2 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

We've not formally asked CAS to postpone our transfer ban but would I be right in thinking that CAS could do that without being asked? 

As far as I have read todays statement only announces that an appeal has been registered. It is an interesting point you raise but I think the reality of the situation is that the ban stays in place until CAS decide otherwise. The parties now exchange documentation and CAS will decide at a later date which again hasn't been decided.

3 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

So we're taking the ban on the chin basically and the appeal is essentially to save face and a means of avoiding the admitting guilt? 

This is all very confusing. 

At this point in time I wouldn’t assume anything.

 

CAS has released a press release 

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6301.pdf

Once CAS accepts an appeal the process then starts.

You register and have them agree to accept an appeal then then they will, if asked rule on a separate application to stay the ban.

53 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

As much as it pains me to say it, Walter is right. We can buy players now but we cannot register them to play.

We can agree a fee and a transfer date for when we can register players again or we can buy them now and have them train at Cobham until we can register them. 

We cannot buy anyone and loan them back out because they have to be registered to play with their parent club (us) before they can be loaned. 

I get that, as that’s what happened with Costa & Turan. 

I don’t see many more players being so desperate to leave their current teams, or to play for us, to do that. 

Based on what I read, I believed we could sign and loan. The article made the point that this could potentially give us an advantage if competing with other clubs for players. I believed it when i read it, but clearly that information wasn’t correct. 

My issue with WW was that he didn’t get the context of my comment, which was this;  having the ban reduced to one window, that drink the current one, and being able to buy again in the winter is really a victory as the winter window business isn’t ideal for buying the way we need to buy.  

 

Edited June 7, 20197 yr by Boston Blue

Good to hear we're challenging. At least to get it set aside for this window. 

What this means for whether Frank is the manager I'm unsure.

36 minutes ago, Andy North said:

I actually checked your earlier response saying the delay was because Chelsea had to wait for FIFA's written reasons for turning down the appeal and you may be correct. I haven't seen any reports of when Chelsea received FIFA's written reasons but suspect they would have been available shortly after the appeal was refused. I don't know when. Having said that CAS has now registered the new appeal nearly a month after FIFA turned down Chelsea's appeal. Things move slowly when the lawyers and arbitrators get involved. They love to slow things down so they can make as much money as possible.

Hopefully they slow it down some more and Chelsea get a stay of execution.

Just going back to this point.

When  FIFA ruled on the Real Madrid case they were  verbally notified of the appeals committee decision in April 2016 but the written reasons weren’t delivered till 8 September 2016.

Edited June 7, 20197 yr by terraloon

Maybe Chelsea are secretly hoping CAS delay/suspend the ban without us having to appeal for it.

If we are confident enough to appeal against the whole ban, you'd think we would be confident enough to appeal to get the ban suspended without it being seen as a frivolous appeal and getting it extended.

What if CAS don't suspend the ban but we end up winning the whole appeal we might end up accepting a ban this window for nothing - unless this is somehow resolved quickly within this transfer window.

 

This is probably an idiotic thing to say at this point but if Atlético, Real and Barcelona have broken the rules before and the documentation is for everyone to see why did we break the rules if we knew it will cause a ban.... 

However this appeal might also say something about Sarri as well. 

11 minutes ago, 2211 said:

Maybe Chelsea are secretly hoping CAS delay/suspend the ban without us having to appeal for it.

If we are confident enough to appeal against the whole ban, you'd think we would be confident enough to appeal to get the ban suspended without it being seen as a frivolous appeal and getting it extended.

What if CAS don't suspend the ban but we end up winning the whole appeal we might end up accepting a ban this window for nothing - unless this is somehow resolved quickly within this transfer window.

 

Not sure about Chelsea hoping the ban to be suspended without asking for it but your second and third paragraphs are interesting 

 

1 hour ago, EdinburghBlue said:

Of course, but by the same token & playing devils advocate - do you have any evidence that we didn’t have them already?

Isn't it the very fact that only now we appealed against FIFA's decision is evident enough? I mean sure the club's decision-making in terms of hiring and firing managers as well as player acquisition can be questioned but even then I doubt the higher ups would be so irresponsible as to submit a late appeal to overturn the decision to the CAS on purpose. I also doubt Abramovich would let it go that bad to the point where we don't even submit an appeal considering the ruthless nature of our club.

5 minutes ago, evissy said:

This is probably an idiotic thing to say at this point but if Atlético, Real and Barcelona have broken the rules before and the documentation is for everyone to see why did we break the rules if we knew it will cause a ban.... 

However this appeal might also say something about Sarri as well. 

It’s far from as straight forward as that and many of the charges laid against us were regarding players we were involved with  prior to the rulings made against the clubs you mention and if you think back the FA have been fined for their part in the matter it’s because they were involved in what we were doing 

Fifa issue directive after directive detailing how their rules(Articles) should  be interpreted . Often they know what they mean but sometimes can be interpreted in a different or convenient way by others.

An example of this in the Real case , I can’t recall the full details but went something along the lines of that in line with FIFA articles all players over the age of 12 had to be registered if they are involved in an  academy. Real didn’t register players under that age yet FIFA found Real guilty of not registering players linked to their academy. CAS overruled FIFA .

