City fined but Chelsea banned?

This topic contains 32 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  nine nine nine 11 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 33 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1774390

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Man City have been fined £315k by FIFA for breaking the same rules that we were banned for?

    As always the devil is in the detail but on the positive side it might help us overturn the transfer ban in the January window?

    #1774399
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Maybe, but punishments should increase exponentially for repeated offences and while I am not sure if they have done this be for, we have havent we?

    #1774414
    bort
    bort
    Participant
    • :

    Lucky yeah we had the Kakuta case

    #1774415
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Thats the one, werent there similar issues with christensen and payments made to his dad?

    #1774454

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    As I’m said in my original post “the devil will be in the detail” . Reading between the lines it would appear that City might have been treated differently because they admitted to wrong doings whilst Chelsea have always claimed their innocence of wrong doings.

    “Chelsea contended that the majority of the cases involved short-term trialists at their academy, who did not go on to sign. They argued there is no law against trying out under-18 international players; that it is common practice across Europe and, as such, they believed these cases ought not to have been included in the final judgment. In others that led to them making signings, the club maintained they fully complied with Fifa’s rules.” The Guardian

    Fifa had turned down a request from Chelsea to freeze the ban while it considered the club’s appeal, this has never happened before and previously such bans against other top European Clubs have been frozen until an appeal to the Court of Arbitration in Sport has been heard.

    Put simply you don’t hang a man if he’s been found guilty of Murder before his Appeal has been heard.

    Chelsea as is their right have appealed the transfer ban to the Court of Arbitration in Sport whether that is succesful or not and whether the judgement and punishment against City plays any part in that Appeal is open to conjecture and is in the hands of Chelsea’s Lawyers.

    Realistically the major part of the punishment has now been served and Chelsea can’t reclaim the Summer transfer window that’s gone and the damage against the Club has been done and even if the ban is overturned or reduced to one window which is a possibility it only leaves the January window which would be of very limited benefit.

    We await CAS’s judgement but perhaps understandably based on all of the above Chelsea FC feel harshly treated.

    #1774456

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Lucky, the Christansen case was handled by the FA and not FIFA and was completely different to the FIFA case against Chelsea.

    That one is now seemingly put to bed now: “Chelsea are not expected to face any action for making alleged illegal payments to Andreas Christensen’s father – after i ( the Independent ) learned they were declared during a “Premier League amnesty” in 2015.

    Overall though you do wonder why those supervising all such transfer activity at Chelsea haven’t followed best practice particularly when we have a Lawyer as the Chairman. Cheers 9’s

    #1774464

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    FIFA’s response to being questioned by the Daily Mirror as to why there was such a disparity in the punishments handed out to Chelsea and City.

    “Please note that in line with article 50 (8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (2019 version), ‘at any time prior to the meeting set up to decide the case by the relevant judicial body, a party may accept responsibility and request the FIFA judicial bodies to impose a specific sanction. The FIFA judicial bodies may decide on the basis of such request or render a decision which it considers appropriate in the context of this Code.

    “Furthermore, according to article 24 (3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, ‘when determining the disciplinary measure, the judicial body shall take into account all relevant factors of the case, including any assistance of and substantial cooperation by the offender in uncovering or establishing a breach of any FIFA rule, the circumstances and the degree of the offender’s guilt and any other relevant circumstances.’

    “Lastly, as you can see here , Manchester City has accepted its responsibility, which has been considered by FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee in its decision.”

    I suspect the Chelsea Lawyers will be all over this like a rash.

    #1774571

    CM
    Participant
    • :

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiegel.de/international/world/gianni-infantino-worked-on-behalf-of-manchester-city-and-psg-a-1236418-amp.html

    According to these documents, Infantino ensured that Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain, both owned by emirates in the Gulf, received only mild penalties for their massive violations of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.

    The severity of the punishment does not mattet bacause Chelsea, both madrid clubs and Barcelona all recieved the same punishment no matter how many players were involved. City are the only ones who escaped punishment. Judging by the leaks last year, they have an influence on the current Fifa president.

    #1774574
    chelsea1967
    chelsea1967
    Participant
    • :

    “The disciplinary committee took into account the fact that Manchester City FC accepted its responsibility and sanctioned the club with a fine of CHF 370,000.” Chelsea were sanctioned by Fifa in February for breaching rules in relation to 29 youth players, and were fined £460,000 in addition to their transfer ban.

    That sucks.

