New FA Charges
- Thread starter Jah Blair
- Start date
bluelightening
First Team Squad
- Messages
- 1,091
- Reaction score
- 841
I'd insist on a six transfer window ban on the club signing players and on appeal extend to 8...
Scott Harris
Legend
- Messages
- 44,819
- Reaction score
- 33,266
It's no surprise I am always on edge these days whenever it comes to Chelsea.
nonotnowjim
Members AF
- Messages
- 7,897
- Reaction score
- 6,508
you and your edging..... training coming along well? Stings record will be yours soon!
IMHO, It will most likely just be a fine. I very much doubt points deduction and I’m 50/50 on a transfer ban.
It was in the BBC and guardian articles.
They both highlighted how Chelsea self-reported and cooperated with complete transparency. They even gave them full access to our accounts. UEFA gave us an 8mil fine for those charges. I’m guessing it will be a bit more than that from the FA though.
It was in the BBC and guardian articles.
They both highlighted how Chelsea self-reported and cooperated with complete transparency. They even gave them full access to our accounts. UEFA gave us an 8mil fine for those charges. I’m guessing it will be a bit more than that from the FA though.
terraloon
First Team Squad
- Messages
- 1,558
- Reaction score
- 958
Not that long ago Brighton were charged by the FA . The charges were in respect of their dealings with intermediaries.
These charges were the second of the sort having previously been charged for similar offences in 2015
Worth a read and there’s a name in there you might recognise
These charges were the second of the sort having previously been charged for similar offences in 2015
Worth a read and there’s a name in there you might recognise
Last edited by a moderator:
Sconnie Blue
Legend
- Messages
- 19,194
- Reaction score
- 15,071
- Self reported. Would’ve never come to light had Clearlake not done so.
- 74 charges but context shows it’s only £10m of unrecognized payments throughout a 20 year period.
- Biggest expense was to Hazard’s agent paid via a tax haven, the majority of them are mundane expenses like £40K paid to a physio.
terraloon
First Team Squad
- Messages
- 1,558
- Reaction score
- 958
When City were charged by the PL we saw details so a part of what I am about to write is pure speculation ( so what’s new I hear you ask)
Bearing in mind that the we now face charges which effectively fall in to two categories
1) Making illegal Payments to agents/ intermediaries/ player’s families
2) Money coming from third parties.
Bearing in mind that every incident detailed in 1) was it seems to have been funded from an unauthorised source ( not club accounts) my guess is that a charge under 2) is linked.
I tried to link a link to a case involving Brighton where they in effect put their hands up to around 20 charges which fell under the same type of misconduct as we are putting our hands up to under 1).
What’s interesting is that Brighton admitted the charges at the first opportunity, made a financial settlement with HMRC and carried out a deep dive into their records where other incidents were uncovered.
What compounded matters in my mind was that these charges in the early 2020s followed an earlier charge in 2015 around similar activities between them and intermediaries.
Bearing in mind that the we now face charges which effectively fall in to two categories
1) Making illegal Payments to agents/ intermediaries/ player’s families
2) Money coming from third parties.
Bearing in mind that every incident detailed in 1) was it seems to have been funded from an unauthorised source ( not club accounts) my guess is that a charge under 2) is linked.
I tried to link a link to a case involving Brighton where they in effect put their hands up to around 20 charges which fell under the same type of misconduct as we are putting our hands up to under 1).
What’s interesting is that Brighton admitted the charges at the first opportunity, made a financial settlement with HMRC and carried out a deep dive into their records where other incidents were uncovered.
What compounded matters in my mind was that these charges in the early 2020s followed an earlier charge in 2015 around similar activities between them and intermediaries.
Last edited by a moderator:
SydneyChelsea
A Touchable
- Messages
- 6,646
- Reaction score
- 4,833
Bumping this thread because the BlueCo one already has plenty of other things to discuss.
