test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
xPetrCechx

Transfer ban on the way?

Started by xPetrCechx,

BREAKING: Chelsea are expected to handed a two-year ban Announced early 2019 . [Swiss daily newspaper Zurichsee Zeitung]

According to the source, Chelsea will receive this ban for illegally signing 14 players aged 18 and under, Including Bertrand Traore, Who chelsea apparentley first signed when he was 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the article doesn't even mention a ban. Even if true, where the fuck does City stand in all this.!!!?

Unionjack likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea are also going to try and tie up deals for players to join next summer, several sources believe Pulisic has already agreed to join next summer. The number of new contracts handed out recently is a sign that the ban is coming, as Chelsea want to keep their best players

 

Several sources believe that Chelsea are working everyday behind the scenes with different clubs to get players to join next summer, as they can’t act in January when they receive the ban.

 

sounds flimsy tbh

Unionjack likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we receive the ban in January, and it's for 2 years, how are those deals going to go through in the summer?  Doesn't make sense.

I'd guess that the ban gets handed down and we appeal it which may allow us to do business this January (which sucks because no one wants to sell important players mid-way through the season), or possibly we could appeal it to try to have it reduced to a year (like the Madrid club and Barcelona got) and have it take effect after the summer window.  We'll see what happens.

xPetrCechx and Unionjack like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing surprises me right now. We are being made the king of scapegoats yet again. They will probably do everything in their power to make us an example.

We need to get at least a couple of upgrades sorted just in case the sods are after us.

Johnnyeye and Sideshow Luiz like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its reaching but could it be possible to secure targets on contracts essentially making signings before we get put back on the naughty step dodging this supposed ban? A ban would block the paperwork maybe?

I read a while back this ban would probably  affect youth players not first team.

this has been going on for like 2 years!

the wes, Unionjack and Johnnyeye like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Warning_Hazard said:

its reaching but could it be possible to secure targets on contracts essentially making signings before we get put back on the naughty step dodging this supposed ban? A ban would block the paperwork maybe?

I read a while back this ban would probably  affect youth players not first team.

this has been going on for like 2 years!

Correct me if I am wrong I think Everton Liverpool and city got similar ban from signing youth players 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/05/liverpool-banned-signing-academy-players-fined-stoke

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/11/08/everton-banned-signing-players-aged-10-18-two-years-tapping/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/05/05/manchester-city-hit-transfer-ban-signing-academy-players/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be misremembering, but I don't recall any verdict against Chelsea which could represent a first offence. Obviously to be regarded as repeat offenders we'd need to have at least one guilty verdict on the record. I grant that, although the club would want us to see the outcome of the Kakuta transfer investigation as a vindication, that case seems only to have gone away after being settled out of court. As far as I'm aware the initial guilty charge in that case was quashed when the two clubs reached agreement. If I've got the facts right then that case is definitely not on the books as a first offence.

Am I remembering that situation incorrectly, or is there another case altogether that I've forgotten about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I may be misremembering, but I don't recall any verdict against Chelsea which could represent a first offence. Obviously to be regarded as repeat offenders we'd need to have at least one guilty verdict on the record. I grant that, although the club would want us to see the outcome of the Kakuta transfer investigation as a vindication, that case seems only to have gone away after being settled out of court. As far as I'm aware the initial guilty charge in that case was quashed when the two clubs reached agreement. If I've got the facts right then that case is definitely not on the books as a first offence.

Am I remembering that situation incorrectly, or is there another case altogether that I've forgotten about?

https://news.sky.com/story/chelsea-being-investigated-by-fifa-over-youth-transfer-policy-11044833

The West London club were banned from signing players for two transfer windows in 2009, a penalty they had overturned on appeal in 2010, over Gael Kakuta's 2007 move from Lens to Stamford Bridge.

They were also investigated over the transfer of Bertrand Traore, the Burkina Faso international who was signed after his 18th birthday but had appeared in an under-18 match in 2011 while still 16.

