|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Sept 4, 2009 3:51:15 GMT
It's completely shocking! Until just a matter of hours ago, nobody had even heard of Gael Kakuta, now he's famous (or rather, infamous)! Read all about it here, Chelsea's shock transfer banIt's funny how the "long arm of the law" catches up with you, and yet often it overlooks a lot of things... What do you think about this one? |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 4, 2009 9:26:39 GMT
I'm in two minds about this one. If it were uniformly applied to all clubs that are guilty of tapping up, I would definitely be in favour, but it's just Chelsea being picked on, here.
FIFA are well aware that some of their darlings are just as guilty, but you don't see them going after Real Madrid, who were so utterly blatant in their pursuit of Christiano Ronaldo that they might as well be selling 'We Tapped Up Ronaldo' shirts in their official store.
So right now, I'm going with 'they were picked on'. If a rule is not to be applied equally to everyone, it should not be applied at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Sept 4, 2009 17:58:55 GMT
Yeah, I agree completely.
I mean, if they were applying the rules to the "T," you'd see a lot more punishments being handed out to the clubs, especially the big ones.
It just happens that at the moment, Chelsea have a perfect start to the season. This might spoil their chances, but hopefully for them this won't affect them too badly for the remainder of this season.
Of course, it goes without saying that this will probably affect them this season, but it will most certainly affect them quite badly next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 4, 2009 18:06:34 GMT
At the minimum, it's a morale hit. Clubs rely on being able to shift players about at need and you can bet that a club not allowed to buy is gonna be really reluctant to sell, too. I can't see anyone at Chelsea being thrilled by this.
Of course, if FIFA now DO start applying this penalty evenly and without fear or favour, I'll change my mind. Not sure how far I'd rate the chances of that ever happening, though...
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Sept 4, 2009 18:59:53 GMT
Of course, if FIFA now DO start applying this penalty evenly and without fear or favour, I'll change my mind. Not sure how far I'd rate the chances of that ever happening, though... That'll have to be after Sepp Blatter dies, and his successor being somebody super strict about the rules. ;D  I believe the game would be a lot fairer if the rules were enforced all the time, but of course, there's probably going to be unfair decisions made for as long as football is a professional sport.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 4, 2009 19:10:46 GMT
Or rather a 'prostitution sport' - all about the money! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Sept 4, 2009 19:22:19 GMT
Or rather a 'prostitution sport' - all about the money! ;D Ah yes, the money... "the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10a), to quote Saint Paul. I agree with him. (just look around and think about it, sports are just one small example) |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 4, 2009 19:28:05 GMT
I think greed is the root of all evil, honestly. That combined with disregard for others. Hmmm... Does that count as one or two roots?
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Sept 4, 2009 19:41:17 GMT
I think greed is the root of all evil, honestly. That combined with disregard for others. Hmmm... Does that count as one or two roots? Well, the love of money WOULD be a root for both... I guess it counts as one root! Then again, I think I'd put "Selfishness" as the root of all evil. Oh well, if it were to be discussed, that'd be best done in the Humanology Section. In the case of professional football, Saint Paul's right. Also (in this case, at least) greed would = the love of money.  Whatever the case, let's just hope that either FIFA withdraw this ban (unlikely), or that Chelsea have the strength to stay competitive in spite of it!  |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 4, 2009 19:54:01 GMT
They'll probably appeal and get it cut. I think FIFA just like flexing their muscles a bit, sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Sept 5, 2009 17:49:52 GMT
They'll probably appeal and get it cut. I think FIFA just like flexing their muscles a bit, sometimes. Yeah, Blatter and Platini need the exercise...  |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Sept 5, 2009 17:57:24 GMT
The difference between what Real did with Ronaldo and what Chelsea did with this guy was that Real didn't convince Ronaldo to break his contract with United. In fact, they payed quite a hefty transfer fee for him. Roma got punished a while back when they "bought" Filippe Mexes from Auxerre. And United is apparently facing similiar charges at the moment.
So if you wonder why Chelsea got punished when Real didn't then it's because they haven't done the same things.
Übereil
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 5, 2009 19:01:38 GMT
I think there's a fine line there, Ube. It's certain Man U didn't want to lose Ronaldo and that Real persuaded him to move despite not having permission from United to approach him, like they were supposed to get. That's pretty much the same thing Chelsea did, isn't it? Where's the difference?
I can understand why Lens are pissed and it's certain Chelsea are guilty of tapping up a lot more players than just this guy. But punishing one club when a lot of others are also guilty is not good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Sept 6, 2009 12:08:00 GMT
I think there's a fine line there, Ube. It's certain Man U didn't want to lose Ronaldo and that Real persuaded him to move despite not having permission from United to approach him, like they were supposed to get. That's pretty much the same thing Chelsea did, isn't it? Where's the difference? United sold Ronaldo to Real (however reluctantly). In the Chelsea case of this guy Lens didn't sell him, and Chelsea didn't buy him. Instead, they convinced the guy to break his contract and move to Chelsea. By doing so they bypassed the the transfer process that Real had to go through to aquire Ronaldo. That is what Chelsea's being punished for, not for buying a player the club doesn't really want to sell. (As a side note, Real did the same thing with Xabi Alonso. Pool weren't in the mood to sell him, but Alonso wanted to move and Real was very eager to buy, and vocally so, so eventually Pool couldn't not sell him.) Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 6, 2009 12:54:03 GMT
Aaah. That IS different, yes.
In that case, I'd have to say that FIFA were right to give Chelsea a kicking.
Not that they should ignore all the tapping up, which is clearly wrong, if not by quite so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Sept 6, 2009 13:55:53 GMT
Agreed. Real should get some kind of warning at least IMO, since their media campaign was a bit too much IMO. But they followed the rules, if only barely.
A more interesting case to compare Real's media campaign with would be Ashley Cole. Chelsea got punished for meeting him in private and discussing a contract and how to get him to act to get a transfer through, which got them a fine. I wonder if it's motivated to ignore Real if this got Chelsea a fine. They should IMO at least get a smaller fine for what they did, if nothing else a symbolical sum to show that doing what they did is not ok, at least not at that level.
Übereil
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Sept 6, 2009 17:29:23 GMT
Very true Ube. Yes, they DID break the rules. HOWEVER, there's bound to be plenty of other cases similar to this, and FIFA just aren't looking for them. They either should get a LOT stricter, or they shouldn't bother over such a small case. Hopefully, however, this is a stepping stone into the era I've always thought would make football so much fairer, when they are on the lookout for every single time a player/coach/team breaks a rule, and they dish out the appropriate punishment. If, and only IF this is the case, then yes, Chelsea got what they deserved. IMHO, however, that just isn't the case. Things probably will only truly change after Sepp Blatter retires/dies, and somebody who puts honesty/fair play at the TOP of his priority list replaces him. Too bad by that time we'll probably be a bunch of old men... ;D |
|
