f**k

 

Chelsea's recruitment of young talent is under scrutiny after it emerged Burkina Faso international Bertrand Traore played for their under-18s side when aged 16, in an apparent breach of FIFA regulations.

 

Chelsea could even face the prospect of being placed under a transfer embargo if found guilty of wrongdoing.

Chelsea believe Traore was the subject of an option agreement which allowed him to play in friendly games.

Fifa rules prohibit the international transfer of a minor (an under-18), with Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid earlier this month handed transfer embargoes for the next two complete windows after breaching the regulations. Both clubs plan to contest the sanctions.

Barcelona were placed under a transfer embargo for infringing the same rules in 2014 and have only this month been allowed to register players again.

A Fifa spokesperson told Press Association Sport: "We are not in a position to comment on any investigations that are ongoing so as not to compromise the process, nor do we provide any comments as to whether or not any investigations are under way."

 

Press Association Sport supplied a number of questions to Chelsea in an attempt to clarify their position regarding Traore's involvement in games when he was under 18.

However they would only say: "Bertrand Traore was registered by Chelsea FC in January 2014 in compliance with FA and Premier League Rules.

"Prior to that date, he was party to an option agreement which enabled the club to acquire his registration in January 2014.

"The option agreement was registered with, and approved by, both The FA and the Premier League."

The Premier League champions successfully appealed against a transfer ban at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2010 over the signing of Gael Kakuta from Lens.

The Premier League said all rules were followed in Chelsea's signing of Traore on January 1, 2014, the first day of the transfer window opening following his 18th birthday, on September 6, 2013.

What prompts questions is the earlier recruitment of Traore and his participation in a Chelsea under-18s match at Arsenal on October 23, 2011, when he was 16.

The Press Association has a photograph of Traore taking part in the game at the Emirates Stadium.

The report on Arsenal's official website mentions Traore brushing the top of the crossbar with a 30-yard shot in the friendly fixture where his Chelsea team-mates included goalkeeper Jamal Blackman and midfielder Ruben Loftus-Cheek, both now also members of Chelsea's first-team squad.

International transfers are only permitted for players over the age of 18 - unless the player in question meets one of three qualifying criteria.

Under-18s can move to a club in a different country if their parents move there for non-footballing reasons, if they are from another nation within the European Union or European Economic Area and aged between 16 and 18, or if they live within 100km of the club.

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by havelschayes

What's the source of this story?

What's the source of this story?

 

press association

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by havelschayes

If they broke the rules, they deserve it. Maybe it would put a stop to this bullsh*t stockpiling of endless youngsters.

If they broke the rules, they deserve it. Maybe it would put a stop to this bullsh*t stockpiling of endless youngsters.

To be fair we are making a tidy profit on many of these players.

Am seeing it on the evening standard now for Christ sake this would be the second time we have been accused and am sure fifa would want to make a statement along with those two clubs in Spain. How can you make such a mistake

f**king hell. The money we use for these tranfers is huge amounts. We should use some of that to someone who reads the rulebooks and makes clear what you can do and what you can't.

f**king hell. The money we use for these tranfers is huge amounts. We should use some of that to someone who reads the rulebooks and makes clear what you can do and what you can't.

"The option agreement was registered with, and approved by, both The FA and the Premier League."

Like that?

"The option agreement was registered with, and approved by, both The FA and the Premier League."

Like that?

So transfer ban or not? Nothing else really matters.

Dunno, but it looks like everything was ratified by the FA and ptprem league so all 3 believed everything was done correctly.

From this article: 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/11691272/Chelsea-win-work-permit-battle-for-wonderkid-striker-Bertrand-Traore.html

 

"Mourinho first became aware of Traoré after being shown DVD footage of the youngster, who was then a triallist, playing in friendly fixtures at the club's youth academy in the 2012/13 season. The Portuguese decided on the basis of those clips alone that the youngster would go on the 2013 pre-season tour of Asia.

 

Then aged 17, Traoré had to fly separately from the rest of the squad because he was not officially a Chelsea player but he had no problem making an impression in a Blues shirt."

"Last summer, Mourinho said: “Traoré does not play in England, because he has no visa. Otherwise, he would already be playing with us. Bertrand must now ensure that he plays enough international matches with Burkina Faso.”

 

It doesn't add up. please, someone explain to me if he didn't have a visa at 17 to play in England, how could he play for our under 18's? 

