Chelsea banned for TWO transfer windows

[LAM09 7,062]

Seems like RM really don't want Jovic around, so a loan deal to replace Giroud with option to buy wouldn't be the worst thing.

[Vesper 30,219]

1 minute ago, LAM09 said:

Seems like RM really don't want Jovic around, so a loan deal to replace Giroud with option to buy wouldn't be the worst thing.

I had forgotten about him

would love a loan with option to buy if we miss out (as is likely) on Werner

[killer1257 3,282]

Hahaha nice statement.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G920F mit Tapatalk

[Pizy 18,946]

I would be extremely surprised if we buy any sort of defender this coming window. As bad as our defense has been, unless we are selling someone I can't see us bringing anyone in. And there's no point in selling Alonso unless we bring in an instant upgrade like Chilwell. We may as well wait until the summer. Also, Toni is nearly fully fit apparently so another CB seems highly unlikely.

Any signings we make are most likely going to be attacking ones ironically. Depending on how comfortable Giroud and Pedro are sitting on our bench of course.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,077]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

If we end up with Angeliño and not Chilwell or Telles or even Grimaldo (although his new contract still has a 60m euro release clause in it and Barca get a 15% add-on fee out of that), I am going to look for a wall to bang my head on 

Well, if City are prepared to let him join us that will tell its own tale anyway I suppose.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,077]

9 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Chelsea Football Club statement on appeal verdict

Chelsea FC

ON APPEAL VERDICT

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/12/06/chelsea-football-club-statement-on-appeal-verdict?cardIndex=0-07

Chelsea Football Club has today issued the following statement:

Chelsea Football Club has today been notified by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that its appeal has been successful. The transfer ban imposed on Chelsea has been reduced to one window, which has already been served, and Chelsea is therefore free to sign players in the January 2020 transfer window.

Chelsea is grateful to the CAS for the diligent approach that it gave this matter. The club has not yet received the written reasons for CAS’s decision but wishes to make the following clear:

1. The approach taken by FIFA to this case has been deeply unsatisfactory, not least as FIFA chose to treat Chelsea entirely differently to Manchester City for reasons that make absolutely no sense to Chelsea.

2. FIFA accused Chelsea of having breached Article 19 of the FIFA regulations in relation to 27 players, covering the period from 2009 onwards. Of those, 16 players were registered by Chelsea in exactly the same way as other Premier League clubs registered players at the time. Furthermore, Chelsea sought clarification from the Premier League in 2009 about whether it needed to apply for permission to register players in this category. The FA subsequently liaised with FIFA and it was confirmed to Chelsea that players in this category were entitled to register and that no special application was required (and in fact no special application process existed). Accordingly, the fact that FIFA brought charges against Chelsea for this category of player was perverse. We are grateful that this appears to have been corrected by the CAS.

3. In relation to the remaining 11 players, Chelsea’s position was as follows:

a. Six players qualified for one of the exceptions set out in the FIFA regulations. As a consequence, to the extent there was any breach in relation to these players, the breaches were of a procedural nature only.

b. With respect to the remaining five players, FIFA’s position was that it “deemed” these players to have registered prior to any application for registration being made. Chelsea maintains, as was held by CAS in the Real Madrid case, that the FIFA regulations do not cover a concept of “deemed registrations” and accordingly it is not open to FIFA to “deem” that registrations were made before they were in fact made.

4. Chelsea respects the importance of the work undertaken by FIFA in relation to the protection of minors and has fully cooperated with FIFA throughout its investigation. However, if FIFA continues to impose inconsistent and unequal sanctions on clubs then it will not only undermine the very purpose of the regulations, but it will also bring into doubt the game’s confidence in FIFA being able to appropriately regulate this important area.
 

I really, really, can't stand fufa. 

[Tomo 21,751]

So after all this we could have got to stay and just served the ban on January similar to what Madrid it.

Oh well hard to regret it too much given how the summer and season's gone for us and the fact two of our signings would have likely been Pepe and N'Dombele who don't look good or fit enough respectively.

The January window could be a good time to get someone in from abroad like Grimaldo, give him six months to bed in and be ready to go for it in this league come August time.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,077]

The statement makes me wonder how the CAS would have ruled had we asked for a stay on the ban. I felt all along, even up to today, that the ban would be overturned altogether and not just reduced. This was not based on any evidence, but only on the belief that we could not be so stupid as to get caught doing something we had been warned about before. I wonder if the fact that we had already served the first half of the ban allowed the CAS to take the easy option and reduce it, rather than set it aside altogether.

fufa's behaviour in this causes me to believe that there are some unintelligent people making decisions there. People whose intellect is not sufficient to control their emotions. They hate us, they buy into the enemy of football lie, and are determined to find a way to single us out. We may have let them off the hook by failing to ask for the ban to be stayed while the appeal ran its course. 

