Spurs of trouble over Arnesen

copying Arnesen is clearly an illegal approach. chelsea are rapidly becoming the most hated football team in the UK (probably ever) for their arrogant and dishonest tactics. Chelsea was once a real football team .. now its just a play thing for what some folks think is a dodgy business man that has to win at all costs (fair or unfair).

Tottenham will make an official complaint…Chelsea will undertake another investigation…Chelsea will be found guilty…a points deduction will be imposed..result Chelsea lose.

I wonder what your current manager thinks of this situation?. For an individual who is paranoid over control it is an interesting twist..

i would assume tottenham did not make a formal complaint because they complacently felt that Frank Arneson would stay at spurs dispite the apprach – and did not want to raise controversy arround the man who signs their players just in time for the transfer window.

and if the letter was sent to Mr Arneson as well as the club – then (assuming they can prove this) spurs probably have a pretty open and shut case – (it is up to his club to tell him of an apprach – not the club tha apprached him)

having said that – from a chelsea point of view – who cares anyway? – a three points deduction and another fine is a small price to pay for getting hold of some one who knows the sorts of things Arneson knows. (he discovered a certain dutch winger lets not forget)

and even if the controversy means he ends up going abroad (like cole) rather than coming the stamford bridge – at least it disrupts potential rivals (though not ones that are likely to take the title from us in this case)

Sorry but it’s the usual defence of the indefensible (i.e. money speaks louder than integrity, honesty and clear FA rules) from Chel$kum. The official complaint will be lodged with the Premier League this week and then you are in deep, deep trouble i.e. your Champions League place will be given to Liverpool.

If you read the reports you will see what happen.
A letter was sent to Frank Arnesen BEFORE spurs could refuse permission.
Once permission was refused that was the end of it until Frank Arnesen let slip that he had spoken to Chelsea Football Club BEFORE the letter was even wrote.
Do you really think spurs would release such a statement without the facts ??

In sending a copy to Arnesen Chelsea took the desision out of Tottenham’s hands when and how they informed Frank. I hope Real Madrid send a letter to Lampard offering him 200,000 a week and see how chelsea react. I bet they would cry like a baby!

This whole article stinks of the arrogance that i’m sorry to say Chelsea seem to have decided is acceptable with the what are you gonna do about it attitude. There is a danger of arrogance becoming this current chelsea setups legacy rather than good football.

You’ve worked so hard on trying to justify an illegal approach it is frightening. Can’t you see what’s happening to your football club?

The systematic bullying of everyone around you is clear for all to see and the Frank Arneson episode is just another demonstration of the contempt your club has for anybody other than a handful of global heavyweight clubs.

The european superleague is now inevitable because Chelsea are going to see it. Enjoy your trips to Barca and Milan every other wednesday night. Find yourself something else to do on a saturday because you’ll have no football to watch unless you fancy following Fulham or QPR.

Don’t delude yourself that Spurs are to blame for any of this. Your club has got every football fan I know genuinely worried about the the future of the game. You have a duty to football not to condone despicable actions out of some sense of loyalty. Don’t put up with it. Take your club back

By copying Arnesen in on the letter, they are DIRECTLY (to Arnesen, without permission) telling him they want him at their club. The reason this is not allowed is because it unsettles people who already have important jobs, as in this case. After reading Chelsea’s letter, the lure of going to the champions was obviously to much for him not to act on, so whether we refuse or not, he now knows that Chelsea want him.

Chelsea did make legal approaches, they were rejected, and for obvious reasons Frank Arnesen wasn’t advised of this. So Chelsea being the arrogant business it has become, thought “we’ll go over their headsâ€?, and sent a copy of the letter directly to him, which they had no right to do. It is down to the chairman and the board at THFC to decide whether or not to tell Arnesen of Chelsea’s interest. He wouldn’t have been told, because it’s clear that knowing you are wanted by the chamions, and also the richest club in the PL, would start you thinking….... ‘the grass is always greener….....’

Chelsea, using underhand tactics, have managed to unsettle one of the most important people at Spurs, and you should be punished with points. Copying Arnesen in on that letter, showed arrogance and an absoloute disrespect, not only to Tottenham, but to the Premier League.

