Chelsea banned from signing players

antihenry said:
You can't sign a pro contract under French laws until you're 16 so Chelsea couldn't possibly tell the kid to breach something he didn't have at the time.
Click to expand...
You can't sign a professional contract at that age in France but can you sign an agreement which agrees to sign a professional contract in that case?

It is not a contract but still an agreement and therefore a legal document.

More interesting is the question whether these pre-contracts are therefore legal or not, considering players sign them all the time at ages where they cannot sign professional contracts.
 
How can you possibly bind an 11 year old to a contract?! Sounds like bollocks, this.
 
x42bn6 said:
You can't sign a professional contract at that age in France but can you sign an agreement which agrees to sign a professional contract in that case?

It is not a contract but still an agreement and therefore a legal document.

More interesting is the question whether these pre-contracts are therefore legal or not, considering players sign them all the time at ages where they cannot sign professional contracts.
Click to expand...

If it's the kind of agreement I've read previously: the player agrees to sign, but the club has no corresponding commitment to make an offer and certainly not a "market rate" offer. It's almost certainly not a legal contract under European employment law because it's too one-sided and therefore not enforceable.

If it's not a legal contract in EU law (and personally I doubt it would even get as far as a hearing) then it relies entirely on FIFA's ability to stop its members using the normal courts - which is where the Court of Arbitration for Sport comes in. And where this case is probably heading on the final day for lodging an appeal - which probably keeps the January window open!

What do you reckon they'll bid for Ribery in January?
Of course if I was a Chelsea player's agent I'd be looking for a new contract :devil:
 
Alex said:
What a fecking joke, FIFA are going to lose in the sport court to CHelsea now, how can they not recall a player they already own?
Click to expand...
if they dont have a recall clause , they cant terminate the loan contract citing the transfer ban as a reason

/me thinks that is what it means
 
They own the player, as far as I am concerned that is paramount.
 
Here's hoping Ross Turnbull has to be the number 1 keeper for an extended period of time. He's probably the only one celebrating in the dressing room.
 
If you pay a players salary then in the end there is no rebuttal, if I were Chelsea I wouldnt pay Mancienne salary and then see what happens.
 
Alex said:
If you pay a players salary then in the end there is no rebuttal, if I were Chelsea I wouldnt pay Mancienne salary and then see what happens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, start universally violating your contracts with players and other clubs and watch what happens to Chelsea then.

Those loan players were loaned out and if there is no "in case of transfer ban" clause in the loan agreement, then that isn't grounds for recall.

The larger point for the whinging crowd is that these are the procedures as they exist.

They are the same procedures for everyone, no matter how much you may dislike them.

That includes your belief that some of them would violate general European labour law. But then be careful what you wish for - if everything was subject to general European labour law then football would be almost unable to function. You're going to regret opening that pandora's box.

Chelsea would like to make out like this is something out of the "blue".

They were lucky not to get hammered over the Mikel thing when they settled with United. In fact, had we not settled we were going to seek a transfer ban.

United call for Chelsea transfer embargo over Mikel controversy - Premier League, Football - The Independent

They were lucky to get a "suspended sentence" over the Ashley Cole thing.

They were lucky to settle with a financially devastated Leeds United when they stole three young players from them in 2006. Leeds had mobile phone records proving the contact there which was enough to scare Chelsea into paying as much as a reported 5m.

They are habitual offenders now doing exactly what a crook who is finally brought to book does - screaming his head off about "I've got rights, you can't do this to me, its police brutality!".

If you truly don't like the procedures on a due process grounds then all the clubs should work together as clubs to work to clarify and change the rules and procedures, so that if you have a specific grievance that relates to the PROCESS all the clubs can work to change it for the sake of fairness.

But shut the hell up screaming like a stuck pig when you finally get busted for your oft-committed crime.

I feel bad for the proper lifelong Chelsea fans like duffer and Team Brian GB, but the comic value of Aunty Henry bleating is especially rich, since he was guaranteeing as late as last season that Chelsea did nothing wrong and we were going to have to pay Chelsea the money that we fraudulently gained from Obi Mikel when Chelsea filed suit any moment now. It didn't take him long to immediately claim his club did nothing wrong and United did. He's always the expert on scouse-level delusions regarding the lily white goings-on at Stamford Bridge. If only AC Milan would start winning things again, he could toddle off back there and end the misery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.