• Current Donation Goals

Sir

Official: Chelsea Sign Christian Pulisic

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, samhoward17 said:

Also heard murmers that there's a transfer ban coming and this is our way of navigating it. That would provide a few problems. 

Neat idea, but I think a ban is  very unlikely.  UEFA hasn't punished PSG/City for the very good reason that FFP is illegal and wouldn't stand up to any appeal.  So I doubt that UEFA is going to throw its weight around at other clubs right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

Neat idea, but I think a ban is  very unlikely.  UEFA hasn't punished PSG/City for the very good reason that FFP is illegal and wouldn't stand up to any appeal.  So I doubt that UEFA is going to throw its weight around at other clubs right now.

Both Real and Barca recieved transfer bans. It has nothing to do with FFP but rather how we (and other clubs) have dealt with U-18 signings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Both Real and Barca recieved transfer bans. It has nothing to do with FFP but rather how we (and other clubs) have dealt with U-18 signings. 

That was 2014 and 2015.  Before PSG and City called UEFA's bluff.
Then there was a kind of truce, where PSG and City agreed to a minor infringement of the rules so that UEFA could pretend it still had FFP in place, and the two clubs could pretty much carry on outspending everyone else without control.

And RM and Barca were serial offenders, far worse than we have been accused of.  

Everything is to do with UEFA credibility.  It has a set of internal rules which do not stand up to scrutiny.  Question it seriously and it collapses like the Wizard of Oz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

That was 2014 and 2015.  Before PSG and City called UEFA's bluff.
Then there was a kind of truce, where PSG and City agreed to a minor infringement of the rules so that UEFA could pretend it still had FFP in place, and the two clubs could pretty much carry on outspending everyone else without control.

And RM and Barca were serial offenders, far worse than we have been accused of.  

Everything is to do with UEFA credibility.  It has a set of internal rules which do not stand up to scrutiny.  Question it seriously and it collapses like the Wizard of Oz.

Again, it has nothing to do with FFP. So not sure why you keep mentioning it? 

Its because we are (allegedly) breaking rules when signing U-18 players. That was also why Barca and Real were punished. Atletico Madrid were also punished for the same offence. 

http://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-transfers/story/3023904/real-madrids-transfer-ban-halved-after-cas-appeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Again, it has nothing to do with FFP. So not sure why you keep mentioning it? 

No.  it has everything to do with UEFA trying to control a bunch of unruly football clubs in their cartel.  It really doesn't matter whether that means the highly illegal agreement between clubs over FFP to limit spending which breaks pretty much every price-fixing law ever written.  Or whether that means the attempt to intervene stop teenagers from signing perfectly legitimate contracts that are to their benefit.  
Both work on the basis that UEFA introduces a set of agreements which clubs pretend to accept.  Any challenge to any of the agreements leaves UEFA with a big loss of face, and makes it even harder for UEFA to carry out its Bluff. 
There is no legal threat of FFP punishments or of player signing punishments.
There is a threat of UEFA bluff, followed by a club decision to back down from confrontation.  
2 years, for greater offences, RM decided to take it to the friendly appeal body, CAS, and got the punishment reduced to 6 months.
If they were to give Chelsea 6 months, I'm pretty sure that the CAS Appeal would reduce it to zero.

It would be strongly against UEFA's interest to charge Chelsea, just as it would be to charge City or PSG under FFP.  Bluffing when everyone knows what cards you have is futile.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   

If we get a transfer ban, could make use of any of Zouma, Aina, James, Pasalic, Mount, Abraham, Kenedy, Batshuyai......to name a few 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

If we get a transfer ban, could make use of any of Zouma, Aina, James, Pasalic, Mount, Abraham, Kenedy, Batshuyai......to name a few 

That would be an "interesting" season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
4 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

That would be an "interesting" season.

Not suggesting they would be ahead of the current key players, but certainly some could fill squad gaps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, chiswickblue said:

The charge regarding signing teenagers is a FIFA charge, not a UEFA charge.

Interesting, I didn't realise that.

Though FIFA isn't what it was 4 years ago, either.

42 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

If we get a transfer ban, could make use of any of Zouma, Aina, James, Pasalic, Mount, Abraham, Kenedy, Batshuyai......to name a few 

Are we sure on this?  There is a difference between registering ownership and registering player for matching.  I presume a ban prevents us from taking new players on loan (registered for playing).  Does it prevent us from re-registering players on loan away?

Of course the other point is that if we want plain ordinary players we already have 3 surplus FBs, 2 CBs, 2GKs, 2CMs 1 or 2 AMs and 2 CFs on our books, most of whom have longer contracts than we might wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now