Chelsea banned from signing new players for 18 months!

typical, a decision against the English must be a conspiracy...

First, if everyone is "tapping up", obviously the punishments so far have not ben harsh enough. Clubs like Lens invest millions into youth development, bigger clubs shouldn't be allowed to steal away the cream of the crop without consequences. Apart from the point that I think 16 year olds shouldn't be transferred around anyway.

Second, it is NOT the first time that a club was punished this way. The first time was Roma a couple of years ago, but the transfer ban was lifted by CAS in appeal, the second time was Sion a year ago, the appeal is running and the transfer ban is currently on hold, both for the same offense as Chelsea and obviously neither one is English. I have no doubt that Chelsea will also appeal and the ban will be lifted. Which is a pity, if you ask me.

 

Too true. It's a bit like a parent grounding their kid for a month, and then saying they can go to the dance the following weekend. MAYBE the 2 windows is a bit harsh, and MAYBE CAS will reduce it to one. But if they let them off, the floodgates will open.

Word is Man. Utd. is up next.

 

Kenyon and Arnesen are a pair of muppets.

 

If UEFA really wanted to stop the English clubs from being successful they wouldn't do something as minute as this. They could have rigged the CL draw so they faced Real Madrid or Inter, punished teams with large debts, banned Manchester United after the fighting in Rome a few years back, impose foreign player limit, etc.

Banning one team, arguably with the best squad of the lot, from a year of signings is not the way to break up the Premier League's dominance is it?

And where did this idea that UEFA dislike the English come from anyway? The Hundred Years War?

 

Before we get carried away only a few here think it's a conspiracy against the English, most think it's a good thing. After all many of our club struggle to develop and retain youth too.

As has already been said, it's not the first time someone has been punished.

They took the chance, got caught and now have to pay the price. Simple as that. Yes, a lot more clubs than Chelsea are doing it, so more clubs need to make official complaints. I can't see a problem.

 

Impressive passage. You managed to cram wrongness, hysteria, misconception and ignorance into something that is almost short enough to tweet.

The only "shock" here is that the rules that have existed for ever and which all clubs are aware of have actually been enforced by the crapolicious governing body our game is lumbered with - and against a "big" club too! Maybe there is a God, after all. Secondly, there is nothing remotely outrageous about a club being stopped from signing players for two windows after being caught, tried and proven to have induced a player under contract to break that contract, in contravention of the aforementioned clear and well-known laws of the game. What's outrageous is that it doesn't happen constantly because, as you yourself say in the one small glimmer of correctness you managed to summon into the quoted excerpt, this sort of illegal and damaging activity goes on all over the place. Thirdly, there is a precedent for this - FC Sion were punished in precisely the same way and with precisely the same outcome. But never mind precedents to this incident. Let's hope that this incident is itself a precedent. Let's hope this brings about an era where all clubs, big or small, are punished for taking the piss in this arrogant manner.

I'll do you the not actually warranted courtesy of ignoring the rest of your post with its absurd conspiracy theory.

 

A few new reports came out today toward similar allegations involving Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool. I think Lens have probably spilled a can of beans.

 

I can see all sorts of clubs coming out now claiming their players were 'tapped up'.

I think FIFA's decision is a good thing, as long as they are consistent with the in punishments.

If other clubs are also guilty they should ban them too, only that way will it be a true deterrent.

 

Exactly. I'm sure a lot of clubs who have felt the heavy hand of one of Europe's elite leafing through their youth team catalogue will be looking at those situations with renewed interest now, checking to see if any paper similar to that which undid Chelsea exists in those cases too. We now have fresh precedent, so there's a lot to go on for clubs who have had what they considered unwelcome or unsavoury dealings with one of the elite.

Liverpool's case relates to Crewe, which strikes me as unlikely - more paper talk than anything else. We have an excellent relationship with Crewe and whilst I don't doubt for a second that we do much the same as Chelsea have been caught doing, I doubt we'd shit in our own back yard like that.

