Sifting through the Sunday papers, both in print and online, it has been well nigh impossible, apart from one instance, to get a definitive view on Kakutagate and, as this early epithet suggests, it has become all too easy to descend to a scandalmonger’s level. Ranging from the gleeful group I’ll call the ‘Luddite We’ve Asked For Its‘, who brook no mitigating argument or possibility of innocence, whilst studiously ignoring the likelihood of fellow Premiership offenders, right on through to the other extreme, the commentators who are so anxious to be part of any Blatter-led crusade they can’t wait to see the ban in place and the triumphant banner unfurled. Just how keen that group will be to report on wholesale transfer embargoes when they are in place in the Premiership is not known, but for the moment Chelsea are carrying the can, so that particular nicety doesn’t much matter.

However, having already accepted the possibility [okay, the probability] in a previous post that we are more than likely guilty of something relating to this issue, what does matter is the blood boiling hypocrisy on display, not only in the Media reporting, but also seeping, seemingly unnoticed, through the very pores of a Fifa leadership living by the Wilberforcian mantra that to be allowed to retain a player against his will is tantamount to slavery. How quickly the hacks forget Blatter’s embarrassing sound bytes when they want to and how eagerly they jump on a bandwagon going in the opposite direction when it suits the suits in high places. Of course, they will cite the need to protect the young from all the skulduggery of the foreign elders who raid and pillage those …well, frankly, those who don’t want to be raided and pillaged unless it’s for a decent financial reward…and that brings me back to the one journalist, Hugh McIlvanney (The Sunday Times) who had the forethought to touch on this very subject. Referring to Karl-Heinz Rummenigge’s comments on Arsenal, McIlvanney wrote…

“However exaggerated Rummenigge’s references to child trafficking may have been, there is undoubtedly much that is profoundly disquieting about the major clubs’ practice of trawling through the poorer reaches of football for gifted players young enough to be gathered in at minimal expense. At its worst, the trade, relying as it frequently does on less than admirable intermediaries, can create a sense of squalor. But nobody should imagine that the present furore is all about morality, least of all that the intensity generated by those running Lens is overwhelmingly concerned with safeguarding the welfare of young sportsmen. If Chelsea had acceded to Lens’s request for €5m as compensation for the poaching of Kakuta, the player would still be a stranger to sports page headlines.â€

How true and how many times will this particular aspect of Kakutagate be ignored by those who pontificate on Chelsea’s pursuit of these youngsters. I don’t want to continually bang on about the other sport that I love, but within it there is a major consideration known as the endgame and you ignore it at your peril. When it comes to transfer dealings for the Academy, the endgame for Chelsea, as for any other major club, is obvious - get the most talented youngsters in as early and as cheaply as possible - so let’s not kid [excuse the pun] ourselves that it’s any different worldwide, or indeed should be in what is a blatantly cutthroat marketplace. McIlvanney then went on with the now ritualistic dig at Roman, a bit of hearsay and a rather cheap referral to the Kalou party, but, be that as it may, the additional point made is an interesting one…

“Instead, the arrogance that has been conspicuous since the mighty influx of Roman Abramovich’s money seems to have asserted itself once again and the French emissary was, we’re told, informed he could expect no more than the equivalent of a decent bar-bill contribution at one of the Chelsea squad’s famous parties. As legal costs mount in connection with the appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the dangers of an unsatisfactory result at the eventual hearing are contemplated, that €5m may start to look like a bargain. But the fact that Chelsea were offered a settlement is surely as significant as their presumptuous dismissal of it. Lens knew Kakuta (and more importantly his father) had been persuaded his destiny lay in west London and, understandably, their priority became the exacting of a financial return on their investment. That promises to be a recurring pattern when similar conflicts arise. Since trying to prevent footballers of any age from going after the biggest money and the richest opportunities will always be unrealistic, morality won’t often stretch beyond the calculation of compensation.â€

