Chelski banned from signing players for two transfer windows

[StanSP]

I find this whole situation quite amusing

[lou]

I find this whole situation quite amusing

Me too but reckon itll get overturned on appeal anyway

[Dr The Singh]

Me too but reckon itll get overturned on appeal anyway

FIFA are obviously bored and have nothing better to do then pick on a prem club!!

[StanSP]

Me too but reckon itll get overturned on appeal anyway

Yeah they'll be banned til summer for transfers I think.

[davieG]

I think that it is good for clubs to be punished for this. It is bang out of order for all these 'big' teams to just come and take the highly rated youngsters or other teams who have spent years on looking after these players and helping them to develop their ability. However, they MUST be consistant with this, there is surely a very large number of these types of cases and I bet that they will not be dealt with in the same way that this has.

I doubt it's just what you call the 'big' teams, teams in the Championship can seem big to a team in the 4th tier and I'd take some convincing that this 'tapping up' doesn't happen at every level of the game.

[Alexikokopops]

From today's Fiver (the Guardian's daily football email):

When the Fiver read on Big Paper [Guardian] Website that Chelsea had been banned from signing any new players in the next two transfer windows, our first course of action was to find a more reputable source to confirm the story. Upon establishing from the Sky Sports News Yellow Ticker Of Fact that it was indeed true, we quickly sped through a kind of reverse Kübler-Ross Five Stages of Ecstasy: amusement, pointing at pictures of Peter Kenyon and laughing like Nelson Muntz, raucous jubilation, teary rejoicing and Riverdancing around the office swigging from a salmanazar of Champagne.

"Chelsea is banned from registering any new players for the next two registration periods," declared a statement on Fifa's website, outlining the club's punishment for being found guilty of inducing French teenager Gaël Kakuta to break his contract with Lens and join them back in 2007. Fifa's dispute resolution chamber went on to rule that Kakuta must pay compensation of 780,000 Euros, for which Chelsea are "jointly and severely liable". The London club was also ordered to pay additional "training compensation" of 130,000 Euros to Lens, who might consider contributing a small portion of their windfall towards the Fiver's drive to raise funds for a keyboard with a Euro sign on it.

Although Chelsea had yet to comment on the ban as the Fiver was being written, they will almost certainly appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which will hopefully increase it, just for a laugh. In the meantime, we can only speculate whether the punishment meted out to Chelsea will result in Carlo Ancelotti leaving the club in a hot funk, chief tapper-upper Kenyon getting fired for bungling incompetence, the sky falling in over Stamford Bridge or Miroslav Stoch actually getting a run in the team some time in December 2010.

The good news for the Chelsea faithful is that they are still skippered by the notoriously loyal England's Brave John Terry. Or is it? A leader of men fabled for having the best interests of his club at heart, expect him to be first in the long queue of players lining up outside Roman Abramovich's office holding ransom notes, asking for even newer, more improved terms. Or else.

The last paragraph makes a good point. If the ban is upheld then the players could easily exploit it. Chelsea would have to hang on to anyone they can.

[Sly]

To be honest, this ruling by FIFA is an utter joke.

Wasn't it Sepp Blatter this summer that accused Manchester United of treating Ronaldo as a slave?? It's simply a case of FIFA having a pop at the Premier League again.

Like everything, if you buy yourself out of a contract, then you should be free to move. I don't see how football can be any different.

I don't doubt Chelsea will appeal against this as it's ridiculous and this practice has gone on for years.

At the end of the day, what FIFA are actually doing is restricting a businesses trade, surely this is against UK laws? If FIFA don't budge I can see this being overturned in the European Court of Law.

FIFA have got to be careful as the English teams, or even G20 or what ever they are called could break away from FIFA and form the Super League they have so long feared. That competition would be more lucrative in terms of money than anything FIFA could offer and I think you'd find clubs wanting to join this rather than miss out on the big payoff.

This could be straw that broke the camels back, alternately, I could be reading to much into this and talking bollocks.

[davieG]

To be honest, this ruling by FIFA is an utter joke.

Wasn't it Sepp Blatter this summer that accused Manchester United of treating Ronaldo as a slave?? It's simply a case of FIFA having a pop at the Premier League again.

Like everything, if you buy yourself out of a contract, then you should be free to move. I don't see how football can be any different.

I don't doubt Chelsea will appeal against this as it's ridiculous and this practice has gone on for years.

At the end of the day, what FIFA are actually doing is restricting a businesses trade, surely this is against UK laws? If FIFA don't budge I can see this being overturned in the European Court of Law.

FIFA have got to be careful as the English teams, or even G20 or what ever they are called could break away from FIFA and form the Super League they have so long feared. That competition would be more lucrative in terms of money than anything FIFA could offer and I think you'd find clubs wanting to join this rather than miss out on the big payoff.

This could be straw that broke the camels back, alternately, I could be reading to much into this and talking bollocks.

I live in hope - seems like the only way we might get football back for the fans.

[Shrenchel]

To be honest, this ruling by FIFA is an utter joke.

Wasn't it Sepp Blatter this summer that accused Manchester United of treating Ronaldo as a slave?? It's simply a case of FIFA having a pop at the Premier League again.

Like everything, if you buy yourself out of a contract, then you should be free to move. I don't see how football can be any different.

I don't doubt Chelsea will appeal against this as it's ridiculous and this practice has gone on for years.

At the end of the day, what FIFA are actually doing is restricting a businesses trade, surely this is against UK laws? If FIFA don't budge I can see this being overturned in the European Court of Law.

FIFA have got to be careful as the English teams, or even G20 or what ever they are called could break away from FIFA and form the Super League they have so long feared. That competition would be more lucrative in terms of money than anything FIFA could offer and I think you'd find clubs wanting to join this rather than miss out on the big payoff.

This could be straw that broke the camels back, alternately, I could be reading to much into this and talking bollocks.

Has been punished before.

In May, a ruling over Brazlian player Matuzalem was upheld by CAS when he transferred from Shakhtar Donetsk to Reak Zaragoza. In that case the Spanish club were not accused of inducing the player to break his contract but were still made jointly liable for the €11,858,934 fine imposed by CAS.

"Considering the decision passed by CAS in the Matuzalem case in general, Fifa is satisfied that its efforts to defend contractual stability in the world of football are backed by CAS," it said at the time. "In fact, this is an issue in which it is crucial that FIFA, representing the entire football world, and CAS are pulling in the same direction."

In 2004, Roma were also given a ban for two transfer windows following defender Philippe Mexes' move from Auxerre. Roma appealed to the CAS and had the ban cut to one transfer window.

[lou]

Has been punished before.

Can see the Roma case setting a precendent and this being reduced to one transfer window then

[Shrenchel]

Can see the Roma case setting a precendent and this being reduced to one transfer window then

I think almost certainly. They probably only set it at two to start with because they knew they would have the best lawyers Russian billions can buy bearing down on the court during the appeal process.

[Joe.]

If the punishment is cut it's also a joke. What's the point of handing out a sentence for something with good reason only to cut it for no apparent reason? Hopefully it doesn't come to this, or else the system would become a further mockery.

[samjohnson]

Good on FIFA for throwing such a big punishment at them.

If it was any other club for example, the same punishments would be sanctioned. Why should Chelsea get off lightly?

It would also pose as an example to other clubs to check before they buy players.

[Fosse Boy]

Delighted. Can't stand Chelsea.

[Head Honcho]

This will get overturned on appeal if not fully then partially.

[Fosse Boy]

This will get overturned on appeal if not fully then partially.

Sadly this is probably the case, but in the meantime I'm going to hope beyond hope that FIFA stick to their guns.

[Corky]

Sadly this is probably the case, but in the meantime I'm going to hope beyond hope that FIFA stick to their guns.

They should do, they must have felt this punishment was fair so I can't see them backing down.

[C-man]

They should do, they must have felt this punishment was fair so I can't see them backing down.

I can't see FIFA backing down, but I can see the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling in Chelsea's favour.

[Brainy]

Shit, Radovan's Caravan is reading this thread with me.

[Radovan's Caravan]

One way Chelsea (and Roman Abramovich) will like this well...

The club owes its benefactor (who has taken a very big hit in the credit crunch) over £600 million. He is tired of sticking his hand in his pocket for a team that he really couldn't give two figs for.

FIFA's ruling will stop his coach, the players and the fans bellyaching for more 'investment' in the club. So he can sit out the next two windows without any hassle.

And as far as the current competition at the top end of the table is concerned they too are going to be forced to draw in their horns as they have a combined total debt in excess of £1.3 billion (Man U and Arsenal have already signalled their intenions here anyway). Champions League pretenders Man City have probably spent themselves out (give or take the odd £20 million on a Championship level right back).

With a 100% start over four games, a Ronaldoless Man U, a classly but ungritty Arsenal and a Liverpool who already look out of it Chelsea look good for the title this season. As for the season thereafter Man City might be many people's favourites to challenge them. But I can't see Adebayor behaving himself for that long...

I think Roman will be sending the vile Blather a magnum of Veuve Clicqout in the morning...

[Alexikokopops]

FC Sion and Roma have both been punished in the same way as Chelsea so it's not really anti-English bias from FIFA. We just ignored those cases because they weren't from the greatest league in the world. Also, for those complaining about the way Man Utd have been conducting their affairs, turns out Le Havre had already lodged a complaint against them for the way they sign Paul Pogba in July so maybe they'll get their comeuppance too. Hooray.

[StanSP]

FC Sion and Roma have both been punished in the same way as Chelsea so it's not really anti-English bias from FIFA. We just ignored those cases because they weren't from the greatest league in the world. Also, for those complaining about the way Man Utd have been conducting their affairs, turns out Le Havre had already lodged a complaint against them for the way they sign Paul Pogba in July so maybe they'll get their comeuppance too. Hooray.

It was amusing seeing Chelsea getting punished like this.

But I'd love it even more if United got done too.

[C-man]

I'd love it if the whole Premiership were banned from signing players except the three promoted teams. That would be fair

[davieG]

I'd love it if the whole Premiership were banned from signing players except the three promoted teams. That would be fair

Better still

[The Doctor]

I would imagine they can register players from their youth team, otherwise they would be even more fooked!

i would read it as they can't because the article says banned from registering players nationally and internationlly which reads as them not able to include anyone in squads for both the champions league & premiership except for those already registered, so unless the youth teamers are already registered for the first team then they can't play in the first team untill the end of the ban.

However the way it reads also suggests they can't play in the champions league next year because a new squad (even if it is the same as the season before) has to be registered with uefa and they are banned from doing so.

Edit: found that Kutaka is 18 meaning that when he left lens he would have been on a youth team contract as you have to be 18 on the mainland of the continent to sign a professional contract. therefore chelsea could sign him without negotiating with lens first. Admittedly the two clubs then have to agree a compensation fee or go to an indepentent tribunal to decide the fee, BUT, lens have as much responsability in sorting out the compensation as chelsea meaning that unless chelsea refused to negotiate a fee then lens don't really have an arguement.