 

The perception that UEFA hates the English is born out of the fact that whenever Platini is asked about the flaws and short-comings in the modern game, he always appears to name English clubs as examples. That is certainly how it is portrayed, at the very least.

For instance, when Platini was asked not long ago about clubs being in debt and the effect they might have on the game, he chose to name Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal AND Liverpool as examples of how clubs have run up debts in order to stay competitive. He never went into any depth as to how and why these clubs were in debt. The fact that United and Liverpool find themselves in debt due to heavily leavered buy-out for which they had no control over, and that Arsenals debt is actually sunk into a stadium they're seeking to own.

He failed to mention the likes of Juventus, Inter Milan, Valencia, Barcelona, Roma and Real Madrid, all of whomb are in mountains of debt and who's ability to pay them off, with the exception of Real Madrid, is a fraction of that of the EPL sides.

He has also criticised the likes of Manchester City and Chelsea for leaning on and exploiting the wealth of their respective owners and for increasing wages, when the likes if Inter Milan, AC Milan and his own beloved Juventus have been bank-rolled by private owners for decades. He wasn't moaning when Juve were paying him through the nose with their "borrowed" wealth, was he?

I'm not convinced UEFA hates English club sides, but they're certainly very selective with who they choose to exemplify when asked.



With regards to Chelsea's punishment: do I think they deserve to be punished? Yes. Do I think the punishment fits the crime? No.

I think they're trying to break an egfg with a hammer.

 

And it's an inaccurate/disingenuous portrayal. The topics close to Platini's heart are clubs who use debt to buy themselves competitive advantage, clubs who traffic in teenagers from "lesser" nations, almost always to the detriment of the teenager and the "lesser" nation and clubs who place themselves at the forefront of the drive to turn football into a business with nothing more than a passing acquaintance with it's natural and historic constituency amongst local fans.

It just so happens that when you look at the main actors in all of those little dramas, they're predominantly English. The English media doesn't report the occasions when he levels similar accusations at Spanish or Italian clubs because it doesn't suit the reporting (he's even been in the Belgian media telling off Standard Liege for using the recent CL earnings to ill effect in the Belgian transfer market). But the fact of the matter is that he's right in what he says - the only thing he can legitimately be accused of is lacking a touch of political finesse in the way he says it or in how careful he is about whom he says it.

Eh? Something like 70% of United's "public" stock was in the hands of a handful of shareholders with either longstanding links to the club or active roles in running the club when the Glazer's came along. There was plenty of control available to the hierarchy in and around the club's management in that scenario, they just chose not to exercise it. As to Liverpool, they had 100% total control over the situation - Moores and Parry just chose to sell the family silver to a couple of slack-jawed Yank halfwits because they waved a few extra quid under their noses at the time of the actual sale.

And now, irrespective of those circumstances, both Liverpool and Manchester United are emblematic of the situation Platini rightfully and perceptively targets when trying to highlight things that are wrong with the game today.

Yeah and I'm sure that has nothing to do with who's next in the cross-hairs, right?

The punishment does fit the crime. Because it's an actual punishment. It might, just conceivably, even prove a deterrent, even to a club as vainglorious as Chelsea. What should UEFA have done - fine them? If so, what amount? A million? Ten million? A hundred mundred bazillion? Abramovich could sell the launch on the back of his third-favourite superyacht and pay the fine with the proceeds.

No, this is perfect. Or at least as perfect as it can get in the fucked up world of modern football. On the very rare occasions that the governing bodies actually swing a pair of bollocks about in dealing with the "elite" of the game we, the ordinary fans, should celebrate, not mutter sulkily about imagined biases and the unfairness of it all.

