1 minute ago, Boston Blue said:

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.  

It may be harder but it would still be possible

Seems pretty cut & dry, the club has now appealed to CAS with the goal that they either throw all the charges out or reduce the ban from 2 windows to 1.  However the club's briefs are of course prepared for a negative outcome i.e. that CAS rules in FIFA's favour 100%. In the event of that negative outcome the club/ briefs must suspect that there is a possibility of a further 1 window ban sanction being added by FIFA if they directly appeal to CAS to 'suspend' the ban now. Looks like the club is banking on a very quick turnaround from CAS i.e. a decision being reached let's say by pre- season time, if they are successful and the FIFA verdict is 100% overturned then it should be business as usual in the market albeit with a late start, or if it is a negative outcome it appears the club / briefs have already decided to take it on the chin and no business for a full year/ 2 concurrent windows starting now rather than risk a 3rd window being added to the FIFA sanction. 

 

 

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

 

To answer that question, if we have a similar number of cases to Real Madrid who had the ban reduced to 1 window, would it not be better to freeze the appeal for this summer, and hope that it reduces between now and january, meaning we only miss the winter window? 

Ive read various conficting reports, some say we have to apply separately to get it froze, others say CAS could freeze it themselves. Its pretty uncharted territory since in all previous cases the ban was suspending pending appeal. 

I think time is the major issue now, because we have had to wait on fifa for written reasoning in order to launch the CAS appeal, it has put us in a situation where if it gets froze late in the window, we will be extremely hampered in the transfer market this summer, and we could still be banned for a further 2 windows. It would be like a 3 window ban. So i think we just want to get it out of the way at this point, and hope the damage isnt too bad next season. 

1 hour ago, big blue said:

To answer that question, if we have a similar number of cases to Real Madrid who had the ban reduced to 1 window, would it not be better to freeze the appeal for this summer, and hope that it reduces between now and january, meaning we only miss the winter window? 

Ive read various conficting reports, some say we have to apply separately to get it froze, others say CAS could freeze it themselves. Its pretty uncharted territory since in all previous cases the ban was suspending pending appeal. 

I think time is the major issue now, because we have had to wait on fifa for written reasoning in order to launch the CAS appeal, it has put us in a situation where if it gets froze late in the window, we will be extremely hampered in the transfer market this summer, and we could still be banned for a further 2 windows. It would be like a 3 window ban. So i think we just want to get it out of the way at this point, and hope the damage isnt too bad next season. 

CAS themselves have released a statement saying that to stay the ban would require a separate application in effect they won’t rule on the issue unless we ask them to and at this time it seems we haven’t made such a request.

As I said earlier as can’t but help feel that we have come to some sort of agreement with FIFA and whilst timing isn’t great ( understatement) it maybe that  the powers that be ,who will know far more than we do , have decided its time to draw a line under this and at least move forward 

Whilst you would hope CAS made rulings based on precedent they don’t they are notoriously inconsistent and whilst Real had a reduction there is nothing to say that they wouldn’t increase the ban to three windows. If  and it’s a big if we have agreed a process with FIFA then I very much doubt that we would be offered the opportunity to get a stay to cover this window.

I am probably way off in my thinking but I can’t but help think that if we really had a good case we would have made a concurrent application to have the ban suspended.

I cannot see CAS overturning the ban entirely. I reckon best we can hope for is a reduction to one window and the possibility to make signings in January.

5 hours ago, Andy North said:

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.

I was being facetious. I agree with pretty much all of that.

On 06/06/2019 at 17:08, Boston Blue said:

Not that I think I should explain it to someone who has a comprehension problem...…..

The  point was that if the appeals process took so long that we would find out that the ban was delayed late in the summer window, that would mean that (essentially) that the winter window would be the window where we'd be allowed to buy.  I was illustrating that the winter window would not help us since there is not a lot of significant business to be done in the winter window.  If this was to be the case, we'd be better off serving the ban starting in this summer window so we could buy next summer.  

We cannot buy players now.  We have a transfer ban.  If we decide to appeal (and there is no confirmation that we have appealed, or have not appealed) there is a chance, based on precedence, that the ban could be delayed while our appeal is heard.  

