*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[TT Boy]

Chelsea banned from buying players until 2011. Relates to the transfer of Gael Kakuta in 2007 from Lens...

 

[sledger]

Chelsea banned from buying players until 2011. Relates to the transfer of Gael Kakuta in 2007 from Lens...

Won't last, is a restraint of trade and thus illegal.

 

[TT Boy]

Two transfer windows and the player in question has been banned for four months.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ha, what? Is this unprecedented? Given how dodgy the majority of transfers are I reckon yer Chavs have every right to feel a bit singled out.

Funny tho, but.

 

[Uppercut]

Won't last, is a restraint of trade and thus illegal.

Taking the Premier League to court isn't a good idea for any British club.

 

[Uppercut]

What's the source, btw?

 

[TT Boy]

Gael breached a water tight contract with RC Lens and Chelsea were made aware of this by Lens but still completed the transfer. The player as well as being banned has been fined over half a million pounds for breaking contract...

 

[TT Boy]

Taking the Premier League to court isn't a good idea for any British club.

More like FIFA.

 

[Uppercut]

More like FIFA.

Ah, it's a FIFA sanction? Yeah, no way they're worming out of this one.

 

[sledger]

Ah, it's a FIFA sanction? Yeah, no way they're worming out of this one.

I wouldn't be so sure to be honest, FIFA has absolutely no right to impose such a ruling, I think they would be well within their rights to challenge this, whether they deserve the punishment or not is another matter, bottom line is you cannot stop someone from buying something for which they are entitled if both parties are in agreement, not in europe anyway.

 

[TT Boy]

Ah, it's a FIFA sanction? Yeah, no way they're worming out of this one.

Yeah. Lens went to them and asked them to investigate and apply sanctions.

Chelsea fully support FIFA' stance on Adrian Mutu, so they can't really question the legitimacy of FIFA.

 

[Pratters]

Chelsea banned from buying players until 2011. Relates to the transfer of Gael Kakuta in 2007 from Lens...

Great news.

 

[Pratters]

Chelsea banned from signing players until 2011 | Football | guardian.co.uk

 

[TT Boy]

I wouldn't be so sure to be honest, FIFA has absolutely no right to impose such a ruling, I think they would be well within their rights to challenge this, whether they deserve the punishment or not is another matter, bottom line is you cannot stop someone from buying something for which they are entitled if both parties are in agreement, not in europe anyway.

UEFA are able to have a transfer window, surely that also restricts trade?

 

[Uppercut]

I wouldn't be so sure to be honest, FIFA has absolutely no right to impose such a ruling, I think they would be well within their rights to challenge this, whether they deserve the punishment or not is another matter, bottom line is you cannot stop someone from buying something for which they are entitled if both parties are in agreement, not in europe anyway.

FIFA's rulings are strictly optional, of course they are. They're not a law-enforcing body. That doesn't mean they have no power though. Chelsea are absolutely free to break the ruling, but they'd forfeit their relationship with FIFA. A really, really bad idea.

 

[sledger]

UEFA are able to have a transfer window, surely that also restricts trade?

Kind of, but not really, you are able to purchase player's at anytime you like, they just won't be eligible until after the transfer window comes into effect. Though you could argue this is the same as what is happening to Chelsea now, the way it has been worded by UEFA is that Chelsea have actually been banned from signing new players full stop, which is dodgy to say the least.

 

[sledger]

FIFA's rulings are strictly optional, of course they are. They're not a law-enforcing body. That doesn't mean they have no power though. Chelsea are absolutely free to break the ruling, but they'd forfeit their relationship with FIFA. A really, really bad idea.

Yeah, but that is akin to saying your employer has told you that it's company policy to come into work naked for a week each year, it may be an official rule, so to speak, which would clearly also be against the law, you might forfeit your relationship with your employer if you refused, but you wouldn't be at all in the wrong for opposing it. Stupid example perhaps, but the principles are the same.

 

[TT Boy]

FIFA's rulings are strictly optional, of course they are. They're not a law-enforcing body. That doesn't mean they have no power though. Chelsea are absolutely free to break the ruling, but they'd forfeit their relationship with FIFA. A really, really bad idea.

FIFA also have their own laws, ones in which the contract is king.

Sports lawyer on SSN's said Chelsea will of course appeal due to the sanctions but FIFA's decision isn't legally wrong. Chelsea's defence will be built on exposing the other clubs who have done the exactly same thing but tapping up and inducing a player to break a legally binding contract are two different things.

 

[sledger]

FIFA also have their own laws, ones in which the contract is king.

Sports lawyer on SSN's said Chelsea will of course appeal due to the sanctions but FIFA's decision isn't legally wrong. Chelsea's defence will be built on exposing the other clubs who have done the exactly same thing but tapping up and inducing a player to break a legally binding contract are two different things.

Yeah indeed, i'm not saying that Chelsea were in the right by signing the young french guy, far from it, what they did clearly broke regulations and they deserved punishment, it's just that the punishment imposed in this instance is contrary to several pieces of EU legislation.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, but that is akin to saying your employer has told you that it's company policy to come into work naked for a week each year, it may be an official rule, so to speak, which would clearly also be against the law, you might forfeit your relationship with your employer if you refused, but you wouldn't be at all in the wrong for opposing it. Stupid example perhaps, but the principles are the same.

I'd compare it to the place held in Britain by the Advertising Standards Authority. They have no legal powers, so if they tell you to cut an advertisement you can just refuse. But no one ever does.