And yes, I'll maintain that same line if, as is entirely likely, Liverpool get caught with their pants down at some point in the near future too. Because I'm not stupid or one-eyed enough to believe that they're not up to this shit on a daily basis too.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/8249303.stm

wenger speaks on u-18 transfers

 

The share-holders were not fans, they were not stake-holders. They were money-men, who bought into the club over the last decade in order to make a profit. They had no interest in the future of the club and, because the stock market allows just about anyone to invest in and buy-out a public company providing they can put the money up-front, regardless of how those funds have been gained, the Glazers were allowed to buy in and then leaver the clubs assets against the loans they had taken out. I certainly did not have a say in it, nor did most of the other fans. The minority share-holders had a minimum input but ultimately they were forced to sell up. Whilst public companies are owned by share-holders, with most big companies these shares are owned in large quantities by major share-holders who have almost complete control over the financial side of things. Whilst theoretically there was "plenty of control", in reality there was very little, other than the whims and wants of the majority share holders.

My point is that clubs such as Roma, Real Madrid and Barcelona have got themselves into debt by borrowing money, as clubs, in order to invest in stadiums and players. United and Liverpool have not done this. Their debts were dumped on the clubs as part of business transactions and are not part of the business costs of running the clubs. Selective, yes, but it's important, if for nothing other than posterity, the draw this distinction. Platini chooses not to acknowlede this, which I find very annoying and myopic.

I'm aware of who is currently being accused of what. If we have done something wrong then we deserve to be punished but I don't think an 18 month ban on transfers is relative to the crime. A ban of "a transfer window" or maybe 2, but it appears heavy to me.

One thing I am confident about is that IF we are to be accused and punished of poaching young players from other clubs, then I'm pretty confident that we're not the only ones. I'm willing to bet that almostall of Europes big clubs have indulged in some exploitation of some kind, and as we speak, I bet the likes of Barcelona, Liberpool and Inter Milan are all wrapping up their operations as we speak, in order to dust over their tracks.

I agree. It's nice that the proper authorities are axtually taking issue with this. I said the same when Eduardo was banned because ultimately you'd much rather see a overly-heavy punishment than go through the frustration of seeing none at all.

However, in reference to the previous topic, it'd be interesting to see what ;evel of punishemtn would be dished out to Europes other major clubs.

From what I can see, all these clubs have done in some instances, is to exploit the fact that we can sign 16 year olds to professional contracts, where as France and Italy have to wait until they're 18.

 

They were stakeholders, but even if they weren't, that has no bearing on the level of control they had over their stake. I was careful in my wording, I didn't claim that the majority of shares were in the hands of avid fans and local devotees, I wasn't harking back to the days when Loius Edwards trawled the streets of Salford picking up family shares for a meat hamper. But the key shareholders were stakeholders in the (then) present and future direction of Manchester United.

McManus and Magnier were sufficiently engaged to demand seats on the board of the plc. Of course they're moneymen, but it's not like the majority of MUFC plc shares were held by some fund manager at a pensions company on the other side of the globe, just another leaf in the stock portfolio of the giant financial corp he represents. Ergo, to argue that Manchester United's current debt-laden operating model was somehow foisted upon the plc by outside forces entirely beyond their control is a very biased restatement of recent history.

And besides, let's go into this more fundamentally: Manchester United place themselves on the stock market more than 25 years ago. They did so because the then owners wanted to make more money out of the business, with little regard for the institution. Is Platini wrong to target such an enterprise when making the point he is making? Talking about a lack of control is profoundly disingenuous now.

Crikey, where to start? First of all, both Manchester United and Liverpool have operated debt levels in their previous lives. MUFC plc were famously debt-free when the Glazer's took over, but that was a relatively recent consequence of the SKY/CL bonanza they annually participate in. Go back a small number of years and United used debt to operate, just like everyone else - the more significant tranches of the Old Trafford development programme were all paid for in this manner, for instance. Liverpool, equally, had about £30m of debt when the Cowboys came along. Right, next you need to google "due diligence". That's a process whereby the two parties in a potential sale of a company check each other out before anyone signs anything. Hicks, Gillette, the Glazers - all had very explicit plans to raise debt to complete their purchase. That debt was coming the way of the clubs if the sale went ahead was clear from day one, even in the case of Liverpool, where the Yanks initially tried to make some noises about not using debt to fund the purchase.

