Explore the BBC
over the signing of paul pogba
view all 82 comments
posted Oct 8, 2009
This is a heck of a lot of fuss over a "prospect". Bottom line is that Man U have been found innocent of the charge brought against them. This wasn't some backdoor ruling, it was a fully open and scrutinised decision based on law. Anything else is simply opinion. I don't really care what Chelsea fans think of this, they were bound to bleat about it because they were found guilty by the same process. Simply shouting "fix!" doesn't make it so. If they turn the decision around on appeal, then that'll be from a legal standpoint and nobody can argue with it. But at the moment Chelsea were caught breaking the rules, or at least ignorant of them (and thereby, incompetent).HAAAAA haaaaaa!
add comment |
complain about this comment
comment by jjp_rec (U12598371)posted 4 Minutes Ago...But at the moment Chelsea were caught breaking the rules, or at least ignorant of them (and thereby, incompetent).HAAAAA haaaaaa!===========================Numpty! The judge has ruled that there was no contract because the player (at 16) was too young to have signed a contract.Chelsea approached Kakuta at 15 and clearly he was then also too young to have signed a contract.How can we be guilty of inducing him to break a contract he hasn't signed.It seems to me that someone behind the scenes at FIFA has had 2nd thoughts about the legal situation and in light of the Kakuta case they have realised the French clubs case doesn't hold water.Of course they have made a formal decision against Chelsea already and that will need to be addressed through the correct channels now. What FIFA have done is avoided making another stupid error with Utd and Pogba, which would also be overturned on appeal.
Quote from the original BBC article which clearly shows that the issues are the same for Utd and Chelsea:"The Cas decision can be appealed only before the Swiss Supreme Court. Manchester United could also face an investigation after it emerged that another French club, Le Havre, are going to ask Fifa to look into Paul Pogba's move to Old Trafford last month. Fifa say they are yet to receive any complaint over the transfer of the 16-year-old midfielder. United told BBC Sport last month that Le Havre's accusations that they had stolen the French youngster were "complete nonsense". A French football agent, who wishes to remain anonymous for professional reasons, told BBC Sport: "If Lens or Le Havre were legally able to sign the two players to contracts they would definitely have done it already. "But French law prevents players from signing contracts if they under 16 and haven't achieved the requisite level at school. "The clubs can make agreements with these players that say they will give them a contract when they have attained the right educational qualification or turned 16. "It is a pre-contract. It is called an 'accord de non sollicitation' in French. It is a written agreement between club and player. "That is what Kakuta and Pogba had. Fifa is clearly now saying these accords are as good as contracts, while Chelsea and Manchester United are saying they are not." "Chelsea will have questioned the legality of this decision and their planned appeal will have focussed FIFA's attention on getting it right with Pogba.There may be some cretins out there who will try to claim that 'Utd clearly didn't break the rules as they weren't punished, and Chelsea clearly did break the rules because they were punished'.I hope they never get called up for Jury service!
Cant understand why people claim Chelsea break the rules when these same people cant explain what the rules that was broken.but there again does anyone knows what was the rules Chelsea have broken, or do we all have to wait for the appeal to be heard before we hear it was the same rules Utd were to have broken as well.
Comment by Arundini and any other quoting the response by Neville,Neville,Neville..It clearly says in the article that the judge ruled against the french club BECAUSE THE PLAYER WAS TOO YOUNG TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT!!!!!!Therefore Neville,Neville,Neville's rudimentry understanding of the two causes is inaccurate - so please stop quoting his response!!!!!!!! arrggghhhhhh!!!!!!
posted Oct 9, 2009
Not wanting to breathe too much life into this debate, but I note that Le Havre are claiming the case hasn't been properly adjudicated on at this point.Apparently its just a provisional registration of the player that's been approved.None of which changes my view on the whole issue for both Chelsea and Utd.
they are hoping to get the verdict off the UEFA President himselfHang on, hes french as well
Chelsea offered financial inducements to the player's family and that's where rules were broken.
posted Oct 11, 2009
common sense prevails - a pre-contract agreement means nothing. blindingly obvious really. looking forward to seeing how the lad develops.
average rating:3.00 from 8 votes
BBC LocalMore on this team at the BBC website for Manchester