Im gonna stop the theory of the world doesnt like Chelsea right now before everyone who comes in here moaning about how its not fair that we got a tranfer ban and city only gets a fine

We had almost 100 breaches and City only got caught for a few , UEFA warned us a couple years ago but we continued to do it anyway... this is city first offence.

It’ll be interesting to hear how UEFA explain why our punishment was so drastic in comparison to City’s.

Half of me doesn’t care for our ban being overturned as I quite like the direction we are taking now with players.

3 minutes ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

Im gonna stop the theory of the world doesnt like Chelsea right now before everyone who comes in here moaning about how its not fair that we got a tranfer ban and city only gets a fine

We had almost 100 breaches and City only got caught for a few , UEFA warned us a couple years ago but we continued to do it anyway... this is city first offence.

Didn’t know that. Thanks.

39 minutes ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

Im gonna stop the theory of the world doesnt like Chelsea right now before everyone who comes in here moaning about how its not fair that we got a tranfer ban and city only gets a fine

We had almost 100 breaches and City only got caught for a few , UEFA warned us a couple years ago but we continued to do it anyway... this is city first offence.

Can you link to the facts on this? 

It's also possible that City's punishment being light reflects the fact that they reportedly admitted their offenses, whereas we denied and appealed.

1 minute ago, Boston Blue said:

It's also possible that City's punishment being light reflects the fact that they reportedly admitted their offenses, whereas we denied and appealed.

This and apparently they only had two players investigated. 

18 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

This and apparently they only had two players investigated. 

I heard it was one player compared to our 29. 

It seems they are still under investigation for other offences so this might not be the end of it for city. 

38 minutes ago, dkw said:

Can you link to the facts on this? 

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea/chelsea-transfer-ban-explained-what-we-know-fifa-blocked-signings-two-windows-sell-players-a4173781.html

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/feb/04/chelsea-transfer-ban-lifted-gael-kakuta

 

2 minutes ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea/chelsea-transfer-ban-explained-what-we-know-fifa-blocked-signings-two-windows-sell-players-a4173781.html

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/feb/04/chelsea-transfer-ban-lifted-gael-kakuta

 

I meant the city one. 

26 minutes ago, dkw said:

It seems they are still under investigation for other offences so this might not be the end of it for city. 

When this all came to light i heard about 5 clubs were at risk of a transfer ban, think Liverpool and Wolves are potentially two others.

An 'offence' is just that regardless of # of times committed ? If I was to get caught nicking, I'd be pinched and charged regardless of stealing 1 hubcap or  4. FIFA it seems can pick & choose whom

to punish. Roman's obviously not for greasing the wheels of FIFA justice, unlike the Arabs that own City.

According to SportsMail FIFA only recently 'updated' their rules which lead to City's more favourable outcome. An option not made available to Chelsea;

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7353203/Manchester-City-avoid-FIFA-transfer-ban-breaching-rules.html

 

But last month FIFA introduced a new regulation that states that sanctions can be reduced if a club accepts responsibility for breaking the rules and that was not an option open to Chelsea or other clubs, particularly in Spain, that have been hit with transfer bans in recent seasons.

Indeed Sportsmail understands that, while the case dates back to 2014, it was only last week that City's lawyers made their final submission, with a decision arriving on Tuesday afternoon.

Fifa said City had breached article 19 of its regulations, which states that 'international transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18'.

'The Fifa disciplinary committee has sanctioned English club Manchester City FC for breaches relating to the international transfer and registration of players under the age of 18,' said football's world governing body in a statement.

 

 

54 minutes ago, General said:

An 'offence' is just that regardless of # of times committed ? If I was to get caught nicking, I'd be pinched and charged regardless of stealing 1 hubcap or  4. FIFA it seems can pick & choose whom

to punish. Roman's obviously not for greasing the wheels of FIFA justice, unlike the Arabs that own City.

Well they did get punished just less by your analogy you don’t think you would get the same punishment for stealing once instead of twenty nine times? 

Roman got his fortunes by greasing wheels after the breakup of the Soviet Union, I wouldn’t put him on some moral pedestal because you want to downgrade “the Arabs”.

Roman was asked to prove where his wealth came from to get back in the UK, instead he became an Israeli citizen...we know where the Arabs money came from..oil, at least it’s not stolen, it’s so ridiculous seeing Chelsea fans make a moral argument for city’s spending, we invented the model and used dirty money.

Having said that FIFA are a corrupt bunch of c**ts however it seems on this particular issue we are far bigger offenders if you want to complain about city FFP is the place to target not this...

 

Edited August 13, 20196 yr by WalterWhiteCFC

7 hours ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

Im gonna stop the theory of the world doesnt like Chelsea right now before everyone who comes in here moaning about how its not fair that we got a tranfer ban and city only gets a fine

We had almost 100 breaches and City only got caught for a few , UEFA warned us a couple years ago but we continued to do it anyway... this is city first offence.

We actually had under 30. Over 100 hundred were investigated, but we weren't found to have broken the rules on all of them.