Now, to cut both United and Liverpool's boards some slack, it's entirely normal for debt to fund a purchase of this magnitude, so their options for a deal that didn't include such a structure would have been limited. But it remains indisputable that they still had a measure of control over the situation.

OK, what else - well, the debt most assuredly is "part of the business costs of running the clubs". Revenue generated by and through the clubs is used to pay the interest on the debts of the holding companies. And likewise, debt is used to finance the capital expenditure above and beyond the club's revenues that either operation chooses to commit to (Torres' purchase, for instance). Fire up Google once more and look at the latest financial reports from both clubs.

Posterity? Platini is a football administrator, not Samuel Johnson.

Platini is not reported in the UK media as acknowledging this, which I find very annoying and myopic.

Define "relative to the crime". Like I've said, it's all very well pleading context, but you must pay heed to it yourself. A transfer ban is the most effective way of actually punishing a club of Chelsea's wealth and stature and sends a clear message to the rest of the "elite". And Chelsea have only been banned for two transfer windows - 2009/10 Winter window and 2010 summer window. They can transfer again in the 2010/11 transfer window.

That's a very safe bet, I'm sure.

I think Platini's idea of a ban on international transfers for players under 18 is a good start.

 

I agree. However, how much control they have is only relevant if it's held by people who care about the future of the club - fans. If they're only in it for monetary purposes, then that control is irrelevant. The likes of JP McManus and John Magnier were major share holders in the club, but they were not fans. They simply saw huge profits and sold up, undertandable as it is frustrating from a fans point of view. That makes their level of control irrelavant. Anyone who cared about the club would have turned Glazer down. His buy-out attempt was too heavily leavered for most peoples liking.

It is, but it seems churlish to simply lump all in-debted clubs into one pile without considering their positions. United are actually doing a great job of servicing their debts and despite what some see as lavish spending of late, we're still turning a profit, albeit before those profits get swallowed up by Glazers big black hole.

Had either club not been bought out by heavily leavered business deals, it's safe to say that neither would have accumulated the debts racked up by Barca, Real and Velencia which are running into the hundreds of milloins of pounds per club. Roma too are hundreds of millions in debt as well, due to ireesponsible financial management.

This is meaningless. If you don't understand my pint, just say so.

What Chelsea have done is simply to offer another player a position at their club. They want a great player, the player wants a great club. It is a mutually beneficial deal for everyone except the French club themselves. However, if rules in France prevent these clubs from tieing down their best prospects then perhaps that is something for France to deal with.

Afterall, English clubs have long suffered in the transfer market to their European rivals because our department of employment will not sanction the signings of non-European players unless they have played 75% of their home countries internationals in the last 2 years. How many Brazilians and Argetinians have English clubs missed out on due to this regulation? How much of an advantage has this given European sides over ours? The likes of Crespo, Rivaldo, Denilson, Ronaldinho etc have all gone to major European clubs because our sides simply were not allowed to offer them deals. And that is just the famous players.

If a countries employment laws restrict clubs, that is something that should be dealth with internally.

If Chelsea are in the wrong, it is because they failed to adequately compensate the club for which Kakuta played for. In that light, a simple court order, much like the one ordering Tottenham to compensate Crystal Palace for John Bostock, albeit more reflective of the players value, would suffice surely?

On one hand it is, on the other it isn't.

Would Cesc Fabregas be the same player had he been tied down to Barcelona? Or has regular football since the age of 16 in Arsenals first team been to his benefit? The same could be said of Lionel Messi, who almost certainly wouldn't be playing professional football had it not been for his move to Barcelona at the age of 13 which enabled him to access the hormone treatment which stopped him frm being a midget?

Countless African players fall into this category too. Kanu was transferred to Europe very early and this has undoubtedly been to his benefit. Young players moved out of Africa are actually helped by their moves to European clubs. It increases their education, their ability at a higher level and actually offers them an opportunity to get out of their impoverished countries.