Chelsea are rapidly becoming the most hated club in football, as supporters you seem to think it’s jealousy, it’s not. I had nothing against Chelsea when Abromovic took over, I even thought it would be good for English football to have another team fighting at the top. The reason Chelsea are hated is down to their total disrespect towards football, instead of talking on the field they are now trying to bulldozer every other team in the premiership into giving them what they want, Ferdinand (Man U), Cole, and now Arnesen.

The comment above from PrettyVacant highlights the issue perfectly – I quote
having said that – from a chelsea point of view – who cares anyway? – a three points deduction and another fine is a small price to pay for getting hold of some one who knows the sorts of things Arneson knows. (he discovered a certain dutch winger lets not forget)

and even if the controversy means he ends up going abroad (like cole) rather than coming the stamford bridge – at least it disrupts potential rivals (though not ones that are likely to take the title from us in this case)

A fine and even a 3 point deduction means nothing to a team who can buy whateve they want. The FA need to look at how they have handled things in the past. Remember Swindon who were demoted by two leagues for “financial irregularitiesâ€?. I would suggest that a second arrogant breach of the rules would merit a THREE league demotion. Lets see how many “starâ€? names want to sign for Chelsea if they are in League 2.

Stupid Chelsea fans

There is a pattern forming here. Not only do you have Chelsea moving for Peter Kenyon as the first piece of their jigsaw puzzle, then we hear of Abramovich’s dealing’s with clubs outside Europe, purely to hoover up non-EU talent before his rivals. Then we get Cole-gate and before the ink is dry on the ‘guilty’ stamp, Arnesen is on his way…..
I, like many at first thought Russian Rom was using Chelsea as a plaything to spend his billions on. But it is becoming increasingly clear that he sees this as a massive global financial opportunity…..why shell out now on big name stars when Frank can get ya the new ones at a snip? Trouble is Chelsea don’t want/need this new talent, they just don’t want their rivals to have them.

So, OK you’re gonna try to defend Chelsea, fair enough. Worrying facts tho….
1. Timing is critical here and Spurs have all the proof they need in Chelsea’s own statement they say they approached Spurs 2 weeks ago. Did Spurs say YES? So why did FA say hes off then?
2. Copy of approach to Spurs AND FA is in itself a breach.
3. The clarity of the statements by Spurs spelling out the matter shows they are not ‘making it up’. Do you think Chelsea wouldn’t sue the hell of them if it weren’t true and they had evidence.
4. Chelsea’s statement in no way denies illegal approach, just that they asked first, no mention of a yes.
5. Former Prem League chief Peter Leaver accuses Chelsea of “breath taking arroganceâ€? in this matter.
6. Spurs are not reporting Chelsea to the Prem League yet….why? They have to date been lenient, so far. Spurs are weighing up legal action for damages first, compensation i feel they will get.
7. If Spurs do refer this to the Prem League, do you think they are just gonna fine you £300k with a suspended 3pts again? Even tho this is a different rule to the Cole-gate saga the PL will not seperate the two, the timing will make that an untenable option. Earlier a 12pt deduction was mentioned, you think that might hurt a little more?
Whatever happens here none of it will be good. Spurs will carry on, we’ve had a years worth out of his black book and got some decent players, enough to be getting on with including the youngest and most domestically based squad in the Premiership. Couple that with Big Jol at the helm, hopefully this will be a minor setback.
Chelsea however, may get points deducted, a fine, whatever. But they have shown that football runs at least third in there priority list behind money & morality. They continue to flagrantly break any rule they wish just because they win a Premiership for the first time in 50 years and have a few quid.
Can you Chelsea fans hand on heart say you are proud of your club off pitch? For me Arsenal are now long lost brothers compared to the disgust i have for the people who are trying to ruin football at Chelsea.

