses have no say. In these cases, the player and his family members / advisers had the right to choose.
As for enticement and the rich luring the poor, doesn't this happen everyday in life in all aspects of life? If the player is old enough, then the club which first spots him should sign him on a contract, which allows the club to be compensated in the event that another club comes in for him. If the player is not old enough to sign a contract, then why is the player considered "bound" to the club which first spotted him? Should they be considered to "own" him just because they were the first to spot him?
 

Ramseth

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I don't think that the ban will affect or derail Chelsea too much. There's already quite a strength-in-depth squad. As long as Carlo Ancelotti keeps the squad together and stem out any outflow, the 2-year transfer ban may be a blessing in disguise, cementing the squad together without the uncertainty of transfers movements.

Anyway, I think that Chelsea is sure to appeal and almost sure to win the appeal.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
i don't think chelsea will win the appeal 100% if there was indeed a binding contract between kakuta and lens...possible cut down on the length of the ban instead...

as for the effect of the ban...well, what stops the current batch of players' agents from making use of this ban to hold chelsea to some sort of ransom to improve the players' current contracts...

I don't think that the ban will affect or derail Chelsea too much. There's already quite a strength-in-depth squad. As long as Carlo Ancelotti keeps the squad together and stem out any outflow, the 2-year transfer ban may be a blessing in disguise, cementing the squad together without the uncertainty of transfers movements.

Anyway, I think that Chelsea is sure to appeal and almost sure to win the appeal.
 

Ramseth

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
i don't think chelsea will win the appeal 100% if there was indeed a binding contract between kakuta and lens...possible cut down on the length of the ban instead...

as for the effect of the ban...well, what stops the current batch of players' agents from making use of this ban to hold chelsea to some sort of ransom to improve the players' current contracts...


Agree, most likely reduce ban period. And yes too, players may suddenly feel indisposable, throw tantrums or demand ransoms. That has to depend on the skills of Ancelotti and the Chelsea management to handle.
 

Ah Guan

Alfrescian
Loyal
I don't agree with the ban and I don't think what the big clubs are doing is that bad. It may not be totally ethical, but what is totally ethical in the modern world?
Some people claim that this is akin to enticement, horse trading, the rich luring the poor, etc etc.
I disagree. In horse trading, the horses have no say. In these cases, the player and his family members / advisers had the right to choose.
As for enticement and the rich luring the poor, doesn't this happen everyday in life in all aspects of life? If the player is old enough, then the club which first spots him should sign him on a contract, which allows the club to be compensated in the event that another club comes in for him. If the player is not old enough to sign a contract, then why is the player considered "bound" to the club which first spotted him? Should they be considered to "own" him just because they were the first to spot him?

I agree with you on the issue

Just like how 2nd tier clubs say young players might be manipulated into signing for big clubs, they are equally susceptible to be forced to stay at a lesser club where their talents might be wasted in a environment where grooming resources are less structured. The boy might grow up not realising his true potential.

In the sports crazy USA, this is just business and lawyers from both sides will likely structure a deal to make everyone happy. So happens that Europe is a less capitalistic ....




 

Ah Guan

Alfrescian
Loyal
what about his track record now?

Hard to say now... Gael Kakuta is supposedly good enough to risk the full wrath of FIFA

Actually the global market for players is not that big and the reality is pretty grim for Chelsea...

Because of Abramovic's fortune, Chelsea will always be held ransom by other clubs when bidding for established players like Ribbery, Ibrahimovic etc. Of course, it doesn't help when Chelsea has a reputation for blowing big bucks on duds like Shevchenko, Veron, Mutu and Wright-Phillips (okay.. maybe SWP was not a dud but his talent was wasted on Chelsea benches).

Signing and grooming youth players seem the only way for us now.
 

Ah Guan

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes, it's a good time to pay attention own youth academy.