These, of couse, are selected examples and for every success story there must be hundreds, thousands of failures.

However, as long as this is managed responsibly I see no wrong with it. The key, to my mind, is to govern it properly, not restrict it.

 

And of course, there is the argument that French clubs have been patrolling Africa for years scooping up the finst talent going using exactly the same conomics that EPL clubs have been using now. Money, prestige, opportunity to play in Europe etc?

It's a little kettle-pot-black from some angles...............

 

You're now conflating control with commitment or "caring". Bottom line - your opening argument was that United had no control over the sale of the club to the Glazers and the business model that was subsequently applied. This is manifestly false. The majority of shares were in the hands of people with an active role in the club, so control was real and close.

I agree that there are distinctions to be made between "clubs with debt" and this is an area where Platini has, at least in his public utterances, rendered to simplistic a view. His essential point remains untouchable though - football's dynamics are being fundamentally twisted by clubs that use debt to operate in a way that other clubs cannot. The precise nature of each instance is of secondary importance to the main point.

True.

I was merely suggesting that perhaps you were assigning too high-falutin a significance to Platini and his utterances. He owes nothing to "posterity" when commenting on what he sees as being a problem in the game.

What Chelsea have done is break the rules they are party to as members of the European football landscape. Let's not dress this up. As for whom it benefits, it benefits the player, his agent and/or family and, in potential terms at least Chelsea. But that's not enough to outweigh the fact that it damages the originating club and damages the weight of the aforementioned laws and that, if left unpunished, it damages the game itself.

This is all entirely irrelevant. We're not talking about competitive disadvantage due to individual national laws. We're talking about illegitimate advantage due to willful disregard for international footballing laws, to whom all parties concerned have willingly signed up.

Let's cut to the chase - if Chelsea found themselves on the receiving end of such treatment, do you think they'd be shy about invoking the very rules of which they have fallen foul here?

Rules is rules.

No. For a start, there's no "if" in this. Again - rules is rules. And for a second, their wrongdoing is inducing a player to break a contract in contravention to laws that protect all clubs, including Chelsea, from losing players who are illegally induced to break a contract.

I don't know why you're pulling such contortions to try and legitimize a clear and not particularly remarkable violation of footballing law.

What? That's a completely different situation. Palace were formally approached by Spurs and agreed to sell the player. Only the fee was in dispute, meaning existing arbitration mechanisms swung into play. That's not even vaguely related to what happened with Chelsea in this instance.

Who knows? Or cares, for that matter. Maybe he would have played as often for Barcelona as he did for Arsenal. We can only suppose. But that all misses the point in any case. Fabregas is an exceptional exception. Platini's proposal is designed to protect the playing careers of the hundreds of youths who annually chase the dream and end up nowhere because of it. How many teenagers do the top 10-20 clubs in Europe annually hoover up from "lesser" coaching streams all over the world? How many of them do so on the back of precisely the sort of distasteful inducements and dishonest, hopelessly unrealistic fantasies peddled by Chelsea in this example?

Speaking only of Liverpool, we have an Academy stuffed full of players from every corner of Europe and beyond and not a single one of them has made it into the first team. And before you succumb to temptation, that's not because the coaching is poor, it's the same at United, Arsenal and Chelsea. And Real Madrid and Barcelona and yadda yadda. And we haven't even started on the impact on local talent.

Cutting that cycle of empty dream-peddling off is far more likely to turn out a good thing for the game as a whole than not. A Fabregas here or there notwithstanding.

And yet you've invested quite some energy in this thread into condemning as unfair one of only three instances where the governing body has attempted to do just that.

 

Except none of the french young players concerned in these stories were under contract. Under french law they can't be put under contracts, so they sign 'agreements'. The charge against Chelsea however is that of inducing a player to breach a contract.