What a pathetic and ridiculous article written by someone perhaps connected with the legal profession. The arguments you write sound plausible but are mostly wholly incorrect.
I have supported Chelsea for over 40 years now and I get very little pleasure from our recent triumphs. The club is really losing its identity. I just wish we would vote with our feet and unsubscribe to chelsea tv, abandon going to matches and not buy any stuff from the chelsea shop. We have become one of the best clubs in the world now but at what price. The price of pocket money from a corrupt despicable russian who lives in UK so that he hardly has to pay any taxes etc. I read somewhere else from a Spurs fan who was hoping that a KGB umbrella is used on him- crazy things to say I know but our team will now be the most hated in world football. Our owner has unbalanced or is unbalancing the whole of football now and although football has always been corrupt in some ways and contracts limited in their worth we are helping to take things to new heights just by using money and the avarice of people. It is being done from the pocket of a man who does not have to live by almost any commercial rules that normally govern these things.

In response to Shed forever

Can I just clarify one thing. My feelings toward Chelsea are directed at two parties. Primarily, the hierarchy. Secondly, in a lesser sense, the new breed of Chelsea fan who has been wooed by the glizt post-abramovich, the kind that know nothing of the real Chelsea FC or much about football come to that.
The real Chelsea fans that I know are slightly worried as you appear to be, why? because you are true ‘football’ fans…..football as a whole, not just glory hunters.
I can honestly say that I am glad Roman didn’t choose Spurs, I am glad that any success we achieve (even one or two places further up the Premiership) is hard earned not bought. Don’t get me wrong, we all crave success and I know you as a long serving Chelsea fan are no different and winning the way you have would give me pleasure to if it were Spurs. But for me theres ways and means, potentially destabilising football as a whole in the process is wrong.
It just pains us Spurs fans to think we’re getting somewhere and then lightning strikes again, for the nth time. All the fun of being a Tottenham fan i guess.
No offence to fans who can see the wood for the trees.

To answer your questions;

1. It is only once Frank Arnesen has indicated a desire to join Chlesea that this becomes relevant. If he stays with Spurs, Chelsea’s illegal approach is irrelevant. If Fa stays with spurs there is too much instability for both clubs if a complaint is made. It’s not in the interest of either club and hence no need to make a complaint.

2. Wait and see. Given the strength of their statements I would be surprised if Spurs only have a bag of hot air.

3. According to Spurs they flatly refused permission for Chlesea to speak with Arnesen, so they didn’t entertain the approach.

4. Because they have to make the legal approach even if negotiations with the employee have already taken place.

5. Were you asleep when these deals were being discussed in the press long before they were actually completed. There was at least than the scent of something fishy in the recruitment of both of these individuals.

6. In all seriousness? Arnesen’s positon is irrelevant since he is the subject of the letter. Arnesen may be the appropriate address if Chelsea are interested in one of Spurs’ players or a member of the coaching team but the only reason to copy in Arnesen when he is the subject of the enquiry, is in order to make him aware of the offer of employment at Chelsea.

7. Sounds like you’re looking for wriggle room. I doubt there would be a separate rule since such an approach is already in breach of one of the other rules. We don’t have specific law against stealing oranges, because the general law against stealing covers these items and all others. I imiagine its the same with the rule U10, which Chelsea are alleged to have breached in this case. If Spurs are telling the truth and have proof, this is a breach of the rules, whether there is a specific offence of atpping up a sporting director, or whether there is a general rule aginst tapping up other clubs employees.

8. If by the board you mean the Spurs board, then this is a matter for their discretion (whether you agree with this or not).

9. That’s for the PL/FA to decide but I think it probably does. After all, if the individual concenrned knows of the approach prior to the club having given permission to open discussions, then the by definition an approach has been made before the current employer has given consent for such an approach to take place.

10. Unfortunately Chlesea have form for putting forward a view which is at odds with the truth. Anyway the Chelsea view has nothing to do with reality. Just as Chelsea can be of the impression that discussions are ongoing, I can think that a pen is also a goat, it doesn’t make me right.

11. This is press speculation, it could be misinformation put out by Chelsea or it could be true. Unlike the club statements its unofficial, so not really relevant until its confirmed one way or the other.

