Chelsea banned from signing players for 2 transfer windows
- Thread starter cheets64
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 13,054
Why don't they just make it illegal for any club to sign a player under 18?
That would mean their own youth system would have to do so would get more effort put into it
That would mean their own youth system would have to do so would get more effort put into it
I think that sentence could do with more effort put into it
It does seem to be just with the french system that there is a problem - something to do with pre-contract agreements?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 13,054
Haha, I've just woke up...
I'll rephrase.
If they had a ban on any club signing players under 18yrs old, surely this would make their own youth system in need of a bit more attention because they wouldn't be able to just add the talent?
I'll rephrase.
If they had a ban on any club signing players under 18yrs old, surely this would make their own youth system in need of a bit more attention because they wouldn't be able to just add the talent?
I think you mean:
"A ban on signing under 18s would force a team to concentrate more on their youth academy."
I definitely agree with that and don't think it's a bad thing at all. I think the best solution overall though, would be to have the original club receive something like 15% of the player's wages for the first 5 years or so. You shouldn't treat players like objects but smaller clubs should be adequately compensated if a player moves.
Last edited:
Teh big club would still want to generate some income rather than keeping someone in the subs team for ever (and on their wage bill)
Often sub players for huge clubs become more than able 1st XI players for lesser clubs
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It probably would force them to concentrate on their own youth team more but what about the development of players at the smaller clubs? Suppose for a second they are exceptionally talented - they might soon outstrip the facilities and training available to them at a smaller club which means their development is more or less put on hold until they are 18 and able to move.
It's quite a knotty problem but I'd suggest we need to be looking at what is best for the individual youngster so that probably means we have to do it on a case by case basis rather than a blanket ban on transfers under a certain age or vice versa.
On the other hand if smaller clubs knew they would have players until at least first team level then they would as well invest more money in their own youth facilities. Obviously they'd never be able to afford the same facilities of the likes of Chelsea/Man U, but is that such as bad thing?
Ronaldinho never played in a top league until he was 25(?) and it didn't stunt his progress same with countless over players.
Ronaldinho never played in a top league until he was 25(?) and it didn't stunt his progress same with countless over players.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,667
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
How is this going to come under the The Free movement of worker within the EU (Article 39 of the EC Treaty)? FIFA might be able to apply and restrict the transfer of players over the age of 18 outside the EU, but within the EU, FIFA is not above the law. Remember the Bosman ruling? It all came out of this.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,667
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
All football transfer are about contracts, all workers to employees are contracts.
What I am saying is that Fifa can indeed ban teams who breaches these rules. However since they go againsts (possible) Article 39 of the EU Treaty, then Fifa can't enforce those rules on European clubs.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
being that we (man utd) havent had a good youth player come through our facilities in the last 10 years, id say that it doesnt make any difference at all.
all this poaching, all these youth players...and we still had to buy all of or current 11 (barring maybe Neville, but he is just a stalwart from a previous generation)
Sarr
Neville
Rio
Vidic
Evra
Nani
Carrick
anderson
valencia
rooney
berbatov
only other notable possibles are;
Giggs
Scholes
does anyone know why man utd youth sucks so much if we have such good facilities and poach so many good youngsters at 15?
How can't they? FIFA can choose whichever teams take part in their competitions, they can't stop English teams from poaching players but they can ban England from FIFA competitions and Chelsea from UEFA competitions (I think).
I don't know what you're on about in the first bit, what does 'all workers to employees are contracts' mean?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,667
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
So you are saying that if Art 39 is uphelded, and clubs can do transfer of under 18 footballers legally, Fifa can and will still ban clubs from entering their competition?
I can't really see how that will work.
edit - typo, I meant workers to employers.
What??
To be fair to Man City, up until the recent takeover they had a good record of bring through young English talent:
Onuoha
Johnson
Richards
Sturridge
It could be held that the transfer is perfectly legal under EU law, but I believe that FIFA or UEFA could still impose sanctions based upon a "Code of Conduct" or similar as part of being allowed to take part in a UEFA organised competition (e.g. the Champions League). They could say that failure to uphold the code of conductis grounds for not being allowed to compete in the competition.
I don't think they will I'm just saying FIFA have they power to do that. They can't change the legislation but they can employ policies that discourage clubs from signing U18s from abroad.
You gotta remember as well these cases aren't just about buying young players from abroad. The complaints against Man U were down to the club giving money to the parents and the Man City case is similar as well I think.