 

 

The penalty was overturned, not the finding of guilty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vesper said:

https://news.sky.com/story/chelsea-being-investigated-by-fifa-over-youth-transfer-policy-11044833

The West London club were banned from signing players for two transfer windows in 2009, a penalty they had overturned on appeal in 2010, over Gael Kakuta's 2007 move from Lens to Stamford Bridge.

They were also investigated over the transfer of Bertrand Traore, the Burkina Faso international who was signed after his 18th birthday but had appeared in an under-18 match in 2011 while still 16.

 

 

The penalty was overturned, not the finding of guilty.

 

There isn't enough information in the linked report to conclude that the guilty finding was not overturned. In fact logic dictates that it must have been. If we were held to have been in breach of rules then the sentence would have included compensation to the 'wronged' club, the 'restorative' part of the judgement, as well as the ban, the 'punitive' part. We would not have been permitted to simply buy our way out of the punitive element by upping the amount of compensation.

I'm now more confident that my recollection is accurate. We reached a settlement, the claim of wrong doing was withdrawn and CAS judged there can have been no case to answer and so no possibility of a guilty verdict being on our record. No first offence, no formal repeat on the cards.

Edit: I've now looked it up. I'm sure it was just a ruse but, after reaching a settlement with Chelsea, Lens 'accepted' that they had never had a valid contract with Gael and so Chelsea could not possibly have been in breach of it. I know that deal was dodgy, you know it was dodgy and FIFA know it too but that does not amout to a legal finding. There is no guilty charge against Chelsea.

Vesper, you know, or at least I hope you do, that I respect your contributions to the forum very much and that I consider myself to have been well informed when I read them. Indeed, more than once I've argued against people who have criticised your posts. May I ask you and the rest of my fellow TalkChelseaers to be a bit more cautious about statements of fact and the sources we use to support them. To be clear, opinion is free to go where it will but when we base those opinions on facts then it's only sensible to be as sure as can that we do have actual facts. When we can't be sure of the facts then lets at least admit that we're only giving an opinion based on our best knowledge of what's going on.

A more detailed report of the Kakuta case.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mana said:

The above articles posted are old.

No new update since November 15th this year.

And let's remember that the club's statement made it clear that they felt they were not in breach of the rules. I'm sure that all clubs push the boundaries of the rules as far as they can. If we've pushed too far then we deserve to be punished. If.

Mana and Vesper like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

There isn't enough information in the linked report to conclude that the guilty finding was not overturned. In fact logic dictates that it must have been. If we were held to have been in breach of rules then the sentence would have included compensation to the 'wronged' club, the 'restorative' part of the judgement, as well as the ban, the 'punitive' part. We would not have been permitted to simply buy our way out of the punitive element by upping the amount of compensation.

I'm now more confident that my recollection is accurate. We reached a settlement, the claim of wrong doing was withdrawn and CAS judged there can have been no case to answer and so no possibility of a guilty verdict being on our record. No first offence, no formal repeat on the cards.

Edit: I've now looked it up. I'm sure it was just a ruse but, after reaching a settlement with Chelsea, Lens 'accepted' that they had never had a valid contract with Gael and so Chelsea could not possibly have been in breach of it. I know that deal was dodgy, you know it was dodgy and FIFA know it too but that does not amout to a legal finding. There is no guilty charge against Chelsea.

Vesper, you know, or at least I hope you do, that I respect your contributions to the forum very much and that I consider myself to have been well informed when I read them. Indeed, more than once I've argued against people who have criticised your posts. May I ask you and the rest of my fellow TalkChelseaers to be a bit more cautious about statements of fact and the sources we use to support them. To be clear, opinion is free to go where it will but when we base those opinions on facts then it's only sensible to be as sure as can that we do have actual facts. When we can't be sure of the facts then lets at least admit that we're only giving an opinion based on our best knowledge of what's going on.

A more detailed report of the Kakuta case.

 

 

I have worked mainly off articles (need to find rhem) that maintained we were repeat offenders. Maybe thise articles were wrong, but multiple ones were from some seemingly respectable sources.

If they were wrong, then absolutely I will post a correction. Either way, all the reports have said 2 years is what we are staring down the barrel of. Obviously I hope that is not the case and we emerge unscathed again.