12. On the basis of an alleged illegal approach, I presume.

13. Two reasons for this one. Firstly, its the gentlemanly thing to do (may come as a surprise to a Chelsea fan that some clubs still operate in this way). If spurs are to seek damages and report Chlesea to the FA and PL, then the right thing to do is to tell them first. Secondly, Spurs are a PLC, they have to make an announcement to the stock exchange before anyone else. This means they can’t just go straight to the FA/PL, as they would be in breach of stock exchange rules. Simply (unlike Chlsea) spurs are following the rules (letter and spirit).

If what Tottenham claim is true, then this really is an open and shut case. It is against the rules to offer employment without the permission of the existing employer.

Presumeably Chelsea’s letter wasn’t praising Frank’s hairdo but stated that Chelsea FC wished to speak with FA about some type of employment. Giving this information to the subject of the letter is an offer of employment, even if it is a vague offer and lacking in detail.

Chelsea are in a league of their own financially. Carry on like this and you’ll be playing in a league ON you own.

Its in the interests of Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd (every other club to get rid of Chelsea), I hope for Chelsea fans that the people in charge of your club don’t eventually give the other PL clubs enough of an excuse to kick Chelsea out. If the PL chairmen want to kick Chelsea out, it will be their decision (like when they quite the old first division). There would be nothing the FA could do to stop this. And the worst thing, you would be the authors of your own downfall.

To all you Spurs fans and pretend Chelsea fans posting on this issue, I find it difficult to take you seriously, because all you’ve expressed here is emotive verbiage. I would have thought addressing the questions I’ve raised, as objectively as possible, should have been your starting point, rather than this whole story about the source of Chelsea’s money or how our football club is no longer ours, blah, blah, blah.

It’s either you guys wake up and smell the coffee or continue in your contrived slumber. When all is said and done, this matter will not be resolved by appeal to emotion, but to facts. If Spurs are going to depend on the fact that Arnesen was copied in on the letter as “proofâ€? of Chelsea’s illegal approach, they’re better advised not to waste their time and lean company resources. They better quickly resume discussion with Chelsea on the appropriate compensation package to pay and spend part of whatever generous money they get scouting around for a man that fits their modest ambition.

If any of you have specific questions to raise over what I’ve written, do so; this blanket emotionalism won’t cut it.

CHEERS!

How blinkered are you?! Are you really as arrogant as Chelsea itself? How can you defend something that is so blatantly against the rules? By copying Arnesen into the legal approach to Tottenham it automatically becomes an illegal approach to Arnesen himself.

I am appalled by the whole situation, by Chelsea’s supremely arrogant behaviour, by Arnesen’s complete lack of loyality and by some Chelsea fans who think that this behaviour is acceptable.

Lets cut to the facts – what Chelsea have done here is plain wrong. They should be punished for it. Having payed their way to their first trophy in decades (via a corrupt Russian tax exile), does not make them a ‘world’ force by any stretch of the imagination. One trophy does not bring them anywhere near the level of Arsenal, Man Utd or Liverpool’s achievements. As for the vast majority of the ‘new’ Chelsea ‘faithful’ – check your history books – it wasn’t that long ago you were in the old 2nd division pulling in gates of below 10,000! Where did you all suddenly appear from? Wake up and smell the coffee – your club has no right to act the way they are, not even if they were to become one of the countries ‘big’ clubs with loyal fans and lots of trophys.

What a sad man the writer of this article is he should also take English lessons.

Sniffle, snuffle, boo, hoo. What a lot of drivel. How did Spurs pursuade Hoddle and Richards to join them after Southampton denied Spurs the chance to talk to them?

Everyone breaks the rules, Spurs have done so countless times. Let’s be clear here, this ‘crime’ we are accused of is offering someone a higher salary. How many of you bleating on here would want to know if a prospective employer offered to triple your salary? Eh?

Would you really be happy if your employer didn’t even tell you about the offer? You’d be fine with that would you? And if this is a such a ‘crime’ how come no other FA in Europe has such a law? If we shot Robbie Keane for being a miserable, cart wheeling w**ker then that might be something to get your knickers twisted over.

As it is this is just business as usual, all clubs do it, Spurs included. You just don’t like it when it’s done to you. Where was this moral outrage when you poached Hoddle & Richards? We’ll have six points off you and your Director of Football as well. Deal with it.

Ok Mr Emetulu, I have a question for you. If the Premier League, FA or some other judiciary body find Chelsea guilty of ‘tapping up’ of Frank Arnesen. Then consequently, if they are deducted points next season (however many). How will you, personally, react if Chelsea are penalised on the pitch ? (ie. miss out on a trophy)

I hope you aren’t going to get all emotional on us all and start whining about how harsh you are treated. Let alone the whinging we’ll all hear if Vladimir Putin catches up with Roman and your gravy train runs you up the wall.

Of course Chelsea are content to write this off with a large fat cheque, they can. We’re saying ‘stuff your money’ we want a line drawn in the sand here and now.

Fact: Your statements embody all that every non-Chelsea football fan believes to be true about your club’s flagrant disregard for rules set down for all…..however big their wallet. True fans that aren’t blinkered to this fact, whilst support their club cannot defend its indefensible position…..they keep quiet. With all due respect, maybe you should listen to them.

Bilge. Love is blind. Any true fan knows that. You support your team in good times and in bad, come what may.

So what if Roman goes? Your thinking betrays you to be a glory hunter. You think fans are only interested in success. You know nothing about football and as much about loyalty as Frank Arnesen.

Grow up, get a life and accept we’re having the six points and your director of football. I’m loving it. How about you?

May the rest of football hate Chelscum forever more.

As a spurs fan, I was so happy to see you get knocked out by Liverpool.

As one banner at Anfield proclaimed, “MONEY CAN’T BUY THESE” 4 European cups, sorry now 5.

I cannot wait until Roman is hit by Mother Russia, then you go & do a Leeds.

It will be the sweetest feeling.

Football Fans Against Chelscum

Problem with this article is that is obviously biased towards Chelsea. The fact that it tries to cloud the picture and ignores the basic facts is an admirable attempt but once again fails when the real facts come to light.

1. If you approach a person without asking the club you arer in breach of the rule. How does a club have a chance to say no if the reevant person concerned is also contacted at the same time???

2. It seems this was not the first part of the contact anyway.

Lets face it Chelsea are trying to ride roughshod over all the rules. Blatant disregard or worse “who caresâ€? attitude is one that needs to be stamped on now.

2ways to do this;

1. Remove them from the champions league and replace with Liverpool

2. Deduct a further 15 points for the 2005/2006 season.

Then and only then may they come to realise that they too have to abide by the rules

I pity you if you blindly follow/support something like sheep just because of its/their position. Your ability to differentiate between right and wrong is clearly shot to hell.
Just because you support the club mate, doesn’t mean you have to like all its actions does it? You obviously never complain then.

How can you call any Spurs fan a glory hunter…..what glory have we had in the last decade? Or are your blinkers that tightly shut together? We’re still here tho…...how many of you will be if Roman goes?.....actually, none, cos if he goes so does Chelsea FC, lock stock and barrell, or didn’t you know that? (just ask Mikhail Khodorkovsky he used to be a billionaire oil tycoon in Russia once too…..now he’s broke and in jail).
Maybe you could do a Wimbledon tho, AFC Chelsea….nice ring, might be worth you getting used the sound of it.

More utter tripe. Basic facts? Don’t make me laugh (even more than I am doing already). What gives you access to the facts? You know nothing apart from what you’ve read in the press. A load of old rubbish. Prejudice based on inference and supposition.

All Spurs are doing is trying to rack up the compensation they hope they will get. I agree with a 15 point deduction though. That will at least give United and Arsenal a small glimmer of hope.

Let’s face it, this is the only chance Spurs have of getting any points off us. Chortle.

Stephen,

My question:

(1) Why are Tottenham making this accusation against Chelsea only after Arnesen had revealed he wants to join Chelsea and only after the Board of Tottenham Hotspur plc have suspended him?

Your answer:

1. It is only once Frank Arnesen has indicated a desire to join Chlesea that this becomes relevant. If he stays with Spurs, Chelsea’s illegal approach is irrelevant. If Fa stays with spurs there is too much instability for both clubs if a complaint is made. It’s not in the interest of either club and hence no need to make a complaint.

My response:

No, look at the facts. Chelsea, according to Tottenham committed this offence by copying in Arnesen on the letter requesting permission from Tottenham to speak to him. None of us have seen a copy of the letter, but we must presume that all it’s about is asking permission to speak with Arnesen. According to Tottenham, this letter was sent to them on the 21st of May. So, if the offence of illegal approach had been committed, following Tottenham’s interpretation, this offence was committed on 21st of May, which was the day they became aware of Arnesen being copied in on the letter. But curiously, they said nothing. They did not express any grouse with the fact that Chelsea copied Arnesen; they did not threaten to ask for any damages or report Chelsea to the Premier League. Rather, they treated Chelsea request as legitimate and went about entertaining it. They did two things which were somewhat contradictory, but which in all indicate an intention to deal with Chelsea on the issue. First, they formally rejected Chelsea’s request to approach Arnesen and then secondly, actually entered negotiation with Chelsea over the amount of compensation payable by Chelsea to Tottenham before the latter can release Arnesen.

The first act of formally denying Chelsea permission to speak with Arnesen is a recognition of the fact that no other approach had been made by Chelsea and the fact that they didn’t complain about Chelsea copying in Arnesen means clearly that Tottenham did not see that as an illegal approach. The Tottenham Board was aware that it was their place to make the decision about whether or not to grant permission to approach. They exercised that right to deny Chelsea and nothing in what they have said so far indicates that Chelsea made any approach after being denied.

The second act of getting into negoitiation with Chelsea further points to the fact that Tottenham originally did not rebuff Chelsea. They were prepared to talk about compensation with Chelsea while still denying them the permission to approach Arnesen. The discussion on compensation had been hovering between four and five million pounds and the discussion was still ongoing before the Tottenham statement of Saturday, June 4, 2004.

So, back to the questions, if Tottenham believed a breach had occurred by the 21st of May, why didn’t they say so then? Why were they negotiating compensation with Chelsea if they thought the latter was in breach? Why did they wait 13 days later(Friday, June 3, 2004) at the Premier League Chairmen’s meeting to express any disappointment “both at the approach and nature of the approachâ€?, including asking for “substantial damagesâ€?? The Tottenham statement did not tell us when Arnesen indicated he wants to move to Chelsea, but since the suspension is supposed to be an immediate reaction to such a request, it is safe to assume that this request could only possibly have been made on Friday (before the Premiership Chairmen meeting) or on Saturday, shortly before Tottenham issued the statement sacking him.

The fact that they only began to accuse Chelsea after Arnesen’s request indicates that the accusation is an after-thought. Your claim that the supposed illegal approach is irrelevant if he stays with Chelsea does not hold water, because Tottenham by the act of getting into negotiation with Chelsea have alreadsy indicated that the issue is money. There was no question of Arnesen remaining at White Hart Lane anymore, but how much it would cost to secure his release. The Tottenham Board wanted to have its cake and eat it, but Arnesen won’t have any of it. He couldn’t understand why they’re denying Chelsea the permission to speak to him, while the Board negotiates compensation with them.

My question:

(3) Why would Tottenham entertain the Chelsea approach of two weeks ago without question (even though they say they refused the permission) after presumably being aware of the prior illegal approach?

Your answer:

3 According to Spurs they flatly refused permission for Chlesea to speak with Arnesen, so they didn’t entertain the approach.

My response:

Flatly refusing Chelsea permission to speak with Arnesen does not indicate they didn’t entertain Chelsea’s advances. The proof that they entertained this can be found in the fact that up till the shock Statement by Tottenham, both clubs were still discussing compensation.

My question:

(4) Why would Chelsea make a legal approach to Tottenham if they were already involved in an illegal approach to the man himself as alleged by the Tottenham Statement?

Your answer:

4. Because they have to make the legal approach even if negotiations with the employee have already taken place.

My response:

No, the assumption in your answer is that Chelsea had negotiated with the employee (Arnesen) before writing to the Tottenham Board. There is nothing to support this assumption. Tottenham’s so-called illegal approach theory is based solely on Chelsea supposedly copying in Arnesen on the letter asking for permission to speak with him. There is no claim of a prior meeting of any sort between Chelsea and Arnesen.

My question:

(5) What reason would Chelsea have to approach Arnesen illegally, bearing in mind that when they needed to recruit such top-level personnel like the Chief Executive (Peter Kenyon) and Manager (Jose Mourinho), they actually did everything by the book by approaching the clubs concerned (Manchester United and Porto)?

Your answer:

5. Were you asleep when these deals were being discussed in the press long before they were actually completed. There was at least than the scent of something fishy in the recruitment of both of these individuals.

My response:

What was “fishyâ€? in Chelsea’s recruitment of Peter Kenyon and Mourinho? Of course, Manchester United was miffed that Kenyon was leaving for their competitor, but it was nonetheless done by the books. Chelsea went through the appropriate channels at Porto to get Mourinho; so, who’s been sleeping? If you have other facts besides the ones known to everyone, let’s have them.

NB: I’ll address the rest of your answers later. Just a little busy right now.

Stephen,

My question:

(6) Does the alleged copying of Arnesen the letter asking permission to approach constitute an approach—prior to the club having had any chance to refuse permission—considering that Arnesen is Tottenham’s Sporting Director, a position of very high importance within the club?

Your answer:

6. In all seriousness? Arnesen’s positon is irrelevant since he is the subject of the letter. Arnesen may be the appropriate address if Chelsea are interested in one of Spurs’ players or a member of the coaching team but the only reason to copy in Arnesen when he is the subject of the enquiry, is in order to make him aware of the offer of employment at Chelsea.

My response:

There was no “offer of employmentâ€? from Chelsea to Arnesen. He was only made aware of Chelsea’s desire to approach him, subject to the permission of the Tottenham Board. This awareness came to him via being copied in on a letter to that effect.

There are two facts I’ve brought to your attention earlier in dealing with question (1):

(a) that Tottenham did not consider the fact that Chelsea copied in Arnesen on the letter seeking permission an illegal approach originally, and
(b) that entering into negotiation with Chelsea over compensation payable for the release of Arnesen is an indication that Tottenham was responding positively to Chelsea’s request.

Bearing these facts in mind, let us also look at the Rule U10 which Chelsea is accused of breaching by the act of copying in Arnesen on the letter. The rule talks about direct or indirect inducement of an employee. The implication is that an inducement will need to be directed at the employee without the knowledge and the consent of his employers. But under what circumstances would you define Chelsea merely copying him in on a letter addressed to Tottenham Board as inducement? How can it be inducement when it is addressed to the Board, which is the only body with the power to grant the permission requested? Of course, in the circumstances that we would have expected the Tottenham Board to inform Arnesen of the approach (even where they still intend to refuse the permission), being copied in on the letter is actually a none issue. His knowledge does not in anyway hamper the ability of the Board to decide and they did in fact decide on the issue. Chelsea’s conduct cannot be termed an intended act of inducement since it was not addressed to Arnesen, but to his Board. For Rule 10 to be breached, there must be established the intention on Chelsea’s part to deal with Mr Arnesen secretly or without the knowledge of his Board. That Chelsea wrote the Board shows there was no intention to deal with Mr Arnesen secretly and the fact that the discussion was still ongoing before the Tottenham statement of Saturday shows that Chelsea did not intend to deal with anyone outside the Tottenham Board.

My question:

(7) Is there any Premier League rule that disallows an official of such a high position within the club from being copied in on this, even if he is the subject of the inquiry?

Your answer:

7. Sounds like you’re looking for wriggle room. I doubt there would be a separate rule since such an approach is already in breach of one of the other rules. We don’t have specific law against stealing oranges, because the general law against stealing covers these items and all others. I imiagine its the same with the rule U10, which Chelsea are alleged to have breached in this case. If Spurs are telling the truth and have proof, this is a breach of the rules, whether there is a specific offence of atpping up a sporting director, or whether there is a general rule aginst tapping up other clubs employees.

My response:

My question is directed at finding out if Chelsea’s conduct of copying in Arnesen constitutes a breach of specific rules. Since there are none, we are left with how the Premier League would define such conduct in light of Rule U10. Until then, you cannot continue to assume it’s a breach.

