Chelsea Cole and Mourinho all charged

smuckers

for the following:

Jose -Rule Q - managers code of conduct
Chelsea - K3 - approaching players under contract
Cole - K5 - arranging a meeting with another club whilst under contract

Aquos76

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/4355827.stm

Pacifico

Interesting that Cole was also charged for "Arranging" the meeting....

He's deffo on his way out now....

The Muppet

The Cole charge is surprising but what does it really mean? Does it means he instigated the meeting or is he charged becaus he facilitated it?

abccormac

Does it means he instigated the meeting or is he charged becaus he facilitated it?

Is taking part in a meeting with another club without your own clubs permission as much of a breakage of the rules for the player as it is for the club, regardless of who initiated it?

(edit: according to the premier league website, K5, the rule under which cole is charged, covers approaches to clubs by players, so it looks like he might have instigated it.)

leeroybrown

Seeing as the meeting took place and Cole was there he's answerable to the charge. Now if they just happened to pass each other in a car park...

The Muppet

abccormac wrote:

Is taking part in a meeting with another club without your own clubs permission as much of a breakage of the rules for the player as it is for the club, regardless of who initiated it?

(edit: according to the premier league website, K5, the rule under which cole is charged, covers approaches to clubs by players, so it looks like he might have instigated it.)

Strange , because according to Coles evidence to the enquiry he walked out when Murinho entered the room. That doesn;t really tally if he was the instigator of the meeting.

abccormac

He might just have been trying to cover his arse, or it's possible he's been charged with something they don't expect to be able to prove, just as a sort of slap on the wrist. Hard to know either way really.

PHB

i really want to see a transfer market ban

sleepwalker

should be interesting to see how this pans out now

arsenal will do all they can to hold onto ashley cole so i wouldnt be quite so quick to say hes on his way out now

Washout

the slackets punishment that chelsea will get is a fine and the harshest expulsion from Prem League.

The PL/FA will have to take middle ground...perhaps a four to six point deduction.
They need to be seen to be taking the matter very seriously.

What kind of punishment is Cole looking at? a ban or anything?

growler

they can't go for anything more than a wee fine, sure Fergie (and all Man U fans) would like to see a points deduction but it ain't going to happen, it would open such a can of worms that no club could ever be sure where it stood, this tapping up of players goes on everyday , but most of them aren't daft enough to be caught doing it.

Looks like Cole is going to be in blue next season though

SCULLY

The fa don't tend to deduct points (Man Utd and Arsenal are the only clubs to have points deducted over the last 20 years or so, as far as I know - I seem to remember Spurs getting a huge point deduction but successfully appealing it) and I don't think that they will do so in this case either (not as if cfc are the first club ever to tap up a player - if they are found guilty of course!!).

As a cfc supporter I obviously will have a less then impartial view of it(!!) but if found guilty they should get the same punishment as any other premiership club would get (but not a harsher punishment just because Roman has tons of cash). I would imagine that , if found guilty, a large fine and warning as to further behaviour will be the likely punishment.

Washout

Is there precidence for this though? has any club ever been charged for doing anything similar?

BTW I have no vested interest in a points deduction being an everton supporter.

eirebhoy

Washout wrote:

Is there precidence for this though? has any club ever been charged for doing anything similar?

For some weird reason my post has been deleted from this thread. Anyway, Liverpool got a £20k fine for tapping up Ziege. He told them he had a minimum fee release clause of £5m in his contract so Liverpool saved themself a good bit.

PHB

Yeah, but if the premiership want to make a stand on this they will make an example of Chelsea, welcome to being a top club

I'd loev to see a Transfer window ban.
A points deduction will not occur, no chance whatsoever, unless they end up 15 points clear and the FA deduct them 10.
IF they want to make apoint, the only real option to is to ban them from the transfer window for 2 periods.
That'd both stop Cole going to Arsenal and screw them over.

p.s. I'm sure if United fans want it, then Arsenal would too, considering its their player they are tapping up

----

p.s.

Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon has accused Uefa of launching an 'unprecedented attack' on the Premiership leaders.

Kenyon has jumped to The Blues' defence after manager Jose Mourinho, his assistant Steve Clarke and security official Les Miles were charged with bringing the game into disrepute earlier this week.

Uefa charged the trio in response to the receipt of Chelsea's report regarding allegations from the English side relating to an incident at Camp Nou in February.

The Blues had claimed that Barcelona coach Frank Rijkaard had entered referee Anders Frisk's dressing room at half time in the UEFA Champions League tie between the two clubs.

Chelsea have been accused of making false declarations in their report by Uefa and are due to have the charges heard next week.

But Kenyon is wary about the prospect of the club receiving a fair hearing, following comments from people within Uefa which have been critical of Chelsea.

"Chelsea are both surprised and disappointed that at least one individual within Uefa appears to have launched an unprecedented attack on the club, regardless of the fact that Chelsea has co-operated fully with the enquiries related to the charges against us," said Kenyon.

"Chelsea fully adheres to, and respects, the processes of Uefa and is under no illusion about the seriousness of these charges. We will defend these in the correct and proper manner and within the guidelines laid down by Uefa.

"However the statements against Chelsea, Jose Mourinho, Steve Clarke and Les Miles by at least one senior Uefa official means we are no longer able to keep our own counsel, which we have consistently done since submitting our report to Uefa following the Barcelona-Chelsea first leg match.

"These various statements have called into question publicly the integrity of our manager, assistant coach, security officer and the club as a whole and we cannot allow these to stand unchallenged.

"Chelsea utterly refutes that the club, or any of its representatives, participated in a deliberate ploy of false declarations or lies in order to cynically influence the result of the tie, to put pressure on refereeing officials or poison the atmosphere between the teams. All statements in our report submitted to Uefa were made in good faith and are honestly held.

"Unfortunately some within Uefa have decided to ignore their own organisation's reputation for fairness and correct procedure by playing out this debate in the public arena ahead of any hearing. This hearing would have been, and still is, the right and proper forum for such debate.

"These individuals have used deliberately inflammatory language which Chelsea finds unjust and unhelpful. The use of such language, and the nature of the public statements as a whole, give us grave concern about our chances of receiving an impartial and fair hearing.

"Our defence has been dismissed before it has even been considered. Our witnesses have been branded as liars without any opportunity to be heard or defend themselves. That offends all principles of justice both in England and across Europe."

Kenyon also warned that Chelsea would be prepared to take the matter further if they feel a verdict has already been reached, before they have had the chance to defend themselves.

He added: "If the factual disputes of this case have been decided in advance, we will have no choice but to pursue alternative avenues of legal redress, including an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which does not allow individual officials to prejudice the outcome of judicial proceedings.

"Uefa and Chelsea have always enjoyed good relations. Last week we both condemned the threats made to Anders Frisk and agreed on a way of moving forward for the good of football and Chelsea will continue to do that.

"Chelsea will have no further comment to make until after the case has been resolved."

Pre-emptive damage prevention.

TwoShedsJackson

Chelsea will be fined, which will of course be meaningless to Abramovich. No way will they have points knocked off or be expelled from the league :rolleyes:

growler

PHB wrote:

IF they want to make apoint, the only real option to is to ban them from the transfer window for 2 periods.
That'd both stop Cole going to Arsenal and screw them over.
.

hardly think that not having Cole would "screw" Chelsea in any sense of the word, it would screw Cole though :-)

Nice to see Kenyon talking a bit of sense for once

PHB

Kenyon knows that they are in trouble, and thus is tryign to make this about pre-emptive judgements, so he can say after they are found guilty that UEFA have it in for them.

growler

PHB wrote:

Kenyon knows that they are in trouble, and thus is tryign to make this about pre-emptive judgements, so he can say after they are found guilty that UEFA have it in for them.

lol @ pre-emptive followed by "after they are found guilty"

Jivin Turkey

eirebhoy wrote:

For some weird reason my post has been deleted from this thread. Anyway, Liverpool got a £20k fine for tapping up Ziege. He told them he had a minimum fee release clause of £5m in his contract so Liverpool saved themself a good bit.

Im loving seeing this, and yet some people calling for things like a transfer ban!

This Liverpool case is precidence, they shouldnt get anything much more or less than Liverpool got, IF they are even found guilty.

And as for "pre-emptive damage limitation", having read through the article, it looks like to me they are doing quite the opposite, and setting out their stall, standing by what they origianlly said, and are prepared to question anyone that thinks otherwise.

I bet Chelsea will walk from this "issue" free, IMO its just people trying to drum up supprt agaisnt them for some reason.

case n basket

I don't think there's any chance of Cole going to Chelsea now. IF he moves it will be to Barcelona or Madrid, both could do with a world class left back and he fits the bill.

PHB

I dont want to see it, I just think it'd be funny and interesting
That said, I assume tapping goes on all the time, but if ARsenal pursue this a lot, which they might, I think Chelsea might have an example made of him, especially with the rate he is building up friends in the footballing world

The Muppet

Chelsea attempt to lure Cole with £1m sweetener
By Matt Dickinson, Chief Football Correspondent



CHELSEA are so desperate to lure Ashley Cole across London that they are understood to have offered him a pay rise with immediate effect. The remarkable incentive, which could earn the full back up to £1 million before he even joins Chelsea, was reportedly put to Cole at the infamous meeting in a London hotel.



At that gathering, which the Premier League is investigating, Cole is believed to have been offered the chance to triple his wages from £27,000 a week at Highbury to about £80,000 at Stamford Bridge. The Times understands that Cole was also told that the pay rise would be backdated. In effect, it means that Cole would be earning an extra £53,000 a week from Roman Abramovich from the moment that he says “yes ” to Chelsea until the day he signs. The money would be paid as a signing-on fee as soon as he moved to West London. The lucrative sweetener would be Cole’s reward for making the highly controversial switch.

Revelations about the remarkable offer will further alarm the Premier League, which finally agreed to launch a formal investigation on Sunday into an alleged breach of rule K3 regarding illegal approaches to players. Cole’s club are increasingly fearful that the full back will be tempted by a deal that the champions cannot hope to match. Cole has another two seasons left on his contract but should he decline to sign the extension at present on the table — which will be worth at least £1 million a year less than Chelsea’s offer — Arsenal would have little choice other than to sell him to the Premiership leaders, the only club able to pay about £30 million for a player recently described by José Mourinho as “the best English defender ”.

It has left Arsenal in a hugely difficult position. They are so fearful of putting too much pressure on Cole that they have not even got around to asking him whether he attended the meeting at the Royal Park hotel in Lancaster Gate on January 27.

Several sworn affidavits from witnesses have been presented to the Premier League by two national newspapers and Cole, along with Mourinho, Peter Kenyon, the Chelsea chief executive, and Jonathan Barnett and Pini Zahavi, the agents,could be asked to attend the disciplinary commission.

The Premier League is waiting for responses from the two clubs before setting a date for a hearing. “We have the power to call people in,” a spokesman said. “We are adjudicating rather than prosecuting.”

Chelsea’s attempt to lure Cole from last season’s Premiership winners, the only club he has represented, is even more daring than the raid for Steven Gerrard. It is also proof that, despite their progression under Mourinho, the league leaders plan to spend at least £70 million this summer.

The spending power is unprecedented and the statement yesterday from Rick Parry, the Liverpool chief executive, that Gerrard would make the final decision on his future was the first admission that the club are powerless to stop their captain leaving. Unless Cole is bound by his loyalty to Arsène Wenger, there is little that the Highbury club can do apart from hold out for a huge fee.