What I misunderstood, was our ability to buy and loan the player back to the club we bought from, a la Pulisic.  I based this on an article I read (I cannot remember where) that said it might be an advantage for us to be able to do that because a club may be willing to sell to us a young player over other clubs because they would get to keep that player for an additional season since we could not register them yet.  It appears that this isn't the case.  

Got it?  Read it over and over if you don't.  I've moved on.

We are allowed to buy now  I dont know how many languages to say it in WE CAN BUY we just can’t register. 

If we like a player we can make an offer pending our appeal if needs be, if we get it can sign them up until September then register them in January.

Its amazing you’re  full of insults about peoples comprehension and toot you’re own trumpet about what you know about “soccer” yet you haven’t got a clue have you? 

We can buy now do you get that or not? The ban is on registering players not buying them.

BUY-YES

REGISTER-NO 

 

On 07/06/2019 at 20:09, terraloon said:

CAS themselves have released a statement saying that to stay the ban would require a separate application in effect they won’t rule on the issue unless we ask them to and at this time it seems we haven’t made such a request.

As I said earlier as can’t but help feel that we have come to some sort of agreement with FIFA and whilst timing isn’t great ( understatement) it maybe that  the powers that be ,who will know far more than we do , have decided its time to draw a line under this and at least move forward 

Whilst you would hope CAS made rulings based on precedent they don’t they are notoriously inconsistent and whilst Real had a reduction there is nothing to say that they wouldn’t increase the ban to three windows. If  and it’s a big if we have agreed a process with FIFA then I very much doubt that we would be offered the opportunity to get a stay to cover this window.

I am probably way off in my thinking but I can’t but help think that if we really had a good case we would have made a concurrent application to have the ban suspended.

I found it a little interesting that we appealed to CAS same day we confirmed Hazard's departure, or I am reading way too much into it

I still think we might appeal to stay the ban under rule R37, of which you are right, is a totally seperate document altogether.  But for now i think we have got the appeal in which states we feel FIFA's punishment is too harsh, had it acknowledged by the CAS, and whilst that is under review we will put in writing why we feel rule R37 should be triggered.  They do not have to be done the same time.

 

And Matt Law is talking absolute rubbish IMO claiming that if CAS think we are simply trying to delay the ban, they can extend it further.  That makes zero sense when CAS themselves could end up freezing the ban anyway.  It's like being arrested and sent to jail for 10 yrs,  appealing your sentence and then them saying "because we feel you appealed just to get your sentence reduced, you will now serve 35yrs"   Absolute tripe

 

7 hours ago, RickUK said:

 

And? ?Matt Law is talking absolute rubbish IMO claiming that if CAS think we are simply trying to delay the ban, they can extend it further.  That makes zero sense when CAS themselves could end up freezing the ban anyway.  It's like being arrested and sent to jail for 10 yrs,  appealing your sentence and then them saying "because we feel you appealed just to get your sentence reduced, you will now serve 35yrs"   Absolute tripe

I do find quite a lot of  MattLaws conclusions slightly odd but in theory it is possible that after CAS had finished with their input the sanction could increase although I do agree that is unlikely.

Then again as I state previously some of the rulings that flow from CAS bear no relation to those concluded by their officials in similar cases.The Webster case and subsequent incidents of similar nature and in particular how compensation is calculated is proof of that.

I along with many struggle to understand just what is going on but it’s pretty obvious with out knowing the basis and extent  of our appeal  it’s just not possible to join up the dots.

I do however feel that unless we have come to some sort of agreement with FIFA regarding the sanction alone , in effect we accept a guilty charge, then I can’t but help feel that the process step by step will continue and yes I would expect an application to stay.

As for timing perhaps the PR guys are trying to shape the news agenda. Negative news re Hazards departure, positive news the appeal. Probably perceived by some a negative  if Sari departs, which is suggested will be this week, could the positive be a R37 application?

As usual with Chelsea nothing is boring!

 

 

 

Quote

?  ?

 

Edited June 9, 20197 yr by terraloon

Maybe we’re testing the water with some potential signings? If it looks positive then we’ll apply for the delay. 

We are desperate for a forward, but who is even available? 