Real even argued that based on FIFAs description of what an academy is  they don’t operate an academy. Real lost that one.

Another charge revolved  around a South American youngster aged under 18  who moved to Europe and was registered with an Eu based club . The club argued it was ok because he had a European passport . FIFA said that was an infringement because it was not between two European clubs. CAS overruled FIFA who then had to clarify their rules further

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ForeverCarefree said:

We've not formally asked CAS to postpone our transfer ban but would I be right in thinking that CAS could do that without being asked? 

There’s some one Twitter who seem to think this is the case.  I know @terraloon said otherwise but I’ve read conflicting reports on this, so who really knows?

17 minutes ago, mwblue10 said:

There’s some one Twitter who seem to think this is the case.  I know @terraloon said otherwise but I’ve read conflicting reports on this, so who really knows?

https://www.football.london/chelsea-fc/transfer-news/breaking-chelsea-transfer-ban-cas-16392398

When contacted by football.london , CAS stated: "For a challenged decision to be stayed during the CAS proceedings, a specific request to this effect must be made. 

"At the time of writing (June 7), a request has not been filed in the Chelsea/FIFA matter. Accordingly, the FIFA decision remains in force."

“The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) have confirmed to football.london that Chelsea have not yet registered an appeal to get the transfer ban frozen this summer.”

 

Edited June 7, 20197 yr by terraloon

55 minutes ago, evissy said:

This is probably an idiotic thing to say at this point but if Atlético, Real and Barcelona have broken the rules before and the documentation is for everyone to see why did we break the rules if we knew it will cause a ban.... 

However this appeal might also say something about Sarri as well. 

Doesnt this all revolve around us asking our FA if we are allowed to do something and they agreed we could, only for it to turn out the FA were going against FIFA`s rules?

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

Doesnt this all revolve around us asking our FA if we are allowed to do something and they agreed we could, only for it to turn out the FA were going against FIFA`s rules?

To a degree yes but not 100%.

 

Just heard Martin Ziegler of The Times say that we were told we could not ask ban to be frozen. Our only option was to reduce or overturn. No one asked a follow up question as to why. 

He did say CAS has the ability to rule within days, but wasn’t sure whether they would. 

Edited June 7, 20197 yr by Boston Blue

With over 30 players to investigate, i think it’s going to be a long process. No way will be a short one. 

Thing is if we don’t get an answer before the window closes then what’s the point? 

8 minutes ago, Bobbywoodhogan said:

Thing is if we don’t get an answer before the window closes then what’s the point? 

Only need an answer the day before the window closes. That's when we do all our business anyway. 

So, I'm pretty stupid; can someone explain to me what exactly is going on with our appeal? We didn't try to freeze the ban, we just appealed the ban? What does that mean?

2 hours ago, Boston Blue said:

Just heard Martin Ziegler of The Times say that we were told we could not ask ban to be frozen. Our only option was to reduce or overturn. No one asked a follow up question as to why. 

He did say CAS has the ability to rule within days, but wasn’t sure whether they would. 

This is interesting.

Just about everyone, me included, has been assuming up to this point  that our appeal was two fold firstly the actual finding that we had done wrong and as a consequence the second element of the appeal would be length of the ban.To be fair that’s how you would read Chelsea’s statement issued in early May.

Matt Law wrote an article a week or so ago that suggested that Chelsea may well change their stance if the sanction was reduced to one window. I for one didn’t quite understand how this could happen as FIFAs appeal process had been exhausted 

Now we have this comment from Martin Ziegler.

Reflecting again on CAS findings in the Real Madrid case where they were found guilty of Article 19 violations but far less than Barca and indeed Atletico. Reals indiscretions weren’t that too far away from the number the appeals committee say we are guilty of.In Reals appeal CAS reduced their ban down to one window whereas Atletico and Barca had two window bans confirmed by CAS.

So to my point if we and FIFA have been discussing this behind closed doors and Chelsea accept, albeit in private, that we won’t be able to disprove FIFAs findings so in effect we accept the guilty finding meaning our appeal is against the severity of the fine and indeed length of the ban.If that’s right we would know it would be at least a one window ban and why would you ask for the ban to be delayed if you agree that you are at some point going to get a ban

As FIFA no longer have any appeal route available for them to reduce the ban the only course would be an appeal from us to CAS along the lines one ban is appropriate etc and in view of that behind closed door agreement our appeal to reduce the ban would be uncontested by FIFA meaning CAS wouldn’t have to look at each charge all they would be looking to rule on would be should it be one window or two and that could indeed be dealt with very quickly.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 20197 yr by terraloon

1 hour ago, Spiller86 said:

Only need an answer the day before the window closes. That's when we do all our business anyway. 

We need an answer immediately.

Why would any player, agent or club want to seriously negotiate with a club that may not be able buy in this window? They can talk to us but in the end they would much rather talk to club that was cashed up and ready to buy. Imagine entering into a negotiation with a potential buyer for your best player and yet he can't legally buy him. You wouldn't waste your time on something that might happen. Better to talk to somebody who can buy.

