Looks like Chelsea well and truly learnt their lesson...

[AlexB]

Unbelievable - the arrogance of these people!

hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/4610071.stm



Spurs have suspended sporting director Frank Arnesen after they revealed Chelsea made an approach to the Dane without their permission.
Arnesen says he wants to move to Chelsea, and Spurs have confirmed they are taking legal advice on the matter.

Spurs said on the club's website www.spurs.co.uk that the approach was made "in direct breach of FAPL rules.

"This approach was made both prior to requesting permission and without permission from the club."

The row over Arnesen comes only days after Chelsea were fined £300,000 and handed a suspended three-point deduction by Premier League officials for their role in an illegal meeting with Arsenal full-back Ashley Cole.

This is a bolt from nowhere because his partnership with Martin Jol was the team to take us forward. Jol was Arnesen's man and he wanted him all the way through

Tottenham Supporters' Trust spokesman Daniel Wynn

Arnesen arrived at Spurs at the start of last season and was instrumental in appointing Jacques Santini, then his successor Martin Jol.

He is also responsible for masterminding the club's transfer policy.

The Spurs statement added: "Notwithstanding that he is subject to contract and holds wide-ranging responsibilities and commitments to all parties at Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, Frank has indicated that he wishes to move to Chelsea Football Club.

"Accordingly, the board of Tottenham Hotspur plc has suspended Frank Arnesen with immediate effect.

"The club is currently in discussions with its legal advisors and a further announcement will be made in due course."

The Premier League, however, are yet to receive a complaint from Spurs officials about the alleged approach to Arnesen.

"We have not received an official complaint," said Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson. "We await to see the action Tottenham wish to pursue."

[Crapshoot]

Ya, noticed that. That being said, why should football employment law be any different than anything else ?

[AlexB]

Fair point, but the fact is that there are different rules in football and Chelsea should follow them until they are changed.

Maybe they're trying to get people to challenge the legality of the rules, but surely it would be better if they just directly challenged them in the courts?

[Galaxy]

Between Chelsea's moves and ManUt's Glazer buyout, the soccer world could get really interesting.

[Katon]

Chelsea say that they did in fact ask Tottenham for permission.

[Buccaneer]

All I got out of that article was the San Antonio Spurs are mad at Chelsea Clinton for some reason.

[MIJB#19]

Bucc, I'm available for hire to handle your soccer thread talking.

[FrogMan]

Bucc, I'm available for hire to handle your soccer thread talking.
nah, let him try on his own, should be fun :D

FM

[ISiddiqui]

Fair point, but the fact is that there are different rules in football and Chelsea should follow them until they are changed.

Maybe they're trying to get people to challenge the legality of the rules, but surely it would be better if they just directly challenged them in the courts?
I think it is perhaps because the individuals may have a better legal case, that they are being denied working where they want, rather than an employer wanting to hire whom he wants (which could be sticky).

[AlexB]

Makes sense

[Katon]

It turns out that the contact without Tottenham's consent consisted of cc'ing him on the initial request for permission to talk to him. That's not arrogance or tapping up; that's a protocol gaffe.

[AlexB]

A protocol gaffe.

Either this is true, or given Chelsea's recent history it was a calculated measure to unsettle Arnesen - kinda like we're going to tell him we want him even if you say we can;t speak to him...

Not saying the latter is true, I would imagine there's no way of proving it either way, but I tend to think there might be some truth in it...

[Honolulu_Blue]

That being said, why should football employment law be any different than anything else ?
Because it's a sport.

[Katon]

Either this is true, or given Chelsea's recent history it was a calculated measure to unsettle Arnesen - kinda like we're going to tell him we want him even if you say we can;t speak to him...

Not saying the latter is true, I would imagine there's no way of proving it either way, but I tend to think there might be some truth in it...

Well, the thing is that the club's official statement said we were trying to go through official channels rather than tap him up, and the club's position has actually turned out to be about 95% correct whenever an issue's gone to a formal investigation (Cole talked to us first, Rijkaard really did talk to Frisk very close to where we said). It'd be one thing if it was just one person talking to the press, but when the club as a whole takes a position I don't see any particular reason not to take their word for it.

[daedalus]

Ya, noticed that. That being said, why should football employment law be any different than anything else ?That's a point of sort. Of course, we are discussing a different amount of money invested and involved. Also, if I'm hurt and can't play or if I don't perform, I don't get paid (yes, disability to a certain extent) but they do. Part of that being paid thing is the whole point of contracts. At least that's my opinion.

[Mac Howard]

Ya, noticed that. That being said, why should football employment law be any different than anything else ?

For the same reason that NFL francises are exempt from anti-trust laws.

Treating sporting organisations as commercial entities has major problems. If a for-protit commercial organisation overwhelms it's competition then it's customer base increases, its sales increase - it's generally speaking a good thing for the organisation.

But a sporting organisation requires that it's competitors are healthy. It requires that the competition is of a reasonable quality. Its own success is dependant on the success of the sport as a whole and of other sporting entities. Otherwise its "customers" will drift away as matches cease to be competitive.