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

I? do?? however feel that unless we have come to some sort of ?agreement? with FIFA regarding the sanction alone , in effect we accept a guilty charge, then I can’t but help feel that the process step by step will continu?e and ?yes I would expect an application to stay.?????

What makes you think that? We have publicly denied all wrong doings, and FIFA havent budged an inch. What is the benefit of an agreement with FIFA now they are no longer in a position to affect our situation? 

I just think FIFA's new head of disciplinary, has made an example out us. They saw how easy the ban was circumvented with the Spanish sides, so they have tried to enforce the ban immediately to have an impact.

Their approach has clearly worked, we are running out of time. 

FIFA will know what they have done is very sketchy, but at the same time, they know we have broken the rules, and the best we can hope for from CAS is a reduction to 1 window. So they wouldnt be exposed to lawsuits from ourselves, if the case was completely overturned, and they had restricted our trade. 

I just hope the next club gets treated the same.

The competition of young talents is so tough clubs will bend rules and work in the gray area. As have Chelsea most probably. I think it is great someone is monitoring what clubs are doing. Tapping up young players and buying them is borderline human-trafficking. I have no idea how deep the clubs will go pursuing young boys to join the clubs but it probably is not very pretty. 

I hate we have broken the rules if we have. I don't think there is any type of target on Chelsea in particular. 

5 hours ago, big blue said:

What makes you think that? We have publicly denied all wrong doings, and FIFA havent budged an inch. What is the benefit of an agreement with FIFA now they are no longer in a position to affect our situation? 

I just think FIFA's new head of disciplinary, has made an example out us. They saw how easy the ban was circumvented with the Spanish sides, so they have tried to enforce the ban immediately to have an impact.

Their approach has clearly worked, we are running out of time. 

FIFA will know what they have done is very sketchy, but at the same time, they know we have broken the rules, and the best we can hope for from CAS is a reduction to 1 window. So they wouldnt be exposed to lawsuits from ourselves, if the case was completely overturned, and they had restricted our trade. 

I just hope the next club gets treated the same.

There was no doubt that some within FIFA were furious that the three Spanish teams were able to delay enforcement of their respective bans and the fact that those delays enabled the clubs to near enough nullify the impact of the bans.

It was no surprise that FIFA disciplinary committee wanted to progress the who matter through their disciplinary and ultimately the appeal process as quickly as possible. That was achieved meaning FIFA can legitimately argue that should at any stage the ban was suspended, reduced or whatever it was outside their control.

What we see play out in public is only part of CAS job. Indeed a major part of there role is arbitrators hence their title “Court of Arbitration in Sport.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the legal guys at both Chelsea and indeed FIFA would have been discussing the issues post the ruling but now FIFA are no longer in control and as their disciplinary process there is nowhere in their procedures that offers the  opportunity for appeal or indeed changes to the sanction decided or indeed even processed by them.

We don’t know enough about the strength of FIFAs case or indeed the strength of our defence but what we do know is that both are stating that their take on matters is correct but here’s the point neither have any idea what the final outcome will be so it’s  possible that to save a full blown hearing and in an attempt to speed up matters CAS will try to facilitate a resolution  that somehow acknowledges the guilt on one side but at the same time won’t just dismiss Chelsea’s appeal.

Membership of  UEFA and indeed FIFA limits clubs ability to take disputes forward once the respective bodies,CAS and possibly Swiss courts have been involved. If there weren’t those restrictions disillusioned clubs would not hesitate to seek judicial input almost daily. As for restraint of trade I would suspect that such a notion would stand up to even basic scrutiny.

Hey I am trying to see through the fog on this for at this point all we know is we have lodged an appeal but until or if things get into the public domain I am guessing as much as anyone as to what’s going on.

Edited June 9, 20197 yr by terraloon

Forgive my ignorance, but was it FIFA or the CAS who downgraded the punishment given to the Spanish clubs? And if it was the CAS, what are the chances of it ruling that - unlike FIFA - they have to treat Chelsea exactly the same way as they did the Spanish clubs?

6 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

Forgive my ignorance, but was it FIFA or the CAS who downgraded the punishment given to the Spanish clubs? And if it was the CAS, what are the chances of it ruling that - unlike FIFA - they have to treat Chelsea exactly the same way as they did the Spanish clubs?