It's not true to say we do all our business on the last day. Many times the early deals are the best ones. Kante was more or less announced as soon as the window opened. It is best to negotiate a deal before anybody else gets wind of it and if we are at the back of the queue we will be right royally fuc*ed.

 

1 hour ago, chiefBlueCFC said:

So, I'm pretty stupid; can someone explain to me what exactly is going on with our appeal? We didn't try to freeze the ban, we just appealed the ban? What does that mean?

Think of it like a criminal trial. 

You're convicted and have to serve a year

If there is an option to appeal, you don't want to plead guilty, so you take that option.

You could ask to be let out on bond while you're appealing, but you haven't for fear of pissing off your appeals judge.

In this case, you're hoping you win your appeal to shorten your sentence, but your original sentence has already begun. 

In short... we don't want to plead guilty, but we also don't think we're going to win anything... 

predicted outcome -- This Summer and the January Window, we are banned. Open for Business June of 2020.

Best case, and least likely outcome is that we win an appeal and only serve this window. We're not bringing in new players this summer.

Edited June 7, 20197 yr by Skinnedy

50 minutes ago, terraloon said:

This is interesting.

Just about everyone, me included, has been assuming up to this point  that our appeal was two fold firstly the actual finding that we had done wrong and as a consequence the second element of the appeal would be length of the ban.To be fair that’s how you would read Chelsea’s statement issued in early May.

Matt Law wrote an article a week or so ago that suggested that Chelsea may well change their stance if the sanction was reduced to one window. I for one didn’t quite understand how this could happen as FIFAs appeal process had been exhausted 

Now we have this comment from Martin Ziegler.

Reflecting again on CAS findings in the Real Madrid case where they were found guilty of Article 19 violations but far less than Barca and indeed Atletico. Reals indiscretions weren’t that too far away from the number the appeals committee say we are guilty of.In Reals appeal CAS reduced their ban down to one window whereas Atletico and Barca had two window bans confirmed by CAS.

So to my point if we and FIFA have been discussing this behind closed doors and Chelsea accept, albeit in private, that we won’t be able to disprove FIFAs findings so in effect we accept the guilty finding meaning our appeal is against the severity of the fine and indeed length of the ban.If that’s right we would know it would be at least a one window ban and why would you ask for the ban to be delayed if you agree that you are at some point going to get a ban

As FIFA no longer have any appeal route available for them to reduce the ban the only course would be an appeal from us to CAS along the lines one ban is appropriate etc and in view of that behind closed door agreement our appeal to reduce the ban would be uncontested by FIFA meaning CAS wouldn’t have to look at each charge all they would be looking to rule on would be should it be one window or two and that could indeed be dealt with very quickly.

 

 

 

 

Glad you understand it all, hoping this sane explanation is the outcome, well done fella

54 minutes ago, terraloon said:

This is interesting.

Just about everyone, me included, has been assuming up to this point  that our appeal was two fold firstly the actual finding that we had done wrong and as a consequence the second element of the appeal would be length of the ban.To be fair that’s how you would read Chelsea’s statement issued in early May.

Matt Law wrote an article a week or so ago that suggested that Chelsea may well change their stance if the sanction was reduced to one window. I for one didn’t quite understand how this could happen as FIFAs appeal process had been exhausted 

Now we have this comment from Martin Ziegler.

Reflecting again on CAS findings in the Real Madrid case where they were found guilty of Article 19 violations but far less than Barca and indeed Atletico. Reals indiscretions weren’t that too far away from the number the appeals committee say we are guilty of.In Reals appeal CAS reduced their ban down to one window whereas Atletico and Barca had two window bans confirmed by CAS.

So to my point if we and FIFA have been discussing this behind closed doors and Chelsea accept, albeit in private, that we won’t be able to disprove FIFAs findings so in effect we accept the guilty finding meaning our appeal is against the severity of the fine and indeed length of the ban.If that’s right we would know it would be at least a one window ban and why would you ask for the ban to be delayed if you agree that you are at some point going to get a ban

As FIFA no longer have any appeal route available for them to reduce the ban the only course would be an appeal from us to CAS along the lines one ban is appropriate etc and in view of that behind closed door agreement our appeal to reduce the ban would be uncontested by FIFA meaning CAS wouldn’t have to look at each charge all they would be looking to rule on would be should it be one window or two and that could indeed be dealt with very quickly.

 

 

 

 

Exactly.  Reducing the ban so we can't buy this summer, but we can buy in the winter is not much of a victory.  We know it's harder to buy players in the winter window, clubs are not as willing to disrupt their teams mid-season, and the players we may be interested in could be cup tied in one or more competitions.  Might as well just serve the original two window ban.  

1 minute ago, Ballack & Blu said:

Glad you understand it all, hoping this sane explanation is the outcome, well done fella

Hey I’m from Dorset we only know about tractors and Dorset Knobs ( look it up ) I am trying to make sense of the whole process and in joining up the dots my picture could be a Massey Ferguson when it in fact its a Rolls Royce.

We will know pretty soon one way or the other