In order for Chelsea to be guilty these 'agreements' must constitute a contract (so that there is a contract to break) whilst similtaneously not constituting a contract (so that it isn't illegal under french law).

However much you believe the big clubs act unethically and deserve to be punished, the rules at present don't allow it under reasonable interpretation. Any vaguely competent court will throw these cases out.

 

A misconstruction. These are rules of the footballing bodies, not this or that national legal code. If FIFA takes the "agreement" and calls it a contract, then Chelsea are guilty of inducing someone to break a contract. End of story. And on that basis a court would not throw this out, because

a) they wouldn't be placed in a position to try and
b) they wouldn't be judging whether or not a contract was broken, they would be judging whether a FIFA rule was broken. And Chelsea are guilty of that.

Seriously, is this thread a pre-hearing sandbox for Chelsea's representatives to the Court of Arbitration in Sport? What's with you all? This is a good thing, people!

 

Quite an interesting view, Matt. Now, granted, even your keeper doesn't think you're a challenge to us in the league, but I'm not sure you'd have the same view were this to happen to Liverpool. In fact, I suspect you'd be rather annoyed at being singled out in this way, especially in some rather shady circumstances. But hey, its Chelsea, so this is "good for the game". Never mind that Chelsea and Liverpool have been spending about the same amounts on players the past 3 years, if it punishes Chelsea it must be right. I usually agree with you, but you haven't thought this one through.

What FIFA are saying is that a contract that is not a contract under European and French law is, in fact, a contract under FIFA rules. So, considering all transfers in football have to go under FIFA rules, FIFA have essentially established a legal system within football that clearly violates the law. So while yes, strictly speaking FIFA can do whatever it likes with internal rules, their current rules violate European law. It would be as if the industry that employs you decided to set up a governing organization which decided to impose a 90 hour work week, and then demanded that you resolve all disputes within that organization. Shockingly, they'd disagree with any complaints that 90 weeks is too much, even if its in violation of the law. But, according to you, that's OK.
Now, would Chelsea take this further? We could, though I doubt we will. Pissing off FIFA won't help. Also, please stop mentioning the Mexes and Sion cases. There were perfectly legal contracts involved - there are none here. FIFA is violating EU labor laws in order to get at this result.

You're also completely wrong that this wouldn't be reviewable by a court. Were Chelsea to take this far enough (which I'm sure we won't), it most certainly would be, and the rule would be thrown out, because it clearly violates EU law. You aren't allowed to violate EU laws just because you set up an internal FIFA rule. You're just lucky your corrupt organization has the monopoly on policing these internal regulations.

The idea of ending the "trafficking" of young players is not a bad one, and I'd have no complaint if we did something wrong in a legitimate situation. But this isn't the way to do it. This should (and likely will) be reduced on appeal, and the view that this is a poor ruling isn't evidence of someone making Chelsea's point at the CoAS.

Also, I don't agree that Platini has no bias against England - his comment on Real's spending this year was "this won't guarantee them a title". His comments on English spending wasn't so.......circumspect. And I've yet to see the UEFA/FIFA outcry over the individual TV deals Real and Barca agree to, which pay the two of them as much as the other 18 Primera clubs combined. They aren't really out to "get" English clubs, but Platini is hardly a paragon of objectivity. But that's moot to this case. Its Chelsea's first offense (please don't bring up Mikel, a situation in which the Lyn director was found guilty of forgery by a court of law) and to receive an 18 month ban for a contract that's not even a legal contract is ridiculous. It'll be reduced on appeal and we won't be allowed to buy players in January. That seems fair, I suppose.

 

I've repeatedly said I would have precisely the same view - right here in this thread. Now, I accept that that's all you've got to go on, but shucks, I thought we was friends.

I don't doubt for a second that Liverpool do this too. We just haven't got caught ... yet. But if we do, I'll take it on the chin because it's what's right for the longer term viability of the game. And it's useful to see UEFA growing a pair, irrespective of how temporary a phenomenon that may be.

