lildave3 Posted 5 February 2010 Posted 5 February 2010 Why are people getting so wound up by this and claiming that Chelsea have been let off because they're one of the big boys? Weren't they found not guilty because Lens' contract with Kakuta wasn't valid? Hence they didn't nick him off Lens while he was still under contract, which is what they were receiving their punishment for (the whole breach of contract thing). I swear some people just want to get indignant and moan for the sake of it. But it's Chelsea?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?C?VE?Hb!¬!!
Jay Posted 5 February 2010 Posted 5 February 2010 Why are people getting so wound up by this and claiming that Chelsea have been let off because they're one of the big boys? Weren't they found not guilty because Lens' contract with Kakuta wasn't valid? Hence they didn't nick him off Lens while he was still under contract, which is what they were receiving their punishment for (the whole breach of contract thing). I swear some people just want to get indignant and moan for the sake of it. technically yes although a small cash donation to Lens football club in the interests of developing a mutually beneficial relationship in the future, helped Lens agree that their contract didn't mean anything.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.