Wipe out your competition in a normal commercial environment and you benefit - wipe out the competition is sport and you have nothing.

Second, its 'customers" - the fans - have a very different relationship to the organisation. If a retailer offers a product cheaper than Wal-mart then the customer will shift "loyalty" to that retailer. There is little loyalty in the normal customer/supplier relationship. There is enormous loyalty in the fan/club relationship. A fan will not change his club loyalty because the ticket price is cheaper. His loyalty has nothing to do with the financial aspect of the club.

This "loyal" customer reasonably expects that the loyalty is reciprocated. He expects loyalty from the club - not taking actions against his own interest - and expects loyalty from the employees of the club - the players, the manager, the staff etc. If this loyalty isn't forthcoming then his own will be withdrawn. Players and staff moving every time someone else waves a better financial offer at them will soon cause fans to react.

Lose the loyalty of the fans and the whole sporting edifice collapses. It can be argued that the Bosman ruling has taken us some way long that route already. Enough is enough.

Even the EU has officially accepted (in an agreement between UEFA and the EU) that the financial interests are secondary to the sporting interests in soccer (though so far their actions have seldom reflected that) and that sport cannot be treated as a purely for-profit activity.

[Mr. Wednesday]

For the same reason that NFL francises are exempt from anti-trust laws.As far as I know, they're not.

[Mac Howard]

As far as I know, they're not.

Can you imagine a situation in the commercial world where poorly performing law firms had the pick of the best college graduates and the best firms told "you gotta take the duffers"? Where Wal-Mart would be told by some regulatory body that they couldn't increase their employees wage bill?

[ISiddiqui]

Mac, the NFL is NOT exempt from anti-trust laws. Only the MLB is. The NFL actually LOST an anti-trust suit by the USFL in the 1980s, but were only assessed $1 in damages (nominal damages) because the USFL really couldn't prove damages. Al Davis, in fact, threatened to sue the NFL because they were preventing him from moving his franchise at will.

Oh, and non-competition clauses are NOT exemptions from employment regulations. If it is reasonable any business can have one.

[Mac Howard]

As you can see, ISiddiqui, I rephrased my reply, though I have read commentators this morning who insist the NFL is free of some anti-trust laws. But I'm not an expert.

But can a college graduate join the NFL franchise that offers him the most money? Of course not. The draft is clearly in breach of normal employment regulations and surely could only be allowed if exemption were granted.

But, as I say, I'm neither an expert on the NFL or American anti-trust law, but it's clear that the NFL is wrapped around by regulations that protect it from normal commercial rules. In fact the whole draft/salary cap situation is designed to limit commercial competition in order that sporting competition is retained.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually in many discussions we've had on this site, most of us agree that if a player took the NFL draft to court, the NFL would have a VERY tough time winning the case. I think a vast majority of us agreed that it violates American law.

Perhaps the courts will back into it saying it was part of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, but usually current employees can't determine rights for past employees. Though the Clarett case seems to say that they can in certain circumstances.

No one has challenged the draft yet, but the NFL may have problems if someone does.

[Mac Howard]

Actually in many discussions we've had on this site, most of us agree that if a player took the NFL draft to court, the NFL would have a VERY tough time winning the case. I think a vast majority of us agreed that it violates American law.

I suspect you'll find that the NFL has taken care of that - the draft breach is far to obvious to go unnoticed and go on for too long before some guy challenges it if a challenge could win. UEFA and the EU have come to an agreement that soccer is "different" to other commercial operations though I'm not sure what legal status this has. If Cole challenges his fine I suspect we're about to find out.

But exemptions do exist to emplyment regulations and it wouldn't be surprising if the NFL have negotiated one. I've certainly seen it said this morning that they have.

but usually current employees can't determine rights for past employees. Though the Clarett case seems to say that they can in certain circumstances.

Yes, exemptions do exist - at least in Europe.

No one has challenged the draft yet, but the NFL may have problems if someone does.

Amazing that they haven't. I guess the fear of being treated like a leper has something to do with this :)

[ISiddiqui]

But exemptions do exist to emplyment regulations and it wouldn't be surprising if the NFL have negotiated one.
The only argument the NFL has is that it is part of a collective bargaining agreement, but the judge has to allow current members to dictate terms for future members, which may or may not happen.

There is NO sports exemption aside from the MLB having an anti-trust exemption, which has been close to being taken away many times in the last decade or so.

The arguement that sports are different has failed in the past, as the various leagues found out when Free Agency was mandated by the courts (see Curt Flood).

Yes, exemptions do exist - at least in Europe.
And which exemption to European Union law says soccer teams aren't subject to employement law? The Bosman case showed that there is none and that players are like other employees.

In fact, I'm positive that Cole's lawyers will be refering to the Bosman case in his challenge, and it'll be hard for the Premier League to refute that precedent to say that a player can be restricted from simply talking to another club because they are under contract.

[Mac Howard]

And which exemption to European Union law says soccer teams aren't subject to employement law?