With the Cole saga likely to escalate, Chelsea appear to be involved in another spat, this time involving Mikel John Obi, of Lyn Oslo. Mourinho is reported to have been impressed by the Nigerian player during a spell at Stamford Bridge and has made remarks about his hopes for a teenage triallist. “I saw Mourinho’s comments and was a bit surprised,” Morgan Andersen, the director of football at Lyn, said. “I’m 99 per cent sure it was Obi he was referring to, but he has a two-year contract with us.”


Source

Why would Chelsea offer to pay him before he even signed? If he had accepted he would be getting payed by Chelseas while still playing for Arsenal, thats just not right this goes a lot deeper than tapping up .

dcarroll

Did Aston Villa not tap up James Beattie a few weeks ago?
(why they would want to tap up James Beattie remains to be seen)

PHB

I think the difference is the level of it.
If for example what Muppet said is true, that would be very serious.
Furthermore the fact that Villa would never admit to it, and would have done it in some garage in the middle of nowhre, compared to CHelsea, who did it in a highclass hotel.
Theres a certain arrogance that I can't imagien teh FA will fidn acceptable, not to meantion the Arsenal influence on the FA board.

astrofool

well,fining Chelsea is a bit pointless. If they slap a €20k fine on them, it would just mean that Chelsea begin to include the fine as part of the transfer fee, and start tapping up every player they want.

PHB

Yeh exactly, the fact that chelsea have so much moeny makes tapping up a bigger isue, and if the FA want to do something about it, it'll have to be through a transfer ban. cause docking points just isnt fair.

Chucky the tree

20k was piss all for liverpool aswell though.

growler

PHB wrote:

Yeh exactly, the fact that chelsea have so much moeny makes tapping up a bigger isue, and if the FA want to do something about it, it'll have to be through a transfer ban. cause docking points just isnt fair.

I'd agree with you if the FA were prepared to be consistent in their rulings and punishments, however "tapping up" goes on throughout the year with few , if any, clubs immune to it. In the past the FA have slapped on a fine, I can't see how they can deviate from precedent on this, just because MAn U and Arsenal would like the reassurance that Chelsea won't be even more dominant next season.

The Muppet

growler wrote:

I can't see how they can deviate from precedent on this, just because MAn U and Arsenal would like the reassurance that Chelsea won't be even more dominant next season.

Well the FA deviated from precedent on the Ferdinand case so I would not be too sure about them not doing so here. Anyway I'm not sure there is a precedent here, Did you read the times article I posted. If that is true it means that Chelseas offered to put Cole on thier payroll while he was still an Arsenal player with half a Season to play in the league. That's the most serious part of this if you ask me and again if true Chelsea deserve to be seriously punished for that. I don't believe any other team has been found guilty of doing that.

astrofool

madrid gave figo £1m if he would consider moving to Real (no strings attached apparantly), while still at barca afaik

growler

The Muppet wrote:

. If that is true it means that Chelseas offered to put Cole on thier payroll while he was still an Arsenal player with half a Season to play in the league. That's the most serious part of this if you ask me and again if true Chelsea deserve to be seriously punished for that. I don't believe any other team has been found guilty of doing that.

well that's open to interpretation, offering someone an incentive to sign is fine, a signing on bonus isn't unusual in itself, the wording of any such offer would be designed to get Cole to sign for Chelsea asap, not to say we're paying you while you play for arsenal. It's a good way to get him to make a move quickly , I'm sure they will have covered any legal angles as it would obviously be unethical and illegal for someone to be in the pay of two competing employers.

The Muppet

growler wrote:

I'm sure they will have covered any legal angles as it would obviously be unethical and illegal for someone to be in the pay of two competing employers.

oh they covered themselves all right by offering the payment as a lump sum when he signed but that does not alter the fact that Chelsea made the offer to pay him for a time when he was still contratcted to another club assuming the story is accurate . Why did they do that? I don't see the need for it , it's not as if anyone was going to outbid Chelsea. If they had told him they were going to make an offer for him when it was legal to do so that would have been enough to secure him IMO.

AT very least Chelsea have been extreamly naive and left themselves open to serious allegations of wrong doing from the way they have handled this matter.