Unfortunately the youth academy is a high risk and long term project. Many highly toted youth academy trainees have not turned out to be superstars. Look what happened to the careers these ex-prodigies of big clubs - Robbie Savage (Man U), Jody Morris (Chelsea), Jermaine Pennant (Arsenal), Frank Jeffers (Everton).

I also understand the European system also consists of a "catchment area" rule where the trainees have to live within the set district of the club. That's one of the reasons why Liverpool and Man U have a more successful youth program in the past
 

Gallego99

Alfrescian
Loyal
Someone got careless and the club was made to pay for it, period. If the current players choose to leave, it is not attributed to this 'slap on the wrist' meted by FIFA/UEFA but more so becos of the ailing pound and taxes.

The farce over the 'illegal poaching' of under 16 talent has all to do with money. What the smaller clubs are screaming for is 'adequate' compensation. If these talents do become the Zidanes, Figos or Ronaldos of the future, they could easily worth 20-50 times more.
 

Wayne Piew

Alfrescian
Loyal
A similar 2 transfer windows ban to Man Utd is nothing.
For one thing, the Glazers can pay off their mounting debts and
Sir Alex might even find a new G. Neville/Scholes/Giggs etc from the youth setup.
Plus, we have a younger squad than Chelski with young exciting players.



The controversy over Manchester United's signing of the 16-year-old French midfielder Paul Pogba has taken a fresh twist, amid claims that the player's parents were given €100,000 (£87,000) each, and a house, to bring him to Old Trafford.

Jean-Pierre Louvel, the president of Pogba's former club, Le Havre, made the claims in an interview with a French football magazine. Louvel also alleged the player was given guarantees over wages he would receive when he turned 17. Louvel said he was "deeply disappointed" by the Premier League club's conduct.

[COLOR="_______"]United have again strongly denied any wrongdoing. "It is complete nonsense," a spokesman said. "Everything has been done within Fifa guidelines."[/COLOR]

Le Havre are expected to report Pogba's case to Fifa, which last week handed Chelsea a transfer ban until 2011 and a fine over their recruitment of Gaël Kakuta, another French teenager, from Lens. Chelsea have denied illegally inducing the player and have said they will appeal.

Asked how Premier League teams lure teenagers from clubs in their home countries, Louvel said: "They tempt the parents. In the case of Paul Pogba it was fairly simple: €100,000 for the father, €100,000 for the mother and a house.

"Today I can't see why the Paul Pogba case should not set a legal precedent. Fifa does not allow contracts longer than three years before a player has reached 18. We respect that in France; in England it seems that they don't abide by that rule.

"The problem is there – France respects a certain number of rules but English clubs do not respect anything. In the case of Pogba there was a legal agreement that he should not be poached and this needs to be respected by these clubs."

Le Havre say Pogba had signed an "accord de non sollicitation" agreement, by which a player effectively agrees to sign a professional contract at a later date. United believe such an agreement is not legally enforceable. They are adamant the player did not have a contract, so they cannot have induced him to break one.
 

Wayne Piew

Alfrescian
Loyal
At least, Hitler is still pleased Chelski still got Kalou.:biggrin:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nRjNBkKktlc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nRjNBkKktlc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Porfirio
My point is that if the big club and the player have breached a contract, then let them pay whatever penalties are stated in the contract. Breach of contract happens all the time and the parties settle according to the terms of the contract. If there are insufficient clauses in the contract to "protect" the small club, then that's really too bad for them. The football authorities shouldn't make it out to be a "good" vs "bad" issue and punish the big club beyond what is in the contract.
What's your point?
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
I don't think that the ban will affect or derail Chelsea too much. There's already quite a strength-in-depth squad. As long as Carlo Ancelotti keeps the squad together and stem out any outflow, the 2-year transfer ban may be a blessing in disguise, cementing the squad together without the uncertainty of transfers movements.

Anyway, I think that Chelsea is sure to appeal and almost sure to win the appeal.
That may be so, but remember that the current players in Chelsea are getting old.
They may need younger players to freshen the team.
 
Top