@terraloon's favourite useful idiot, Stefan Borson, who now moonlights as a 'football finance expert', has taken to the High Performance podcast
In this episode, and within the first ~30 seconds, he claims:
We know that the payments were categorically not inducements to the players to sign, because they were not made to them directly. The payments still fall foul of the rules because since 2009 a player can only have one registered representative (usually their agent) and only this representative is entitled to payment from a buying club. In Chelsea's case, Abramovich apparently sought to reward the scouts who identified these players with a 'finders fee' or commission if/when Chelsea got their target. De Visser and Arnesen, for example, were employees of the club and the payments were simply a bonus, that should have been considered club revenue. The payments made in connection to Hazard were to his agent, years after the signing, and to two individuals who alerted Lille and Hazard to Chelsea's interest, essentially a buyer's agent. The introduction of FFP/PSR means they were targeted as a reportable expense. The only way this could ever been considered an inducement is if the player himself refused to sign for the club unless a payment was made to one of these third parties, but as Borson himself admits, the players had no knowledge of these payments.
As ever, the FA's rules themselves need greater scrutiny as the precedent set by this case means it is illegal to pay a player's family but instead empowers clubs to pay super-agents to act for both buying club and player, a conflict of interest that harms any selling club.
The question on sporting advantage has also been answered. There was no FFP/PSR breach, so there was no sporting advantage. We didn't sign players we otherwise could not have afforded to sign. Borson goes so far as to say that Willian only signed for Chelsea at the last minute because of the payment, but it is well known that only happened because Willian hates Tottenham, was disgusted by White Hart Lane and the club itself, and the minor and irrelevant reason that Anzhi's owner was mates with Roman and withdrew all other offers once Roman dropped him a text.
Finally, the last point is so ridiculous it is not really worth going into, but of the list of players only Hazard stands out as being exceptional. Schurrle, Ramires, Matic, Willian and Eto'o all had key roles at times, but were hardly exceptional and to say they constituted a sporting advantage is nonsense. The breaches happened at
All in all, while I despise the idea of defamation law being used to silence people giving a legitimate opinion, I would also laugh my head off if Borson gets hit with a defamation suit for regurgitating and retreading information that is contrary to the already-considered facts.
@terraloon's favourite useful idiot, Stefan Borson, who now moonlights as a 'football finance expert', has taken to the High Performance podcast
In this episode, and within the first ~30 seconds, he claims:
- That Chelsea's payments to unauthorised agents were inducements to sign
- That these payments constituted a sporting advantage
- That the quality of the players means that there was a disproportionate sporting advantage.
We know that the payments were categorically not inducements to the players to sign, because they were not made to them directly. The payments still fall foul of the rules because since 2009 a player can only have one registered representative (usually their agent) and only this representative is entitled to payment from a buying club. In Chelsea's case, Abramovich apparently sought to reward the scouts who identified these players with a 'finders fee' or commission if/when Chelsea got their target. De Visser and Arnesen, for example, were employees of the club and the payments were simply a bonus, that should have been considered club revenue. The payments made in connection to Hazard were to his agent, years after the signing, and to two individuals who alerted Lille and Hazard to Chelsea's interest, essentially a buyer's agent. The introduction of FFP/PSR means they were targeted as a reportable expense. The only way this could ever been considered an inducement is if the player himself refused to sign for the club unless a payment was made to one of these third parties, but as Borson himself admits, the players had no knowledge of these payments.
As ever, the FA's rules themselves need greater scrutiny as the precedent set by this case means it is illegal to pay a player's family but instead empowers clubs to pay super-agents to act for both buying club and player, a conflict of interest that harms any selling club.
The question on sporting advantage has also been answered. There was no FFP/PSR breach, so there was no sporting advantage. We didn't sign players we otherwise could not have afforded to sign. Borson goes so far as to say that Willian only signed for Chelsea at the last minute because of the payment, but it is well known that only happened because Willian hates Tottenham, was disgusted by White Hart Lane and the club itself, and the minor and irrelevant reason that Anzhi's owner was mates with Roman and withdrew all other offers once Roman dropped him a text.
Finally, the last point is so ridiculous it is not really worth going into, but of the list of players only Hazard stands out as being exceptional. Schurrle, Ramires, Matic, Willian and Eto'o all had key roles at times, but were hardly exceptional and to say they constituted a sporting advantage is nonsense. The breaches happened at
All in all, while I despise the idea of defamation law being used to silence people giving a legitimate opinion, I would also laugh my head off if Borson gets hit with a defamation suit for regurgitating and retreading information that is contrary to the already-considered facts.
Last edited by a moderator: