Post by QPR Report on Sept 7, 2009 6:46:26 GMT
I'll believe that when it actually is confirmed/appeal denied 
Telegraph/PauL Kelso
Chelsea's transfer ban appeal chances appear slim in face of Fifa regulations
Chelsea face limited legal options as they seek to overturn an 18-month transfer ban handed down by Fifa after the club were found to have induced French starlet Gaël Kakuta to breach his contract with Lens, according to legal experts.
On Thursday night the club announced their intention to appeal against the penalty to Fifa and, if necessary, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but Chelsea’s problem is that the regulations are unambiguous and well-established.
A club statement described the penalty as “without precedent” and “arbitrary”. But there are numerous recent precedents for a two transfer-window ban, and far from being arbitrary, the penalty is unambiguously set out in the Fifa regulations governing transfers.
Chelsea transfer ban debate Regulation 17.4 could not be more clear on the matter: “The club shall be banned from registering new players for two registration periods,” it states.
Leading sports lawyer Ian Lynam, of Charles Russell, said that Chelsea have only a slim chance of reducing the ban on appeal. “Given the clear drafting of the regulation and the precedents that exist it would appear very difficult for Chelsea to appeal against the length of the ban,” he said. “Fifa has no discretion as to the length of the ban and there are a number of precedents.”
Lynam points to three recent cases in the last three years involving FC Sion, Al Kuwait and an anonymous club, where two-window bans were upheld.
Nor is there any comfort in the case of AS Roma, who managed to reduce a two-window penalty to one in a case involving Philippe Mexes. Roma had already served a five-week interim ban when the penalty was cut, effectively meaning they were still banned for two windows.
Given this case law, Lynam said: “Chelsea’s arguments are likely to be limited to claiming they did not induce the player to breach his contract, or that the player was not a professional when he breached the contract.”
Establishing whether Kakuta was a professional will rest not on his contract status — he was just 15 when he joined Chelsea and had signed only a pre-contract agreement with Lens — but on whether he was being paid.
The CAS said on Friday night that it would hear the appeal before Christmas
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/chelsea/6140404/Chelseas-transfer-ban-appeal-chances-appear-slim-in-face-of-Fifa-regulations.html
Telegraph/PauL Kelso
Chelsea's transfer ban appeal chances appear slim in face of Fifa regulations
Chelsea face limited legal options as they seek to overturn an 18-month transfer ban handed down by Fifa after the club were found to have induced French starlet Gaël Kakuta to breach his contract with Lens, according to legal experts.
On Thursday night the club announced their intention to appeal against the penalty to Fifa and, if necessary, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but Chelsea’s problem is that the regulations are unambiguous and well-established.
A club statement described the penalty as “without precedent” and “arbitrary”. But there are numerous recent precedents for a two transfer-window ban, and far from being arbitrary, the penalty is unambiguously set out in the Fifa regulations governing transfers.
Chelsea transfer ban debate Regulation 17.4 could not be more clear on the matter: “The club shall be banned from registering new players for two registration periods,” it states.
Leading sports lawyer Ian Lynam, of Charles Russell, said that Chelsea have only a slim chance of reducing the ban on appeal. “Given the clear drafting of the regulation and the precedents that exist it would appear very difficult for Chelsea to appeal against the length of the ban,” he said. “Fifa has no discretion as to the length of the ban and there are a number of precedents.”
Lynam points to three recent cases in the last three years involving FC Sion, Al Kuwait and an anonymous club, where two-window bans were upheld.
Nor is there any comfort in the case of AS Roma, who managed to reduce a two-window penalty to one in a case involving Philippe Mexes. Roma had already served a five-week interim ban when the penalty was cut, effectively meaning they were still banned for two windows.
Given this case law, Lynam said: “Chelsea’s arguments are likely to be limited to claiming they did not induce the player to breach his contract, or that the player was not a professional when he breached the contract.”
Establishing whether Kakuta was a professional will rest not on his contract status — he was just 15 when he joined Chelsea and had signed only a pre-contract agreement with Lens — but on whether he was being paid.
The CAS said on Friday night that it would hear the appeal before Christmas
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/chelsea/6140404/Chelseas-transfer-ban-appeal-chances-appear-slim-in-face-of-Fifa-regulations.html