[Tomo 21,751]

1 minute ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

The statement makes me wonder how the CAS would have ruled had we asked for a stay on the ban. I felt all along, even up to today, that the ban would be overturned altogether and not just reduced. This was not based on any evidence, but only on the belief that we could not be so stupid as to get caught doing something we had been warned about before. I wonder if the fact that we had already served the first half of the ban allowed the CAS to take the easy option and reduce it, rather than set it aside altogether.

fufa's behaviour in this causes me to believe that there are some unintelligent people making decisions there. People whose intellect is not sufficient to control their emotions. They hate us, the buy into the enemy of football lie, and are determined to find a way to single us out. We may have let them off the hook by failing to ask for the ban to be stayed while the appeal ran its course. 

I'm no lawyer but had CAS decided to rid the ban altogether after we served one window, then I imagine we could have hit FIFA with a major law suit especially if there was evidence we missed out on a player solely because of it.

[Vesper 30,219]

7 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Well, if City are prepared to let him join us that will tell its own tale anyway I suppose.

it is amazing how few good LB's who are remotely available are out there

shockingly low number

Real Madrid are going to greatly re-invigorated when their 2 youngsters (RB and LB) come back from loan

they will probably sell Álvaro Odriozola or maybe (reallllly doubtful) Daniel Carvajal

Achraf Hakimi and Sergio Reguilón, Real Madrid ensures the future of its sides

http://www.fichajes.com/liga/achraf-y-sergio-reguilon-el-real-madrid-asegura-el-futuro-de-sus-laterales_158801

 

[OhForAGreavsie 6,077]

5 minutes ago, Tomo said:

I'm no lawyer but had CAS decided to rid the ban altogether after we served one window, then I imagine we could have hit FIFA with a major law suit especially if there was evidence we missed out on a player solely because of it.

I suspect that are are rules in the articles of association The FA signs with fufa on behalf of its affiliated clubs that would prevent such action. When the charge was first made I did a post stating my belief that, if there was not such a regulation, fufa's lawyers would not allow them to impose the ban until any appeal had been heard because loosing the appeal might then cost fufa tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds in compensation.

[Vesper 30,219]

6 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

The statement makes me wonder how the CAS would have ruled had we asked for a stay on the ban. I felt all along, even up to today, that the ban would be overturned altogether and not just reduced. This was not based on any evidence, but only on the belief that we could not be so stupid as to get caught doing something we had been warned about before. I wonder if the fact that we had already served the first half of the ban allowed the CAS to take the easy option and reduce it, rather than set it aside altogether.

fufa's behaviour in this causes me to believe that there are some unintelligent people making decisions there. People whose intellect is not sufficient to control their emotions. They hate us, they buy into the enemy of football lie, and are determined to find a way to single us out. We may have let them off the hook by failing to ask for the ban to be stayed while the appeal ran its course. 

Anti-Roman/Russian bias on the part of the head of FIFA's appeal board, in that cunt Swede, Thomas Bodström as I documented BEFORE they rejected our appeal

 

[NikkiCFC 8,334]

Jose Mourinho reacts to Chelsea transfer ban being lifted ahead of January window

 

Jose Mourinho has warned Frank Lampard he will struggle to find a way of improving on his current crop of Chelsea players in the January transfer window.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/06/jose-mourinho-chelsea-transfer-ban-january-transfer-window-11322436/

[NikkiCFC 8,334]

3 hours ago, Fernando said:

Can we do a buy in January and leave them in loan with their team till the summer? 

We could do that even with ban.

[Tomo 21,751]

5 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

We could do that even with ban.

We couldn't, if a player signed for us during the ban they'd have been stuck solely training for five months ala Turan. To loan a player out they have to be registered to play.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

Here we go again every player in the world will be referred as 'Chelsea target' and the price will be skyrocketed. Ah, good old days.

[Vesper 30,219]

49 minutes ago, RoyalBlues said:

Here we go again every player in the world will be referred as 'Chelsea target' and the price will be skyrocketed. Ah, good old days.