Yes they are. As is their right. All sporting bodies do this. You should see some of the stuff in the MCC statute book.

An ongoing issue that neither FIFA, UEFA, individual FA's or (stifles chortle) the EU are addressing, let alone solving. But that's irrelevant. All it does is render the status quo more quo, so to speak. It is what it is.

Well, you're the legal type. I'll take your word for it. Although as you acknowledge, it's hypothetical anyway, because it won't go anywhere near a court.

Chelsea just happen to be the poor saps that got caught first amongst the "elite". More fool them. Banning them from buying or selling players is a just response. As it would be if any of the other "elite" were to find themselves in a similar pickle.

 

Except that you already qualified by talking about how the Crewe situation is different. Note, I also repetedly said that the concept of enforcing such rules is a good idea; its the way its been done here that I disagree with. Also, banning the player who did this when he was 16 and broke a non-enforceable contract strikes me as ridiculous overkill.

There are vastly better way of doing that though than by selectively enforcing rules (which violate laws) which impose draconian penalties completely out of the blue. If the Mexes situation merits a one window ban, how in the world does this get 18??

Well, its not their right, its their choice. Its my choice to make rules that allow my sunday book to club tar and feather random homeless people, its not my right.

Yes.......until its not. If someone wanted to really challenge this, there's no question what would happen. In fact, were Lennart Johanssen running UEFA, the response may have been very different indeed. (Platini is a VP of FIFA, whereas Johanssen for all his well known issues at least stood up to Blatter's corruption machine.)
This is absolutely no different than the Bosman ruling - is a restraint on trade permitted under the EU law. Just because it hasn't been challenged doesn't mean it never will.

I suspect someone more along the lines of that crazy eastern european owner who's owned a few of the smaller Primera clubs would be one to do it - his name escapes me at the moment.

Its not the punishment, its it severity and lack of proportionality, especially considering the circumstances. Once this is reduced to one window, as I expect it to be, I won't have too many complaints. Although, again, having arcane rules that clearly violate EU labor laws is an odd way to accomplish this. And while I'm happy that more work is being created for lawyers, I suppose, its completely unnecessary.

 

From what I've seen written of it, it is. But that's just one example. I'm sure Liverpool have others hidden away somewhere.

No one seems able to name a better way though. Your attempt amounts merely to a more lenient way.

As to "out of the blue", I don't see what that's got to do with anything. For a start, it was only out of the blue to us our here and for a second, it's out-of-the-blueness is irrelevant to the substance of the rule and the punishment engendered by the rule anyway.

A point Chelsea's officials will doubtless make at the appeal hearing.

It's their choice and their right.

An entertaining little tangent, but still irrelevant to the reality of this situation. Chelsea did wrong, Chelsea got caught, Chelsea got done.

There's nothing to see here, basically.

 

I've not offered one on this thread. My point is that the punishment isn't proportional and too hard - that doesn't make it an adjustment to the rule.
A sensible system of a way to provide for more youth to be home grown is an entirely different kettle of fish and a discussion I'm happy to have. But THAT would be a tangent.

Its irrelevant to the violation yes, to the punishment no.

A poor point Matt. Its the equivalent of saying that "sure, execution seems a bit harsh for public nudity, but that's what your appeal is for!". If your rulings are reduced on appeal, you should reduce your own rulings.

No, its not their "right". That's the point. Its their choice to do this until someone takes it to court to establish that its not their right, which it most certainly is not.

A surprisingly myopic view that fails to recognize shades of gray. And given your contribution to this thread, you clearly disagree that there's nothing to see here - you've declared this a good thing to see, in fact.

My initial reaction to this, incidentally, was that if we got caught with our hand in the cookie jar, we deserve to get punished. I actually got far more displeased with it after I read the details and the precedents.

I should also add that this rule was NOT designed to protect young footballers from being poached - it was designed to prevent players from breaching contracts. Kakuta just happened to be a young player. So the notion that UEFA/FIFA are acting to protect the youth is even more disingenuous.