Koke Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 This is a BS decision. First Arsenal is made an example of. Now Chelsea. Next they'll find something on Man Utd. Fuck FIFA and their xenophobic bollocks. If they wanted to start somewhere there is a corrupt fascist club in the capital of Spain.
AjcW Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 This is a BS decision. First Arsenal is made an example of. Now Chelsea. Next they'll find something on Man Utd. Fuck FIFA and their xenophobic bollocks. If they wanted to start somewhere there is a corrupt fascist club in the capital of Spain. :appl:
MPH Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 This is a BS decision. First Arsenal is made an example of. Now Chelsea. Next they'll find something on Man Utd. Fuck FIFA and their xenophobic bollocks. If they wanted to start somewhere there is a corrupt fascist club in the capital of Spain. they fear the influence of English clubs and they fear the influence we could have on European football.. We are the richest league in the world... heck the championship is the 5th most watched league in the whole of Europe...
Father Ted Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 I can't help but laugh. Although, no doubt that they will appeal and it will be overturned or reduced.
Koke Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 they fear the influence of English clubs and they fear the influence we could have on European football.. We are the richest league in the world... heck the championship is the 5th most watched league in the whole of Europe... I don't have much love for Chelsea, but this is a shit biased ruling. And who the fuck is Gael Kakuta anyway? Some no-mark French kid got signed from Lens and the book is thrown at them. The way Chelsea handled the Ashley Cole saga was 10x worse than this, and they got off Scott free for that. FIFA's xenophobic agenda is quite clear. Real Madrid conduct themselves a lot worse than Chelsea do, but Blatter has his tongue so far up their arse that he can see what they had for breakfast. They'll definitely appeal and I hope the ban get reduced.
FilboFox Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Good! Chelski have been doing this for ages... maybe now they'll cut it out and any other teams that are found doing this too will be punished accordingly!
C-man Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 When are West Brom going to be banned for tapping up Joe Mattock? This is quite ridiculous in my opinion. Something does need to be done, but to throw the book at Chelsea for this one incident is unbelievable. The thing is, FIFA will never punish anyone else (outside of England, anyway) and then claim that 'tapping-up' is on dying out because of their draconian stance. FIFA are worse than the FA and are as bad as UEFA. I wonder what Radovans Caravan thinks of this? Still English bias shown by the governing bodies?
Koke Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 When are West Brom going to be banned for tapping up Joe Mattock? This is quite ridiculous in my opinion. Something does need to be done, but to throw the book at Chelsea for this one incident is unbelievable. The thing is, FIFA will never punish anyone else (outside of England, anyway) and then claim that 'tapping-up' is on dying out because of their draconian stance. FIFA are worse than the FA and are as bad as UEFA. I wonder what Radovans Caravan thinks of this? Still English bias shown by the governing bodies? Agreed. The decision is utterly laughable, IMO.
davieG Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 When are West Brom going to be banned for tapping up Joe Mattock? This is quite ridiculous in my opinion. Something does need to be done, but to throw the book at Chelsea for this one incident is unbelievable. The thing is, FIFA will never punish anyone else (outside of England, anyway) and then claim that 'tapping-up' is on dying out because of their draconian stance. FIFA are worse than the FA and are as bad as UEFA. I wonder what Radovans Caravan thinks of this? Still English bias shown by the governing bodies? He'll probably say the FA asked Chelsea to do it so that it would help jeopardise the application to hold the world Cup here.
AjcW Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Oh to anyone whos said who the ef is Kakuta. He's one of the very few who is actually tipped to make it through the ranks at chelsea. Extremely skilful, I went to one of the youth cup games last season, some of his flicks, tricks and touches are reminiscent of Ronaldinho in his prime.
Finnegan Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Chelsea will probably appeal and get it reduced anyway. Yeah, likely.
MC Prussian Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 I thought it was a joke at first. Then I couldn't stop sniggering at Chelsea and its fans. It's not like the club has been an angel for ages, really. They're one of many English teams (on that level) who'd rather dish out enormeous sums to lure foreign players over instead of promoting local talent, regardless of how good the former really are (don't get me started on how tough scouting is). We don't know the details about this Lens deal, but if it is true that Chelsea "bribed" the player out of an existing contract, then they should face the consequences. However, I do agree that it's slightly unfair to go after an English club and I can but hope that the FIFA will pursue further actions in the other dominant European leagues, especially Spain with Real Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia should be on the watch-list. The amount of money dished out and the simultaneously amassed debt down South ought to raise more than just a single eyebrow. Fairness where fairness is due.
