Chelsea can't sign anyone for 18 months

[What A CUNT.]

So fifas dispute resolution team who have found chelsea guilty of breach of contract are made up of idiots who cant comprehend info, cos contracts with minors 'hold no weight' ok what thanks for ur breakdown matebut i think im gonna wait for the result of the appeal before makin them statements there

Pretty much spot on. Everybody in the football world who is without bias has agreed that the punishment is extremely disproportionate as there is technically no crime committed. If Lens were given the money they asked for this would have been swept under the carpet and there would be no moral outcry about clubs ‘stealing’ players.

[Rsonist]

how do u no no contract exsistedwhat do u no about that contract aspirant for under 16 players in france?are u a french legal expert as well as a rentboy?

[Lieutenant]

CHELSEA, WHERE EVER YOU MAY BEYOU AIN'T GOT NO HISTORY

LAMPARDS FATAND JOE COLES QUEERAND YOU AINT GONNA WIN f*ck ALL THIS YEAR

[Taurus]

CHELSEA, WHERE EVER YOU MAY BEYOU AIN'T GOT NO HISTORY

LAMPARDS FATAND JOE COLES QUEERAND YOU AINT GONNA WIN f*ck ALL THIS YEAR

/CHELSEA

[Lieutenant]

Or with what Spurs did with Bostock , Difference is , Kakuta is one of the biggest talents in european AND french football (Hence why Platini handed a ban out) and Bostock is any overhyped english yute.

Ban was handed out by Sepp Blatter you d*ck.

[TF S4DK]

You cannot have a legally binding contract with a minor; pre-contract or other. He was technically a free agent at the time and free to sign with other clubs. That is what I said and what you've posted is pretty much irrelevant tbh.That Chelsea have to pay Lens compensation is a given the problem here is that unlike the other clubs who have signed young players in similar situations the clubs were unable to come to an agreement. A transfer ban is unacceptable as no contract was broken; you can't 'induce' a player to break a contract that does not exist.You're another one who is speaking for the sake of speaking without truly understanding facts.Who's getting sonned next? Line up please.

You can sign a pre-contract you idiot, how much it stands up in a court and which countries court is debatable. You think Theo Walcott didnt sign a contract with Arsenal at 16, infact Dein said the contract was the biggest he'd ever seen and was covered from so many loopholes, just in case, again that was a pre-contract until he turned 17.The ban isn't for just his pre-contract, its because they have valid reason to believe that Chelsea illegally approached him, paid him to break his pre-agreement, and was paying him as a minor, but your see...

[Zachary Foxx]

The only way a contract signed by a minor is legally binding anywhere in the world is if that contract was ratified after the signee turned 18. Ergo, the contract with Lens is some fancy toilet paper.You cannot sign something under the age of 18 saying you promise to do something in the future, because you are always free to change your mind.Whether he ratified the contract is what will be the issue here.

[Black Ant]

indeed my good sir

[TF S4DK]

The contract was signed by him and his father.Its a written agreement that at 16, he will sign a contract after development.They lodge them in France with the authorities, and within France they are certainly valid.Like I said, every country has different laws within courts, England for example is known for being very strict on not stopping people from working, which is why despite football laws, things like Mascherano can happened where he appears for three clubs in a season and why people believe 6+5 will be hard to implement here.Regardless of the pre-contract, players under 16 cant be approached or have contact with another club until they reach 16. Obviously Lens have proof this happened, as when he turned 16, he went AWOL and his father said he's going Chelsea.

[MEIRELES.]

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Never gets old. Best one Ive seen.

[Badman]

lol @ changing ur name to that

[MrJibbles]