Too right on the settlement angle, but sorry Hugh, you’re way off beam if you think Lens priority ’became’ a financial return. A good payoff was ALWAYS what they wanted - it was always their endgame - and if you believe they were hell bent on retaining Kakuta and playing him in their first team for evermore, you are deluding yourself. No wonder you’re wary of a recurring pattern - you know each parties endgames as well as I do - and to suggest that our dismissal of Lens [then inflated] settlement figure was ’presumptuous’ is to ignore the fact that it has been since ratified, by Fifa no less , in their own review of proceedings. I don’t blame Lens for wanting a high price, neither should Chelsea be blamed for trying to keep it low. In short, everybody has their endgame, as we now know with Fifa’s extraordinarily arbitrary ban, but what is stupefying is the complete disregard for Kakuta’s endgame in all of this and the fact that Blatter and Co, by a fine and a four month ban, purport to be acting in his best interests. Sad to say, McIlvanney ends with the now commonplace use of hyperbole where the Chels is concerned these days, but I’ll include it nevertheless, just so as to complete the picture…

“Still, it’s heartening to find signs that the administrators of the game are seriously intent on making the most opulent seducers less contemptuously unscrupulous in racking up their conquests.â€

Oh dear, oh dear, talk of heartening signs from administrators, up against the opulent, contemptuous, unscrupulous seducers racking up conquests down the Kings Road - such a perfect example of the Sunday Times endgame in all its glory.

Brilliant analysis. I've not read all the commentators as I know what they're going to say, but the level of reporting on this is utterly pitiful.

There are so many questions they should be asking about this:

- was Kakuta on a professional contract?

- was he the signatory of his 'pre-contract' or not?

- If he wasn't why is it right for FIFA to ban him for 4 months?

- did UEFA okay the deal with us, as the People claim?

- is a pre-contract signed when you are 14 legally binding or not?

- How old was Kakuta when he supposedly signed? I've read he was 14 and 15. The terms of the 'contrat aspirant' are that you must be 16 or at least just a few months away from turning 16 to sign.

- Was he registered with the French Federation as a professional or not? The Independent says yes, the Times says no.

- why doesn't French law allow under 16s to be contracted to clubs? Is it to protect youngsters? If so, why doesn't French law offer him protection against the terms of a 'pre-contract' that would prevent him earning vast sums with another club?

- are the sanctions against us, as we claim, 'unprecedented' or have there been any cases where a 'pre-contract' has been found to be valid? If there have, no paper has yet to report a single one. The cases quoted - Roma and FC Sion - did NOT involve 15-year-olds.

If anyone has come across either the answers to these questions or even an article that actually addresses any of them, please post them on here, as this is doing my head in

To answer my own questions, i googled 'Kakuta + contrat', and used my degree-level French to find some info:

The French Yahoo sports site can't decide what sort of contract he had. It refers to a 'contrat aspirant' and later a 'contrat de non-sollicitation'. Now, from what I've read of Manure's defence in the Pogba case, Pogba had the latter, which Manure say is not recognised by FIFA, whereas Kakuta had the former, which is. So what contract did Kakuta have????? They also said he signed at 14, when you have to be 15/16 to sign. They claim it was signed by him and his dad - no mention of his mum, as the People claim today.

A 14 ans, le jeune Kakuta et son père avaient signé "un contrat d'aspirant à effet différé", promettant de signer en faveur de Lens dès l'âge de 16 ans

The French PFA union boss said:

"nous ne sommes pas d'accord pour faire des contrats avec effet différé à des mineurs, et cela ne devrait plus être possible selon un règlement Fifa qui devrait s'appliquer à partir du 1er octobre".

Which says the union does not agree with pre-contracts ('Contracts with deferred effect') for minors, which apparently FIFA are going to ban with effect from the 1st October!!!! Could it be they've punished us for a deal involving a type of contract that will be outlawed by FIFA within the next few weeks????

The same article said we were guilty of 'forcing' him to break his Lens contract!