Real and Atletico bans were suspended by FIFA. Pogba's agent Mino Raiola also had his transfer ban suspended a couple days ago by FIFA. Can't help but feel it is preferential treatment and if it was a different club in our shoes right now it would have been suspended as usual.

33 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

Forgive my ignorance, but was it FIFA or the CAS who downgraded the punishment given to the Spanish clubs? And if it was the CAS, what are the chances of it ruling that - unlike FIFA - they have to treat Chelsea exactly the same way as they did the Spanish clubs?

The final say on the punishment wasCAS none of the clubs had any joy trying to get FIFA to change their initial decisions . Barca and Atletico really didn’t have a lot of luck for both still got two window bans whereas CAS reduced the Real ban to one window.

FIFA did indeed agree to suspend the bans of the three Spanish clubs pending determination of their appeals . FIFA took far longer to deal with the appeals which  then extended into a transfer window and thus let them conduct transfer business we didn’t get any joy in getting FIFA to agree to a stay but the speed they dealt with our appeal meant it had been fully processed by FIFA  outside of the transfer windows

I haven’t read the written reasons in either of the Barca or indeed Atletico instances but Real got a further suspension of the ban , on application ,once the case was taken up by CAS

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 20197 yr by terraloon

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

There was no doubt that some within FIFA were furious that the three Spanish teams were able to delay enforcement of their respective bans and the fact that those delays enabled the clubs to near enough nullify the impact of the bans.

It was no surprise that FIFA disciplinary committee wanted to progress the who matter through their disciplinary and ultimately the appeal process as quickly as possible. That was achieved meaning FIFA can legitimately argue that should at any stage the ban was suspended, reduced or whatever it was outside their control.

What we see play out in public is only part of CAS job. Indeed a major part of there role is arbitrators hence their title “Court of Arbitration in Sport.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the legal guys at both Chelsea and indeed FIFA would have been discussing the issues post the ruling but now FIFA are no longer in control and as their disciplinary process there is nowhere in their procedures that offers the  opportunity for appeal or indeed changes to the sanction decided or indeed even processed by them.

We don’t know enough about the strength of FIFAs case or indeed the strength of our defence but what we do know is that both are stating that their take on matters is correct but here’s the point neither have any idea what the final outcome will be so it’s  possible that to save a full blown hearing and in an attempt to speed up matters CAS will try to facilitate a resolution  that somehow acknowledges the guilt on one side but at the same time won’t just dismiss Chelsea’s appeal.

Membership of  UEFA and indeed FIFA limits clubs ability to take disputes forward once the respective bodies,CAS and possibly Swiss courts have been involved. If there weren’t those restrictions disillusioned clubs would not hesitate to seek judicial input almost daily. As for restraint of trade I would suspect that such a notion would stand up to even basic scrutiny.

Hey I am trying to see through the fog on this for at this point all we know is we have lodged an appeal but until or if things get into the public domain I am guessing as much as anyone as to what’s going on.

Thanks for this, it is one of the clearer summaries that i have seen. Do you think the fact that our own FA also got done over this, it kind of supports our argumant that we were acting in good "ish" faith?

7 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Thanks for this, it is one of the clearer summaries that i have seen. Do you think the fact that our own FA also got done over this, it kind of supports our argumant that we were acting in good "ish" faith?

To a degree I think it does but that said I suspect we have been pushing the boundaries to their limit.

For me there are vast contradictions in the was in which younger players are treated. It seems that  there are massive restrictions if you say moved a 17 year old player from say Morocco to a Southern Spanish team but there isn’t any issue if you moved a player of the same age from say Norway to Greece. It should be about the age and not the fact you reside in an EU country.

 

 

As far as I understand the situation 

1. We get banned for registering new players for summer 19 and January 20 breaching the rules of signing under age players by FIFA. 

2. We appeal to FIFA. 

3. FIFA says No. 

4. We appeal to CAS to completely banish the ban but wont appeal to freeze it for summer 19. Confirmed today by Matt Law. 

5. We wait for CAS to reply. As of now the ban is in effect and we can't register anyone. 

6. We are anxious. 

38 minutes ago, evissy said:

As far as I understand the situation 

1. We get banned for registering new players for summer 19 and January 20 breaching the rules of signing under age players by FIFA. 

