13th August 2019 at 5:58 pm #45224
Man City have been fined £315k by FIFA for seemingly breaking the same rules that Chelsea were banned for?
As always the devil will be in the detail and they might have been at differentnlevrls? But on the positive side it might help Chelsea’s Appeal to overturn the transfer ban for the January window?13th August 2019 at 8:52 pm #45233
Very strange that Nine. The one thing City couldn’t care less about is having to pay a fine. Makes zero difference to them!13th August 2019 at 9:29 pm #45236
Are these sanctions applied by the letter of the law or on discretion of the Governing bodies?
Would seem harsh from a Chelsea POV.13th August 2019 at 10:01 pm #45237
“It is believed FIFA took a different view because of the sheer scale of Chelsea’s case while City have also sought to prove they have corrected any wrongdoings on signing foreign youngsters since 2016.”13th August 2019 at 10:26 pm #45238
I’ve said it before, that FIFA UEFA need to be dissolved. I haven’t read anything about this but I wouldn’t be surprised ,if we’re looking at a situation where City are paying them off. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again.
The City fans on here might take this kinda talk as an assault on them as fans but that’s not the case.
This needs to be looked into though.13th August 2019 at 11:54 pm #45244
Mikus, as I 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.14th August 2019 at 12:29 am #45245
Mak, to be fair despite my misgivings on all of this I think suggesting City may have paid off FIFA is too big a leap albeit FIFA have been found to be corrupt previously.
All in all though it doesn’t seem very just starting with Chelsea not being treated in the same as the Spanish Clubs who previously faced the same charges.
“Chelsea claimed to be “astonished” on Friday after seeing an initial request to freeze the ban from registering new players until the summer of 2020 for breaches relating to the recruitment of minors – they were charged with 92 breaches of article 19 alone, and found guilty of 29 of those cases – rejected by Fifa’s appeal committee. They pointed to leeway granted to Barcelona, Real Madrid and Atlético Madrid, who had all successfully delayed bans by appealing, and suggested the governing body was guilty of double standards. The Guardian. Cheers 9’s14th August 2019 at 1:06 am #45247
Nine, thanks for the post, very interesting.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.