To answer my own questions, i googled 'Kakuta + contrat', and used my degree-level French to find some info:

The French Yahoo sports site can't decide what sort of contract he had. It refers to a 'contrat aspirant' and later a 'contrat de non-sollicitation'. Now, from what I've read of Manure's defence in the Pogba case, Pogba had the latter, which Manure say is not recognised by FIFA, whereas Kakuta had the former, which is. So what contract did Kakuta have????? They also said he signed at 14, when you have to be 15/16 to sign. They claim it was signed by him and his dad - no mention of his mum, as the People claim today.

The French PFA union boss said:

"nous ne sommes pas d'accord pour faire des contrats avec effet différé à des mineurs, et cela ne devrait plus être possible selon un règlement Fifa qui devrait s'appliquer à partir du 1er octobre".

Which says the union does not agree with pre-contracts ('Contracts with deferred effect') for minors, which apparently FIFA are going to ban with effect from the 1st October!!!! Could it be they've punished us for a deal involving a type of contract that will be outlawed by FIFA within the next few weeks????

The same article said we were guilty of 'forcing' him to break his Lens contract!

that would be incredible and make FIFA look ridiculous wouldnt it. to find us guilty of breaching a rule they are about to abolish as its unworkable.

that would be incredible and make FIFA look ridiculous wouldnt it. to find us guilty of breaching a rule they are about to abolish as its unworkable.

I've just posted this on the Guardian Sport blog, and emailed chelsea TV. The point is, they had already decided to ban these pre-contracts at the time they dished out our punishment.

Doesn't this prove that this business is not part of a new FIFA/UEFA drive to prevent youngsters being taken away from the clubs where they are trainees?

I've just posted this on the Guardian Sport blog, and emailed chelsea TV. The point is, they had already decided to ban these pre-contracts at the time they dished out our punishment.

Doesn't this prove that this business is not part of a new FIFA/UEFA drive to prevent youngsters being taken away from the clubs where they are trainees?

it certainly does, if anything it shows they are basically on a witch hunt against chelsea. to find us in breach of a rule they themselves are going to abolish is just preposterous.

At last! Into the second week and we have some sound commonsense on the subject from Martin Samuel in the Mail Online. Long and a little rambling it may be, but here are a few quotes that cut through some of the pretentious twaddle many of his colleagues have come out with and he begins (listen up Lofty) by downing the Guardian’s 11year old scaremonger story…

“Jeremy Boga was just 11 when Chelsea poached him. His club, ASPTT Marseille, are taking legal advice on whether his move was in contravention of FIFA article 19, governing international transfers involving minors. If proven, Chelsea's transfer embargo could be extended beyond January 2011. Good story, one problem. ASPTT Marseille are not a football club in what might be termed the conventional sense, engaging in transfer activity and drawing up contracts with employees. They are grassroots and amateur, part of a community-based federation governing a variety of sports and pastimes and possessing 200,000 members throughout France. The first was formed in 1897 by Bordeaux postal workers with a shared interest in cycling and now there are approaching 200 ASPTTs nationwide, ranging all the way to Guadeloupe and Martinique.

In the south-east league in which ASPTT Marseille compete there are 33 such clubs, offering everything from kayaking to jazz dance. So, ASPTT are not to be confused with Olympique Marseille, a professional Ligue 1 football club managed by Didier Deschamps. Temporarily leaving aside the moral issues around scouting for schoolboys or offering inducements to parents, if it is decided that ASPTT Marseille have an entitlement to Boga, and Chelsea acted illegally, we open the door to a world in which the local scout troop may attempt a claim every time a player joins a professional academy, on the grounds that the 43rd brigade's Sunday league team have been denied credit and financial reward for nurturing his talent.â€

Before anybody says that Samuel is cherry picked as a Chelsea sympathiser, here is his follow up paragraph which lays the present state of affairs firmly on the line…