I only want to be prepared (meaning CFC) and not get frozen out of the market with no major moves made proactively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

There isn't enough information in the linked report to conclude that the guilty finding was not overturned. In fact logic dictates that it must have been. If we were held to have been in breach of rules then the sentence would have included compensation to the 'wronged' club, the 'restorative' part of the judgement, as well as the ban, the 'punitive' part. We would not have been permitted to simply buy our way out of the punitive element by upping the amount of compensation.

I'm now more confident that my recollection is accurate. We reached a settlement, the claim of wrong doing was withdrawn and CAS judged there can have been no case to answer and so no possibility of a guilty verdict being on our record. No first offence, no formal repeat on the cards.

Edit: I've now looked it up. I'm sure it was just a ruse but, after reaching a settlement with Chelsea, Lens 'accepted' that they had never had a valid contract with Gael and so Chelsea could not possibly have been in breach of it. I know that deal was dodgy, you know it was dodgy and FIFA know it too but that does not amout to a legal finding. There is no guilty charge against Chelsea.

Vesper, you know, or at least I hope you do, that I respect your contributions to the forum very much and that I consider myself to have been well informed when I read them. Indeed, more than once I've argued against people who have criticised your posts. May I ask you and the rest of my fellow TalkChelseaers to be a bit more cautious about statements of fact and the sources we use to support them. To be clear, opinion is free to go where it will but when we base those opinions on facts then it's only sensible to be as sure as can that we do have actual facts. When we can't be sure of the facts then lets at least admit that we're only giving an opinion based on our best knowledge of what's going on.

A more detailed report of the Kakuta case.

 

 

I see now where it came from

First we have this one we are talking about now

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-transfer-news-ban-fifa-rules-bertrand-traore-lyon-premier-league-epl-a8634786.html

Based on documents from Football Leaks, it is claimed Chelsea face a two-year transfer window ban and a fine after 19 of their signings were investigated by Fifa's Integrity and Compliance Department.

 

Then

the newer one, newer in that it came to light just recently, not all the way back in 2017 ( https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41338717 ) like the one above did initially

 

Andreas Christensen's move to Chelsea under spotlight as club face new allegations of rule-breaking 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/11/19/premier-league-clubs-want-chelsea-investigated-andreas-christensen/

 

so if they (again I hope not) whack us on the first

 

then they do another investigation on the AC situ (their damn investigations take forever, grrrr, it is like the US one against the Orange Julius Trump, lol)

and like a year from now slag us again

that is where the 'repeat' part would come in

 

I apologise for all the confusion I seem to have caused:(

Bottom line, let us hope it all is cleared up!!

 

also

 

some good news (if this article is right)

it seems like the bans, IF they go down, would not start until January 2020

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/7754668/chelsea-transfer-ban-academy-youngsters-players-chance/

Bertrand Traore’s move to Stamford Bridge has triggered a chain of events that could see Chelsea cut out of the transfer loop from January 2020 to the summer of 2021.

It gives the Blues just the next two windows to get their house in order.

Missing out on four consecutive markets would be a disaster for most clubs, but in Chelsea’s case, it might just give boardroom chiefs the push they need to move in a bold new direction.

The Blues’ academy has long been regarded as one of the best in Europe, having won two Uefa Youth Leagues, two National Premier Leagues and five FA Youth Cups since 2014.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vesper said:

I see now where it came from

First we have this one we are talking about now

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-transfer-news-ban-fifa-rules-bertrand-traore-lyon-premier-league-epl-a8634786.html

Based on documents from Football Leaks, it is claimed Chelsea face a two-year transfer window ban and a fine after 19 of their signings were investigated by Fifa's Integrity and Compliance Department.

 

Then

the newer one, newer in that it came to light just recently, not all the way back in 2017 ( https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41338717 ) like the one above did initially

 

Andreas Christensen's move to Chelsea under spotlight as club face new allegations of rule-breaking 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/11/19/premier-league-clubs-want-chelsea-investigated-andreas-christensen/

 

so if they (again I hope not) whack us on the first

 

then they do another investigation on the AC situ (their damn investigations take forever, grrrr, it is like the US one against the Orange Julius Trump, lol)

and like a year from now slag us again

that is where the 'repeat' part would come in

 

I apologise for all the confusion I seem to have caused:(

Bottom line, let us hope it all is cleared up!!

