That's a good point, however, the punishment in this instance is a great deal more severe, insofar that it completely and fundamentally undermines the commercial purpose of Chelsea FC as a commercial enterprise. I remember the FA suggested that after the tapping up saga with Ashley Cole they would block him from joining Chelsea, but surprise surprise, after realising this was impossible, the idea was panned.
Why?
Our boys don't have the ball long enoguh to dive these days
Least the club that has trained Mikel for instance got some money for losing him, whereas you can't pay a transfer fee for kids under a certain age as i understand the rules.
Er...no. Chelsea parked Mikel in Norway aged 18 because they couldn't get a work permit for him. His clubs in Africa got nowt, the Norwegian club got £5 million...
You forgot paying medical expenses and treating hormone deficiencies which their Argentine clubs could not provide...
Some irony considering Arsenal effectively tapped up Cesc. Same with Pique and Man U. Both players couldn't have contracts, were willing to wait until their eighteenth birthday but were offered riches to move.
As I understand it, they scout promising players at a young age, give them a contract that brings about a quality of life they could only dream of in their native countries, and with the club's training methods they often mature into world-class players. The clubs in Argentina are compensated and everyone's happy. Even if you feel the level of compensation isn't enough, the whole business isn't exactly a horredous evil.
Don't people slag off Angelina Jolie/Madonna for doing pretty much the same thing?
Far as i'm aware the wording is Chelsea cant register new players for 2 transfer windows, in theory they can sign a contract with them, just not eligible to play for Chelsea untill 2011
As did the club who were bribed not to report Chelsea for tapping up
Nah, Chelsea didnt come along untill after he was in Norway, after we'd tapped him up, sorry, agreed a deal with him. Hence the nice £10m they gave us as compensation. Thats as far as i understand it
I would imagine that must be the case, it's probably the only way they can attempt to impose the ruling without blatantly breaking the law. Even so, I would still suggest it's legality is dubious at best, as although it's not restricting trade per se, that is effectively what it is doing.
This is the official version that both clubs agree to. However, it is fairly clear that someone paid Lyn for "storing" Mikel and a couple other Nigerian players (otherwise they wouldn't have ended there but have gone through Belgium like every other football-launderer does), and Norwegian journalists who have written rather excessively about the case claim to have evidence that Chelsea was paying the Nigerians during their stay in Norway.
