Transfer ban on the way?

[Vesper 30,091]

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 We reached a settlement, the claim of wrong doing was withdrawn and CAS judged there can have been no case to answer and so no possibility of a guilty verdict being on our record.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.

 

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

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 30,091]

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?

[Warning_Hazard 156]

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