2. We appeal to FIFA. 

3. FIFA says No. 

4. We appeal to CAS to completely banish the ban but wont appeal to freeze it for summer 19. Confirmed today by Matt Law. 

5. We wait for CAS to reply. As of now the ban is in effect and we can't register anyone. 

6. We are anxious. 

That's about right I'd say. We may hear back from CAS before this window has closed. If so that will either confirm that our existing ban stays in place, or perhaps gets reduced so that we can sign players again in January. If we are really fortunate perhaps the ban gets thrown out altogether at that point and we still have a little time to sign players this summer. However that looks unlikely.

1 hour ago, evissy said:

As far as I understand the situation 

1. We get banned for registering new players for summer 19 and January 20 breaching the rules of signing under age players by FIFA. 

2. We appeal to FIFA. 

3. FIFA says No. 

4. We appeal to CAS to completely banish the ban but wont appeal to freeze it for summer 19. Confirmed today by Matt Law. 

5. We wait for CAS to reply. As of now the ban is in effect and we can't register anyone. 

6. We are anxious. 

Well thats stupid isnt it?

We could have just appealed to freeze it for this summer, so we can actually go a bit crazy and make as much transfers as possible. And then if the ban gets overturned, great news. But if we are banned for 2 windows, we would have already made the necessary reinforcements and not have to suffer like we are going to now if the ban sticks. 

Here's what this sounds like to me:

We feel we are so far behind in acquiring the targets we want (or they've gone elsewhere already) this summer that being allowed to buy in this window is not of interest.  

If CAS renders a decision in the next six months that the ban gets reduced to one window, that would mean we had already served that in this current window. Then we can buy in January.

There seems to be no urgency to get the ban frozen so that we can but players in this current window.  

 

It still seems to me that they are doing everything they can to hire Lampard as out next manager, and create the lowest possible expectation so that he has a year to "bed in".  But if I counter my own argument, I say that Roman has never had anything but the highest expectations for Chelsea:  League titles, trophies, top 4, Champions League.  Is it possible that he has had a complete change of philosophy and is interested in taking one step back in order to take two steps forward?  He's always gone for the best possible manager, set high expectations, and sacked managers for not meeting them.  

 

Edited June 11, 20197 yr by Boston Blue

14 minutes ago, ENygma said:

Well thats stupid isnt it?

We could have just appealed to freeze it for this summer, so we can actually go a bit crazy and make as much transfers as possible. And then if the ban gets overturned, great news. But if we are banned for 2 windows, we would have already made the necessary reinforcements and not have to suffer like we are going to now if the ban sticks. 

There is a realistic possibility that if we requested for the ban to be frozen and CaS still found us guilty FIFA would then extend our ban to 3 windows. 

The additional window ban, presumably as punishment for trying to circumnavigate the initial 2 window punishment. 

3 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

There is a realistic possibility that if we requested for the ban to be frozen and CaS still found us guilty FIFA would then extend our ban to 3 windows. 

The additional window ban, presumably as punishment for trying to circumnavigate the initial 2 window punishment. 

Then its a case of whats worse:

1) Knowing we might be getting banned for 3 windows, so we need to buy as many reinforcements as possible now

2) Do nothing now, and be banned for 2 windows with our current squad.. 

 

Personally, id rather go for option 1. At least that way, if we make the right signings, couple with our youth players we won't actually need to buy anyone else for the foreseeable future and be okay. Whereas with our current squad, going 2 windows without being able to sign anyone at all seems a bit of a nightmare.

57 minutes ago, ENygma said:

Then its a case of whats worse:

1) Knowing we might be getting banned for 3 windows, so we need to buy as many reinforcements as possible now

2) Do nothing now, and be banned for 2 windows with our current squad.. 

 

Personally, id rather go for option 1. At least that way, if we make the right signings, couple with our youth players we won't actually need to buy anyone else for the foreseeable future and be okay. Whereas with our current squad, going 2 windows without being able to sign anyone at all seems a bit of a nightmare.

That's working under the assumption that we are able to even get the right signings.  Like mentioned, we may feel we are far behind other clubs in acquiring the top talent this summer, and so we might be inclined to bite the bullet.