“This is a pivotal moment in the evolution of the modern game and far too serious to be undermined by the demonisation of a particular club or league. Nobody is particularly impressed at the way Chelsea have conducted their business but it is important to draw the correct boundaries and distinctions. Talented schoolboy footballers outgrow their environment all the time and have to be free to ascend the ladder. David Beckham used to play for Ridgeway Rovers but when he went to train with Manchester United as a teenager it was a case of wishing him well, not bringing in the lawyers. How could he possibly have fulfilled his ambitions from a Chingford parks pitch?â€

Indeed, he goes on to give more stick, although it is tempered by a dismissive dig at those who eagerly use the situation to preach at us, a welcome observation totally ignored by most hacks…

“It is hard to imagine that any person of fair mind would object to a properly administered system that rewarded the producers of talent yet maintained the rights of a gifted individual to realise his ambitions. This would also deliver English football from the pious sermons of hypocrites. Chelsea, among a number of clubs, have played fast with the rules for too long and the trade in youth players is a murky business. Yet an important issue cannot be hijacked by point-scoring opportunists such as Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, chairman of Bayern Munich, who recently accused Arsenal of kidnapping French players, or Jean- Pierre Escalettes, head of the French federation, who colourfully claimed English clubs recruit and nationalise young athletes from Paris ghettos. Rummenigge is acting chairman of the European Club Association, yet has rarely offered a proposal that would not directly benefit Bayern Munich and just about all he says can be disregarded on those grounds. “

Platini’s beloved French football doesn’t get away unscathed either and Samuel finishes the piece off nicely with a home based analogy that can’t fail to strike a chord with those who are reliant on ‘the lad’s better off where he is’ argument…

“French football is in no position to lecture any country - with the possible exception of Belgium - on the subject of trafficking. In June, it was confirmed that Culture Foot Solidaire were monitoring 987 lost boys in France. This is not to excuse, defend or condone Chelsea, or any English club that think they can ransack the market without paying their way. The full details of the Gael Kakuta case have not yet emerged - Chelsea dispute the guilty verdict as well as the punishment - and any claim that the club

has been treated harshly by FIFA should at least wait until then.

Now is the time for cold reason, not populist rhetoric, if we are to avoid doing more harm than good. The gung-ho desire to regulate the trade in young players that followed FIFA's transfer ban on Chelsea will prove devastating unless handled correctly. For instance, recent discussed legislation forbidding the movement of athletes in all sports below the age of 18 would, if implemented a decade ago, have left Andy Murray stranded in Dunblane practising with his brother Jamie all his young life, rather than enrolled at the Sanchez-Casal Academy in Barcelona. The result: no future Wimbledon champion and one very angry and bitter young man.â€

Make that two angry and bitter young men [if Gael Kakuta had been denied his chance to play for us] plus loads more in the future as well should there be a gross overreaction on the part of Fifa and Uefa when legislating on the issue. Always assuming, of course, that they do bother to legislate and don’t just seek out one scapegoat and slaughter it.

Thanks again Dorset, some very valid points in there. I was talking with a friend of mine back in Sotland, and the Chelsea trade-embargo came up. It was my friend that told me about this whole "no transfers under 18" rule that is being touted. I then stated "I thought Blatter claimed Man U were treating Ronaldo as a "slave" when they were not allowing him to go to Real last season? And now they will implement a plan that basically enslaves young kids to stay at their home club until they are 18? It's craziness. If there were such a rule in place, and a young talent were to spark the interests of some of the top clubs in Europe, then this rule will be denying that kid, and his family, financial security for a long time.

Certainly, it could be argued that they will continue to develop at their own club, but then again they might not. They may become stagnant, annoyed that they are not progressing, and then develop attitude problems, or even a dip in form that would no longer attract as big a names in European Football, such is the nature of the teenage psyche.

If there were to be an embargo placed on all trades under 18, then it HAS to include South American players too. I'm pretty sure Barca have been raiding South American clubs for a while now. BUt we've never heard Platini say anthign about that now, have we?

Scott