Joe. Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 To be fair, I think it's been coming for them for a long time. They were close to being done by the Ashley Cole transfer, as well as the Mikel and Arnesen fiascos. They've clearly done something wrong, so why sit back and leave them un-punished? Here we're finally seeing something happen that can actually hurt them, rather than your average poxy fine. I'm personally glad FIFA has decided to make a high profile example of somebody, and I hope they'd be consistent enough to do it again should it happen to your Man United and Real Madrids of the world.
C-man Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 In my opinion, what Chelsea did (ie telling the player to break/terminate his contract) is no worse than what every other big club in Europe has done over the last 10 years. Real Madrid and Florentino Perez's pursuit of Ronaldo was practically paedophilia, and now they'll be doing the same with Franck Ribery next season. Manchester United have been guilty of it time and time again, Macheda for instance. FFS they even paid his parents to let him come to England and assured them that he'd have a career whatever happened. I'm not 100% sure about Valencia from Wigan but I'm pretty sure they contacted him before they asked Wigan. Joleon Lescott to Man City is another case of blatant foul play in the Transfer Market but FIFA don't seem interested in that. Punishing Chelsea is pathetic, and although I don't buy this 'UEFA/FIFA conspiracy against Chelsea' bollocks, why are they the only side to be punished? I'm sure Lens aren't the only side to put in a complaint.
Alexikokopops Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 I don't have much love for Chelsea, but this is a shit biased ruling. And who the fuck is Gael Kakuta anyway? Some no-mark French kid got signed from Lens and the book is thrown at them. The way Chelsea handled the Ashley Cole saga was 10x worse than this, and they got off Scott free for that. FIFA's xenophobic agenda is quite clear. Real Madrid conduct themselves a lot worse than Chelsea do, but Blatter has his tongue so far up their arse that he can see what they had for breakfast. They'll definitely appeal and I hope the ban get reduced. Did Arsenal lodge a complaint with FIFA when the Ashley Cole transfer happened? No. Did Man Utd lodge a complaint with FIFA when the Ronaldo transfer happened? No. Did Lens lodge a complaint with FIFA when the Kakuta transfer happened? Yes. If Real Madrid are going to carry on with their "corrupt" dealings then it's up to the clubs involved to lodge that complaint. You can't expect FIFA to keep an eye on everything that's happening in the football world.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 This is obviously going to severely damage Chelsea and their title hope over the next couple of years. But I would expect it to be reduced if they do decide to appeal. One positive note is that they will have to be looking at playing some younger players more often.
lildave3 Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 2 years is ridiculous. That's not good for Chelsea and their ageing squad. So that's the real reason they haven't signed anyone during this last window?Kenyon you willy puller. :laugh: They did sign players...
C-man Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Did Arsenal lodge a complaint with FIFA when the Ashley Cole transfer happened? No. Did Man Utd lodge a complaint with FIFA when the Ronaldo transfer happened? No. Did Lens lodge a complaint with FIFA when the Kakuta transfer happened? Yes. If Real Madrid are going to carry on with their "corrupt" dealings then it's up to the clubs involved to lodge that complaint. You can't expect FIFA to keep an eye on everything that's happening in the football world. But Utd were compensated with £80m, hardly a need for complaint when you're bringing in that sort of cash. Also, Lens must have complained in 2007 when the deal was done and it's now 2009 so in two years we might get United relegated for tapping up Macheda and virtually every other player they sign.
dandannieldanok Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Are they allowed to sign youth players (even their own) on full contracts still?
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Are they allowed to sign youth players (even their own) on full contracts still? I would imagine they can register players from their youth team, otherwise they would be even more fooked!
dandannieldanok Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 I would imagine they can register players from their youth team, otherwise they would be even more fooked! That's what I was thinking, but it is technically registering a player onto a full first team contract which is what they can't do, just wondered if the rule stretched that far.
Corky Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Well it is a true punishment, much more effective than a fine, but like others have said, I want to see consistency in this.
Basingstoke Fox Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 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.
Pricey Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 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. Agree with this, does seem a massive punishment though!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.