    #1774586

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Oh it gets better I was just driving and listening to Talksports who had some expert on, on all this on and apparently a new rule was introduced a month ago that allowed a Club to plead guilty and recommend their own punishment which City did and FIFA took into account in City’s punishment you simply couldn’t make this up!

    The expert reckons based on all this Chelsea’s ban is almost certainly going to be overturned by CAS but even if that happens that won’t give us back the Summer transfer window.

    Good point CM all the Club’s seemed the same punishment no matter how many players were involved although even here Chelsea were treated unfairly because the Spanish Clubs were allowed to appeal and have their punishment held in abeyance until the result of that appeal was known.

    There’s something very wrong with all this imo.

    #1774846
    NIBlue
    NIBlue
    Participant
    • :

    There will be many of the clubs across the world, not just in Europe, who will be sitting up and taking note of yet another display of complete ineptitude and bias being shown here by FIFA.

    It appears that they rewrite the rule book as they go along to meet the requirements of whatever clubs are involved.

    This latest farce may prompt CAS to get our case heard sooner rather than later. Given we have been treated totally differently on this occasion from any other club in both the form of punishment and appeal refusal, combined with the fact that we lost a transfer window, hopefully CAS will overturn the decision.

    #1774854
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    compensation a possibility nine?

    #1774857

    CM
    Participant
    • :

    If I was all the Spanish clubs involved and Chelsea, I would be speaking to my lawyers in regards to this. Judging by the der spiegel leaks, the current Fifa president who was Uefa president at the time has been intimidated by he City president again in order to give a softer punishment to City.

    #1774915

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    CM, all within the newly changed rules CM where the offender can show remorse and recommend his own punishment.😊 Very convenient for City. You really couldn’t make it up could you.

    #1774921

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Lucky, it’s preety clear that City have been treated differently under this new rule as above that came in a month ago?

    I’m not a Lawyer or sure of the strength of taking legal action against FIFA I think the Club will just want to put it behind them rather than get involved in another legal case but I’m sure the Lawyers have been studying the City situation and their vastly different punishment ahead of our appeal to CAS which you would hope given these latest revelations re City will be successful.

    But you’re right the damage is done now because we’ve been prevented from strengthening in the Summer window whilst City haven’t.

    #1774933
    Alfie07
    Alfie07
    Participant
    • :

    Best case scenario for Chelsea (aside from CAS overturning the decision) is that they get tried using the new rules – like City. However City accepted the charge, Chelsea didn’t do that. So unless Chelsea now accept the charge, whether the new rules are applied or not won’t make a difference.

    Bloody strange that the rules changed between City being charged and City being ‘punished’ though. What a coincidence!

    #1774946
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Is a bit of a coincidence your right alfie. Sad thing is we cant wind back time and give us a fair shake, it seems pretty obvious that if chelsea were told admit it and pay 300k we would have done so even if innocent as its cheaper than bleeding fighting it!

    As it stands we have been forced to sit back while our rivals strengthen, no doubt reducing our potential this year massively and our final standing as a consequence. This will lead to massive financial loss that has been suffered only due to FIFA’s unreasonable refusal to postpone the ban until CAS appeal. That is another area in which we as a club have not been given a fair shake.

    I am sure Chelsea’s lawyers will be all over this like Nine has said.

    #1774974
    Alfie07
    Alfie07
    Participant
    • :

    I think you are now between a rock and a hard place though, Lucky. If you wish to use the new rules for a lenient punishment you’ll have to admit the charge. Once you do that you have no come back against the initial punishment (as that was before the new rules came into force and you will also have no argument about suspending the ban during the appeal as you have just admitted the charge and therefore admit it was a frivolous appeal).

    If you go under the old rules the best you can hope for is that CAS reduce the ban to one window. I guess you would have to argue the original punishment was unduly harsh under the old guidelines. But other clubs had bans (albeit for the January window). You’d have to argue that the number of instances you broke the rules for are the same as the other clubs who had transfer bans etc.

    #1774979
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    the point i was making about the other clubs alfie is that their bans were suspended pending appeal, ours was enforced regardless.

    #1774997
    Alfie07
    Alfie07
    Participant
    • :

    Yep, that is strange Lucky. I guess FIFA had enough of frivolous appeals designed to get the transfer ban to cover the January window rather than the summer one.

    The Chelsea lawyers will need to be careful though as they either appeal the sentence or the decision. To argue over whether or not the punishment should stand whilst the appeal is heard after the transfer window has shut seems a waste. They should have appealed before the window shut. They now need to decide what they want to achieve and go for that.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 33 total)

You must be logged in to reply this topic.