 

also

 

some good news (if this article is right)

it seems like the bans, IF they go down, would not start until January 2020

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/7754668/chelsea-transfer-ban-academy-youngsters-players-chance/

Bertrand Traore’s move to Stamford Bridge has triggered a chain of events that could see Chelsea cut out of the transfer loop from January 2020 to the summer of 2021.

It gives the Blues just the next two windows to get their house in order.

Missing out on four consecutive markets would be a disaster for most clubs, but in Chelsea’s case, it might just give boardroom chiefs the push they need to move in a bold new direction.

The Blues’ academy has long been regarded as one of the best in Europe, having won two Uefa Youth Leagues, two National Premier Leagues and five FA Youth Cups since 2014.

 

There needs to be a slant or an angle, to make a story as readable as it can be but: -

Article 1 confirms we have not been found guilty of anything since it talks only of investigations. Had we been found guilty, and that initial judgement upheld, the paper would know it and the article would have said it. Instead it talks only of investigations; investigations which came to nothing.

Article 2 contains allegations only. Allegations which have been in the public sphere for some time now, and which would have been privately known to the FA for some time before that. As yet no action taken by the FA. I don't think I'm alone in suspecting what the fees paid to Andreas's father were really for but suspicions amount to nothing legally. If we have broken FA rules they will act. It seems to me the FA have all the evidence they are going to get on this case and yet they have not taken action against Chelsea. It may be they are looking for something more but all we can conclude from their lack of a charge is that so far they've found nothing they can act on. Certainly this is not a guilty verdict on our record either.

Article 3 ditto.

The club's rejection of these allegations is pretty categorical. That rejection will perhaps be tried and we'll learn the verdict. So far however nothing has been proved and the club are clearly very confident nothing will be. My own guess is that this confidence is based on the belief that they've come up with cast iron stories to cover the payments. Stories which are not outside the rules themselves, no matter haw far outside the spirit of the rules the may be. if a guilty recommendation is made and upheld it will result in the first ever guilty judgement against Chelsea. That being so, it would take at least two such verdicts before we get repeat offender status. 

Vesper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

There needs to be a slant or an angle, to make a story as readable as it can be but: -

Article 1 confirms we have not been found guilty of anything since it talks only of investigations. Had we been found guilty, and that initial judgement upheld, the paper would know it and the article would have said it. Instead it talks only of investigations; investigations which came to nothing.

Article 2 contains allegations only. Allegations which have been in the public sphere for some time now, and which would have been privately known to the FA for some time before that. As yet no action taken by the FA. I don't think I'm alone in suspecting what the fees paid to Andreas's father were really for but suspicions amount to nothing legally. If we have broken FA rules they will act. It seems to me the FA have all the evidence they are going to get on this case and yet they have not taken action against Chelsea. It may be they are looking for something more but all we can conclude from their lack of a charge is that so far they've found nothing they can act on. Certainly this is not a guilty verdict on our record either.

Article 3 ditto.

The club's rejection of these allegations is pretty categorical. That rejection will perhaps be tried and we'll learn the verdict. So far however nothing has been proved and the club are clearly very confident nothing will be. My own guess is that this confidence is based on the belief that they've come up with cast iron stories to cover the payments. Stories which are not outside the rules themselves, no matter haw far outside the spirit of the rules the may be. if a guilty recommendation is made and upheld it will result in the first ever guilty judgement against Chelsea. That being so, it would take at least two such verdicts before we get repeat offender status. 

When do we find out about the main one? If we are not guilty and totally cleared do they even announce it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like i said been going on for years.

probs actual corruption fifa trying to bust our loanee/youth system on other clubs behalfs!

90% that it doesn't effect senior team, if it did or will etc it would be on circular rounds on sky and beeb yet not a lot even if case on going etc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.