Chelsea face a second legal threat over allegations of poaching young players, this time concerning the move of an 11-year-old to Stamford Bridge. ASPTT Marseille, the French club who saw Jérémy Boga switch to west London last October, are consulting lawyers over whether to make a fresh complaint to Fifa.Following Fifa's imposition of a transfer ban until January 2011 over Chelsea's illegal recruitment of the teenage forward Gaël Kakuta from Lens, ASPTT Marseille will take legal advice on Tuesday to discuss the case of Boga, who had spent five years with the amateur team.Robert Caturégli, the chairman of the Marseille club's football division, claims Chelsea pushed through the transfer by arranging accommodation and a car for the player's parents.Caturégli alleges that Lyon, Marseille and Bordeaux took an interest in Boga's development but that the youngster's father, who had previously split from his wife and moved to London, made contact with English clubs about the possible transfer.Chelsea are understood to have been told that the child already intended to move to London to live with his father, who was said to be living within Chelsea's catchment area. The club do not consider they have broken any rules over the move. Since Boga was under the age of 12 there was no requirement for the club to seek international clearance."The player is so gifted the three biggest clubs in France wanted him," said Caturégli. "But Chelsea found a solution of taking the whole family: the mum, the two brothers and to keep them in a house in Wimbledon. The mum has a car to take the kids to school and to training or whatever. He was in our Under-12s team and we're just a youth development club. He didn't have a contract so we felt we couldn't go to Fifa."But if the family were getting back together they could have done so at Marseille and the boy has been taken to England at a very young age. It's sure that Chelsea didn't reunite the family for sentimental reasons. We're prisoners of these big clubs who purloin our players. Chelsea did not give us even one single football."ASPTT will ask lawyers whether the circumstances of the move are in contravention of Fifa's Article 19, governing international transfers involving minors. That states: "International transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18," adding that a child may only register with a foreign club if "the player's parents move to the country in which the new club is located for reasons not linked to football".Chelsea, who are appealing against Fifa's Kakuta ruling, refused to comment. However, if Caturégli's claims are true, he would have the sympathy of Uefa's president, Michel Platini, who is a Fifa vice-president. "When you uproot [a child] from their home environment, when you make them emotionally disorientated, I call that child trafficking," said Platini in a speech to the European parliament in February.Chelsea have long insisted that their policy for youth player recruitment is based around London, in accordance with Football Association regulations. Setting out his role as "a headhunter around the world" at a Leaders in Football conference last year, Chelsea's head of player recruitment, Frank Arnesen, explained self-imposed age limits on overseas acquisitions."London is our first aim for seven to 12-year-olds," said Arnesen. "At 12-14 we go a little bit further but still London, for 1http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/se...player-poaching

[Rsonist]

@ another Hitler downfall video....

[What A CUNT.]

You can sign a pre-contract you idiot, how much it stands up in a court and which countries court is debatable. You think Theo Walcott didnt sign a contract with Arsenal at 16, infact Dein said the contract was the biggest he'd ever seen and was covered from so many loopholes, just in case, again that was a pre-contract until he turned 17.The ban isn't for just his pre-contract, its because they have valid reason to believe that Chelsea illegally approached him, paid him to break his pre-agreement, and was paying him as a minor, but your see...

Do you know why "how much it stands up in a court is debateable"? Because and I repeat for the last time; you cannot have a legally binding contract with a minor. The Lens chairmen alluded as much by saying "in effect it was a pre-contract agreement". 'In effect' i.e "we wish it was a pre-contract agreement but we know it's not".You're still wrong and I can't be bothered to explain any further because you obviously refuse to understand. Why do you keep mentioning Arsenal signings like they're relevant in any way to the Kakuta case? Pipe down. Nobody cares about Walcott, Dien or any other mug related to your team.

[TF S4DK]

Yeah I'm wrong, Chelsea were fined based on no evidence and you are the biggest orcale thus far...There are practices in places, which as a Arsenal fan you understand as we have signed many, many, many players in similar situations, except unlike your club and its deluded workers, which is now spreading to its fans, we actually understand the rules.

[HangTheDJ]

Heard yesterday that the ban will be suspended for the duration of Chelsea's appeal (which could take a while), so it's likely that they'll be able to sign players in January. Then on appeal hope to get the ban cut down to one window.So expect them to be splashing the cash in January if thats true.

[The Somalian]

Heard yesterday that the ban will be suspended for the duration of Chelsea's appeal (which could take a while), so it's likely that they'll be able to sign players in January. Then on appeal hope to get the ban cut down to one window.So expect them to be splashing the cash in January if thats true.

yeah thats what i have been hearing to and then it will be cut down to one window after the appeal its no big dealman united suppose to be in the sh*t now also

[What A CUNT.]

Yeah I'm wrong, Chelsea were fined based on no evidence and you are the biggest orcale thus far...There are practices in places, which as a Arsenal fan you understand as we have signed many, many, many players in similar situations, except unlike your club and its deluded workers, which is now spreading to its fans, we actually understand the rules.

The irony here is that you're right. There is no evidence and the 'pre-contract' that was signed holds as much weight as an I.O.U written on toilet paper. Just so you know; Fifa's decision was made with no input from Chelsea so they were unable to argue their case. Funny how a club can be punished without them arguing theit side of the story don't you think? Ahh well, Roman's army of lawyers will deal with the matter.You clearly don't understand the rules btw but carry on, it's amusing. I read this forum usually and don't but in because I find it funny how you and a couple other guys speak with such authority on matters even though you're any mug who knows f*ck all tbh.

[What A CUNT.]

Anyways that's me done for the months. See you all after we win the appeal.