Well, none in soccer. That's my point. They should. They occur in other professions so they can be introduced for soccer. It's essential that commercial competition does not destroy on-field competition. It's happening already with top European clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal etc moving ever further away from the rest as a result of the highly competitve environment of soccer and the Bosman ruling. It really shouldn't go any further and if Cole does win in the Europen Court the situation could get very much worse.

Having said "none" it does occur to me that the transfer window is such an exemption. UEFA had to get the EC to agree to that - it prevents players from "trading" their talents at any time between the two windows.

[Desnudo]

It's happening already with top European clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal etc moving ever further away from the rest as a result of the highly competitve environment of soccer and the Bosman ruling.

Shouldn't you include Porto, Monaco, PSV, Feyenoord, CSKA, et al on that list? :p

[Mac Howard]

Shouldn't you include Porto, Monaco, PSV, Feyenoord, CSKA, et al on that list? :p

There was an interesting comment during one of this weekend's televised (all I get these days) World Cup Qualifiers about many top Spanish and Portugese players going to Russia. Sounds like those dubious oil roubles are talking loud even outside of West London :)

[Critch]

There have been some questions about the links between Chelsea and CSKA, before the last Champions League UEFA investigated whether both clubs are controlled Abramovich. It breaks UEFA rules for two teams to be owned by the same person in a competition, so there was a question of one of them having to withdraw. In the end UEFA couldn't find conclusive proof so they let it go, but it still stands that Abramovich has pushed a good deal of money into both CSKA and Chelsea, and that a south american who was signed for CSKA mentioned in an interview that he thought he was being signed by Chelsea. He claimed that when he complained about ending up at CSKA he was told not to worry, it was just a stepping stone to Chelsea.

If there are links between the clubs hidden away in financial maze, added to all the tapping claims, it looks like Abramovich may be using the business practices that made him a billionaire but left him open to action for fraud and a billion dollar tax evasion bill from the Russian government. He's treating the rules as ok for others, but optional for himself until he gets caught.

[Galaxy]

If there are links between the clubs hidden away in financial maze, added to all the tapping claims, it looks like Abramovich may be using the business practices that made him a billionaire but left him open to action for fraud and a billion dollar tax evasion bill from the Russian government. He's treating the rules as ok for others, but optional for himself until he gets caught.
If this found true, could this be the end of Abramovich, and allow the Russian government to use it as "card" to try to take away his business/wealth?

[MIJB#19]

About the Chelsea and CSKA Moskva oil rumors:

The Dutch soccer magazine Voetbal International published an article about how Russian maffia is white-washing money through CSKA Moskva, Chelsea, FC Porto, Corinthians and other soccer clubs. If the quoted Mr. X's story is all true, things could be really ugly and could get even uglier in the coming years.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, none in soccer. That's my point. They should. They occur in other professions so they can be introduced for soccer. It's essential that commercial competition does not destroy on-field competition. It's happening already with top European clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal etc moving ever further away from the rest as a result of the highly competitve environment of soccer and the Bosman ruling. It really shouldn't go any further and if Cole does win in the Europen Court the situation could get very much worse.

Having said "none" it does occur to me that the transfer window is such an exemption. UEFA had to get the EC to agree to that - it prevents players from "trading" their talents at any time between the two windows.
The problem with 'should' is that most polticians do not see why sports should get special rights and a lot of them resist the idea and say act like a regular business.

[Mac Howard]

That's certainly been true so far but there are indications of a change. The British Government is now looking at changes to takeover regulations to prevent the sort of takeover that Glazer has made of Man Utd. Too late for Utd but there is a suggestion that some politicians are beginning to recognise that soccer clubs are not primarily profit making organisations.

"Clubs" - organisations set up for the non-financial benefit of their members - do get special treatment. It's still, for example, perfectly legal to open an all-male or all-female "club" despite equal opportunity legislation. A "club" is given exemption from the legislation.

[Cringer]

For two days now I have been, for reasons unknown to me, extremely disappointed this is not a thread about Chelsea Clinton. Atleast I am going to work now and won't have to worry about it any more this week. Bye Chelsea, take care........

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2004/11/18/clinton-chelsea.jpg

[Galaxy]

That's certainly been true so far but there are indications of a change. The British Government is now looking at changes to takeover regulations to prevent the sort of takeover that Glazer has made of Man Utd. Too late for Utd but there is a suggestion that some politicians are beginning to recognise that soccer clubs are not primarily profit making organisations.

"Clubs" - organisations set up for the non-financial benefit of their members - do get special treatment. It's still, for example, perfectly legal to open an all-male or all-female "club" despite equal opportunity legislation. A "club" is given exemption from the legislation.

I find it funny. The United fans did it to themselves to allow Glazer to take the club over by floating the stock.

[Desnudo]

For two days now I have been, for reasons unknown to me, extremely disappointed this is not a thread about Chelsea Clinton. Atleast I am going to work now and won't have to worry about it any more this week. Bye Chelsea, take care........

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2004/11/18/clinton-chelsea.jpg

That picture is disturbing

[SFL Cat]

All I got out of that article was the San Antonio Spurs are mad at Chelsea Clinton for some reason.

Well, damn....I thought the same thing. I was curious because I didn't think Chelsea followed the NBA.