 

an exert from OP's post: 

 

"What prompts questions is the earlier recruitment of Traore and his participation in a Chelsea under-18s match at Arsenal on October 23, 2011, when he was 16.

The Press Association has a photograph of Traore taking part in the game at the Emirates Stadium." 

 

They claim he was 16, but the above says trialist in 12/13, so he would have been 17/18? And why is being a trialist a against the rules? 

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by enigma

Why would we get a transfer ban for fielding an ineligible player? There was seemingly nothing wrong with the transfer.

 

If we played him while ineligible then I absolutely agree that we should be disqualified from the 2011/12 Under-18s Premier League!

Although if the FA also gets banned for two transfer windows it might be worth it.

We didn't sign him at 16! Real madrid signed Odegaard at 16. we officially signed him in Jan 2014. 

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by enigma

Really don't think this story adds up either, Chelsea surely wouldn't be naive enough to do this after the Kakuka debacle 

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by PedroMendez

So which bit of it us the illegal bit? We didn't sign him until he turned 17 did we?

never mind i read it too fast first time.

 

however, it says in the link i posted that mourinho viewed tapes of him as a trialist for us and decided to take him on the tour. he also says he didn't have a visa, and he didn't have a work permit so this is our fault for allowing him to play, even just in the youth games, without a visa? the thing is, surely we should only get a ban if we signed him officially as a 16 y/o, which we didn't do. i don't get it, it seems the powers that be are making up rules as they go along. 

never mind i read it too fast first time.

 

however, it says in the link i posted that mourinho viewed tapes of him as a trialist for us and decided to take him on the tour. he also says he didn't have a visa, and he didn't have a work permit so this is our fault for allowing him to play, even just in the youth games, without a visa? the thing is, surely we should only get a ban if we signed him officially as a 16 y/o, which we didn't do. i don't get it, it seems the powers that be are making up rules as they go along. 

 

not for the first time!

I'm not sure why this is an issue. It was a friendly match, and he was effectively on trial, he wasn't being paid to play by the club so why would he need a visa?

The transfer seems above board, im lost as why we would be facing an embargo. It isn't even close to what the Spanish teams have been in breach of.

So which bit of it us the illegal bit? We didn't sign him until he turned 17 did we?

 

31 October 2013. He was 18.

This youth game with Arsenal was a friendly so surely that doesn't breach any rules players don't need to be registered for friendlies also if he is on trail/not getting paid he doesn't break any work permits or visa's

I'm not sure why this is an issue. It was a friendly match, and he was effectively on trial, he wasn't being paid to play by the club so why would he need a visa?

The transfer seems above board, im lost as why we would be facing an embargo. It isn't even close to what the Spanish teams have been in breach of.

Because the authorities in football seem to just make things up as they go along to suit whatever their agenda is at the time. See Terry and the FA.

never mind i read it too fast first time.

 

however, it says in the link i posted that mourinho viewed tapes of him as a trialist for us and decided to take him on the tour. he also says he didn't have a visa, and he didn't have a work permit so this is our fault for allowing him to play, even just in the youth games, without a visa? the thing is, surely we should only get a ban if we signed him officially as a 16 y/o, which we didn't do. i don't get it, it seems the powers that be are making up rules as they go along. 

 

He played in friendlies only, even on youth level. That alleged appearance against Le Arse in 2011 is the big point. If true and proven that we should be retrospectively banned from that U18 league season, as Ploks wrote above. But that's about it.  The FIFA can bring the charge, the CAS would clear us. Again.

This youth game with Arsenal was a friendly so surely that doesn't breach any rules players don't need to be registered for friendlies also if he is on trail/not getting paid he doesn't break any work permits or visa's

 

Was it a friendly? Then there's nothing to talk about, there is no case. I think it's all a ploy by FIFA, they charge as many big clubs as they can to avert attention from their own corruption. I don't think it will work but then again they cannot really sink any lower.

 

Was it a friendly? Then there's nothing to talk about, there is no case. I think it's all a ploy by FIFA, they charge as many big clubs as they can to avert attention from their own corruption. I don't think it will work but then again they cannot really sink any lower.

http://www.arsenal.com/match/report/1112/post/youth/under-18s-arsenal-1-0-chelsea-report

Yes the league match he didnt play in

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by PedroMendez