[jcee]

CHELSEA have been warned they could have their worldwide transfer ban increased if they lose their appeal.The Blues are taking a gamble by challenging FIFA’s decision to ban them from signing any new players until January 2011 for the way they poached French starlet Gael Kakuta from Lens.Chelsea feel they have a good case to reduce the manager Carlo Ancelotti making any signings over two transfer windows.But the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which will hear the appeal, have the power to increase the punishment if the challenge fails – as they have done in doping cases in the past.Chelsea still have to study the reasons why FIFA found them guilty, which they are waiting to receive.But top international sports lawyer Ian Blackshaw, who sits on the Court of Arbitration, has spelt out to Chelsea therisk they are taking.He said: “The procedure is that Chelsea are appealing against the decision of FIFA’s dispute resolution chamber.“The CAS is the supreme court of world sport and you cannot go any higher than that.While it is possible for the court to reduce the penalty, I have to say that when one is dealing with a sanction it is open to CAS – if they take the view that the penalty imposed by the dispute resolution chamber isn’t severe enough – it is possible for them to impose a higher penalty.“This has happened in a number of doping cases where CAS has said the sport body concerned was too lenient, a two-year ban was not sufficient and the punishment did not fit the crime. This is the risk that Chelsea take in this case.’’Chelsea are banking on the fact that when Roma appealed over an identical ban in 2004, for the way they signed French defender Philippe Mexes, they had their ban cut in half to just one transfer window.Blackshaw added: “I don’t want to pre-judge the appeal but the advantage Chelsea have is that under CAS rules they can look at the case all over again from scratch.’’Chelsea can expect a decision by December.ITALIAN club Fiorentina yesterday admitted they have lodged a complaint with FIFA over Manchester United’s signing of youngster Michele Fornasier.The Italian side are furious United landed the defender this summer shortly before his 16th birthday, then subsequently offered him a deal.

about time teams stood up to this.

[The Somalian]

all the top clubs should say f*ck fifa and uefa and make their own break away groupwith all the top teams in europe with their own rulesand make some sort of league and cup throughout europe would make a sh*t load of money and will be jokes and I know allot of clubs want to do it alreadythen everton, villa and spurs could have a better chance and winning the titles

[TF S4DK]

Yeah I'm wrong, Chelsea were fined based on no evidence and you are the biggest orcale thus far...There are practices in places, which as a Arsenal fan you understand as we have signed many, many, many players in similar situations, except unlike your club and its deluded workers, which is now spreading to its fans, we actually understand the rules.

The irony here is that you're right. There is no evidence and the 'pre-contract' that was signed holds as much weight as an I.O.U written on toilet paper. Just so you know; Fifa's decision was made with no input from Chelsea so they were unable to argue their case. Funny how a club can be punished without them arguing theit side of the story don't you think? Ahh well, Roman's army of lawyers will deal with the matter.You clearly don't understand the rules btw but carry on, it's amusing. I read this forum usually and don't but in because I find it funny how you and a couple other guys speak with such authority on matters even though you're any mug who knows f*ck all tbh.

See this is how I know your any guy thats listen to the shite that Chelsea fans amongst themselves have deluded themselves into believing.If you look at most cases which go thru FIFA/UEFA etc... They receive a compliant, which obviously comes with documents from that club, on the basis of the evidence put to them they find guilty or not guilty, they found Chelsea in breach and issued their ruling, they didnt need to hear Chelsea's side of things, as its now up to Chelsea to have to prove their innocence. This isn't a court of law. This I think is where a lot of people are getting things confused.In life, there are LAWS which are written by high courts and vary from country to country.In sport, there are RULES which are written by the individual sporting bodies.The two are seperate issues which like I said is why you have things like Maschereno playing for Liverpool, his third club in one season, which is the international sporting bodies rule being broken, but the fact that Maschereno is being denied a living in the UK meant that the sporting rule is cancelled out as Liverpool would go to a high court and be granted a injunction.Chelsea have been issued their punishment not just for the pre-agreement but because they was talking to the boy when he is 15, didn't approach his club, paid him to break the agreement and paid him. Now while the validity of the pre-contract could be easily argued in a high court, the rest of the rules broken are not things you can really argue in a high court as they are all sporting rules and matters, and to go beyond them would well not be advised as Chelsea after all a football club which have agreed to let them run the game...

Chelsea would be on dangerous ground if they attempted to gain an injunction against the ban at the High Court citing a restraint of trade, rather than take their appeal to the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)."Chelsea are obliged to go through CAS under FIFA rules but they might think to try and get an English judge because English judges hate restraint of trade, but if Chelsea do take that route they will make themselves a pariah in football. It would be very high risk."Chelsea's most likely route would be to appeal to CAS, as Swiss club FC Sion did this year in a similar case, which would allow them to continue trading in the next transfer window while the appeal was heard."CAS effectively suspended the operation of the (Sion) ban until a decision was reached so by doing that they got round it. That would be one tactic open to Chelsea."

It amazes me how a Chelsea fan thinks that their case is any different to the cases of other players... But then again you do support CHELSEA.

[The Infamous]

Hmm*puts Pacheco away*

[YFSD]

"Don't worry, We still have Kalou"KILLED me

[bane]

Can they sign players but not join until the ban is overLike get first option or say they will sign a player in 2012 and buy him now?