I really do not expect much to get done

January is a bish

Leicester will never let Chilwell go now

Werner will not move until summer

Same for Sancho unless we just dump INSANE money

only major players I can see we have somewhat of a shot at would be

Zaha

Romagnoli (AC Milan are shit and in financial trouble with FFP)

Sander Berge

Sandro Tonali (Brescia are going to be relegated, almost guaranteed)

 

[Atomiswave 6,117]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

Chelsea Football Club statement on appeal verdict

Chelsea FC

ON APPEAL VERDICT

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/12/06/chelsea-football-club-statement-on-appeal-verdict?cardIndex=0-07

Chelsea Football Club has today issued the following statement:

Chelsea Football Club has today been notified by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that its appeal has been successful. The transfer ban imposed on Chelsea has been reduced to one window, which has already been served, and Chelsea is therefore free to sign players in the January 2020 transfer window.

Chelsea is grateful to the CAS for the diligent approach that it gave this matter. The club has not yet received the written reasons for CAS’s decision but wishes to make the following clear:

1. The approach taken by FIFA to this case has been deeply unsatisfactory, not least as FIFA chose to treat Chelsea entirely differently to Manchester City for reasons that make absolutely no sense to Chelsea.

2. FIFA accused Chelsea of having breached Article 19 of the FIFA regulations in relation to 27 players, covering the period from 2009 onwards. Of those, 16 players were registered by Chelsea in exactly the same way as other Premier League clubs registered players at the time. Furthermore, Chelsea sought clarification from the Premier League in 2009 about whether it needed to apply for permission to register players in this category. The FA subsequently liaised with FIFA and it was confirmed to Chelsea that players in this category were entitled to register and that no special application was required (and in fact no special application process existed). Accordingly, the fact that FIFA brought charges against Chelsea for this category of player was perverse. We are grateful that this appears to have been corrected by the CAS.

3. In relation to the remaining 11 players, Chelsea’s position was as follows:

a. Six players qualified for one of the exceptions set out in the FIFA regulations. As a consequence, to the extent there was any breach in relation to these players, the breaches were of a procedural nature only.

b. With respect to the remaining five players, FIFA’s position was that it “deemed” these players to have registered prior to any application for registration being made. Chelsea maintains, as was held by CAS in the Real Madrid case, that the FIFA regulations do not cover a concept of “deemed registrations” and accordingly it is not open to FIFA to “deem” that registrations were made before they were in fact made.

4. Chelsea respects the importance of the work undertaken by FIFA in relation to the protection of minors and has fully cooperated with FIFA throughout its investigation. However, if FIFA continues to impose inconsistent and unequal sanctions on clubs then it will not only undermine the very purpose of the regulations, but it will also bring into doubt the game’s confidence in FIFA being able to appropriately regulate this important area.
 

Yes. Great statement that highlights the corrupt and vindictive nature of football's governing body. This is the second time they have been found to have treated us unfairly. 

It's interesting that, now the majority of their findings have been thrown out, there is no longer the discrepancy on the number and scale of our alleged transgressions between us and Man City. It was this discrepancy that was the basis of FIFa letting City off with a warning........and make no mistake us having a Russian owner does not help at all, an Arab one as we see will do you wonders.

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I really, really, can't stand fufa. 

 

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

The statement makes me wonder how the CAS would have ruled had we asked for a stay on the ban. I felt all along, even up to today, that the ban would be overturned altogether and not just reduced. This was not based on any evidence, but only on the belief that we could not be so stupid as to get caught doing something we had been warned about before. I wonder if the fact that we had already served the first half of the ban allowed the CAS to take the easy option and reduce it, rather than set it aside altogether.

fufa's behaviour in this causes me to believe that there are some unintelligent people making decisions there. People whose intellect is not sufficient to control their emotions. They hate us, they buy into the enemy of football lie, and are determined to find a way to single us out. We may have let them off the hook by failing to ask for the ban to be stayed while the appeal ran its course. 

Whats not to understand my friend? THey are proven corrupt entity, just because they have shuffled their man power here and there doesnt mean they are clean suddenly. One look at how they have dealt with psg and city with their super obvious shady businesses tells us all we need to know.

[Atomiswave 6,117]

2 minutes ago, Vesper said:

I really do not expect much to get done

January is a bish

Leicester will never let Chilwell go now

Werner will not move until summer

Same for Sancho unless we just dump INSANE money

only major players I can see we have somewhat of a shot at would be

Zaha

Romagnoli (AC Milan are shit and in financial trouble with FFP)

Sander Berge

Sandro Tonali (Brescia are going to be relegated, almost guaranteed)

 

I will be dissapointed if we dont go for Dembele the striker.

[Vesper 30,219]

Just now, Atomiswave said:

I will be dissapointed if we dont go for Dembele the striker.

ignore, I saw striker now