19 hours ago, fitz said:

According to SportsMail FIFA only recently 'updated' their rules which lead to City's more favourable outcome. An option not made available to Chelsea;

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7353203/Manchester-City-avoid-FIFA-transfer-ban-breaching-rules.html

 

But last month FIFA introduced a new regulation that states that sanctions can be reduced if a club accepts responsibility for breaking the rules and that was not an option open to Chelsea or other clubs, particularly in Spain, that have been hit with transfer bans in recent seasons.

Indeed Sportsmail understands that, while the case dates back to 2014, it was only last week that City's lawyers made their final submission, with a decision arriving on Tuesday afternoon.

Fifa said City had breached article 19 of its regulations, which states that 'international transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18'.

'The Fifa disciplinary committee has sanctioned English club Manchester City FC for breaches relating to the international transfer and registration of players under the age of 18,' said football's world governing body in a statement.

 

 

How utterly convenient...……..

I mean it’s obvious that some clubs are favoured by FIFA and their corruption is no chelsea conspiracy theory they take bribes and get caught intermittently imagine the ones that aren’t caught what’s really going on.

We didn’t get the same treatment as the Spanish clubs in the same position and it’s bollox however we have to own up on the conduct of our club.

We aren’t the first to be caught with this so we know the rules and the pitfalls we say we thought we were acting lawfully but I mean comeback on..the club made mistakes and didn’t own up not to lose face city did, however it’s awfully convenient this new rule just came in...

30 minutes ago, WalterWhiteCFC said:

I mean it’s obvious that some clubs are favoured by FIFA and their corruption is no chelsea conspiracy theory they take bribes and get caught intermittently imagine the ones that aren’t caught what’s really going on.

We didn’t get the same treatment as the Spanish clubs in the same position and it’s bollox however we have to own up on the conduct of our club.

We aren’t the first to be caught with this so we know the rules and the pitfalls we say we thought we were acting lawfully but I mean comeback on..the club made mistakes and didn’t own up not to lose face city did, however it’s awfully convenient this new rule just came in...

Difficult to argue with this.^

Following the announcement of  City’s punishment I am even more convinced that our appeal is all about the two window ban as opposed to the decision. We have nothing to be gained from maintaining our innocence  FIFA have us banged to rights even if we believe we acted in good faith.

Pure speculation on my part but I am expecting that once the last European transfer window closes the outcome of our appeal will be announced then come February the other English clubs will know the outcome of the FIFA investigations into their academy signings.

 

 

Edited August 14, 20196 yr by terraloon

19 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Difficult to argue with this.^

Following the announcement of  City’s punishment I am even more convinced that our appeal is all about the two window ban as opposed to the decision. We have nothing to be gained from maintaining our innocence  FIFA have us banged to rights even if we believe we acted in good faith.

Pure speculation on my part but I am expecting that once the last European transfer window closes the outcome of our appeal will be announced then come February the other English clubs will know the outcome of the FIFA investigations into their academy signings.

 

 

Maybe if we just say sorry we can bring in players in January 

2 minutes ago, WalterWhiteCFC said:

Maybe if we just say sorry we can bring in players in January 

 

Gonna have to add  “really really “ to the sorry

On ?14?/?08?/?2019 at 14:50, terraloon said:

 

Gonna have to add  “really really “ to the sorry

Frank hinted at the possibility that we're looking to overturn for the January window.  But if we don't have the players we want picked out, with relative confidence that we can get them, then we are better off just serving the entire ban and waiting.  

On 07/06/2019 at 16:12, 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.

 

 

 

 

In view of my comment made way back in June (copied above) and articles like this one https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7439453/Chelsea-alert-leading-agents-expect-transfer-business-January.html 

Seems there is chatter out there in those football circles so maybe, just maybe!

Excuse my ignorance on this but when we ‘signed’ those players there was obviously contracts/paperwork etc. That had to be lodged to the governing bodies. Were there no red flags raised at the time.

21 minutes ago, Kev56 said:

Excuse my ignorance on this but when we ‘signed’ those players there was obviously contracts/paperwork etc. That had to be lodged to the governing bodies. Were there no red flags raised at the time.

From what little has been put in the public domain the main thrust of the problem revolves around players who participated in trial matches or extended periods of trials. 

FIFA now believe that playing in “organised games” counts as signing a player. In effect they believe if you play a non EU player under the age of 18 in say a summer youth tournament or have them stay over for a period of say 6 weeks for a trial that player has in effect signed for you. It’s why so many cases were looked into by FIFA.

From what I can gather one of the  “proven “ charges was Bernard Tarore , it’s worth noting he had no association with any club in his native country is effect he wasn’t registered as a player anywhere prior to signing with us 

He  didn’t sign on a contract until after he turned 18 but it seems when we bought him and his family over to England wepaid for his education & played him in several trial matches.I haven't seen it in writing but my take on it is that the FA sanctioned the games he played in hence why the FA were also slapped on the wrist.

The trouble with FIFAs regulations are they are clear as mud and time after have to time they have to issue clarification and the further clarification and so on. 

Edited September 8, 20196 yr by terraloon