My question:

(8) Was there any intention on the Board’s part not to inform Arnesen of such an approach from another club even though they retain the power to exercise their right to refuse the approach?

Your answer:

8. If by the board you mean the Spurs board, then this is a matter for their discretion (whether you agree with this or not).

My response:

Yes, but such a discretion must be exercised in good faith. One would assume that a responsible Board will inform its Sporting Director (a role almost akin to Chief Executive within the Tottenham set-up) of an approach from another club, even if they’re going to exercise their right of refusing the club permission to approach him. But you cannot deny the club permission to approach him and at the same time enter into negotiation over compensation payable for his release, while still refusing to permit an approach. While that is fine by Chelsea, Arnesen would have sat down and considered it all as a slap in the face. For the success he’s brought this short period and the loyalty he’d shown, the least the Board could have done was to carry him along, since they’ve showed they were ready to part with him by discussing compensation.

My question:

(9) Does copying Arnesen in on the letter constitute an inducement or intention to induce as envisaged by the provisions of Rule U10?

Your answer:

9. That’s for the PL/FA to decide but I think it probably does. After all, if the individual concenrned knows of the approach prior to the club having given permission to open discussions, then the by definition an approach has been made before the current employer has given consent for such an approach to take place.

My response:

You got it right the first time – it’s for the Premier League to decide, not Spurs.

My question:

(10) Why did the Tottenham Chairman have to wait until Friday, June 3, 2005 at the Premier League Chairmen’s meeting, to express his supposed disappointment—both at the approach and nature of the approach—when all along his Chelsea counterpart was of the view that they’re having discussions about this through proper channels?

Your answer:

10. Unfortunately Chlesea have form for putting forward a view which is at odds with the truth. Anyway the Chelsea view has nothing to do with reality. Just as Chelsea can be of the impression that discussions are ongoing, I can think that a pen is also a goat, it doesn’t make me right.

My response:

You’ve totally avoided the question. The facts of dates and issues above are not mine or Chelsea’s – they are claims made by Tottenham in their Statement. Please, read the last one to get an idea of the basis of my question.

My question:

(11) Why were Tottenham discussing compensation of between four to five million pounds with Chelsea in relation to the Arnesen deal (as reported in the press) if they were rejecting Chelsea’s advances outright as they imply?

Your answer:

11. This is press speculation, it could be misinformation put out by Chelsea or it could be true. Unlike the club statements its unofficial, so not really relevant until its confirmed one way or the other.

My response:

It doesn’t look like press speculation to me. The newspapers did not present this as speculation, but as fact. Chelsea Statement claims that talks are ongoing with Tottenham; Tottenham didn’t deny that in their follow-up response. So, what do you think the discussions are about? More crucially, Tottenham have not come out to deny the “press speculationsâ€?, so we must accept them as true until so denied.

My question:

(12) On what basis was the Tottenham Chairman demanding damages from Chelsea? In other words, had Arnesen made this alleged intention to move to Chelsea known to the Tottenham Board prior to the Premier League Chairmen’s meeting or did he make this intention known after?

Your answer:

12. On the basis of an alleged illegal approach, I presume.

My response:

If that is their view, then let them make a complaint to the Premier League, including asking for compensation.

My question:

(13) If the Tottenham Chairman and the Board are so sure of their case, why didn’t they report this straight to the Premier League? Why do they have to go behind the scene to “shake downâ€? Chelsea at the Premier League Chairmen’s meeting?

Your answer:

13. Two reasons for this one. Firstly, its the gentlemanly thing to do (may come as a surprise to a Chelsea fan that some clubs still operate in this way). If spurs are to seek damages and report Chlesea to the FA and PL, then the right thing to do is to tell them first. Secondly, Spurs are a PLC, they have to make an announcement to the stock exchange before anyone else. This means they can’t just go straight to the FA/PL, as they would be in breach of stock exchange rules. Simply (unlike Chlsea) spurs are following the rules (letter and spirit).

My response:

What is gentlemanly in the conduct of the Tottenham Chairman and the Board over this matter? Let them go report to the Premier League if they think they have a case. Period.

All this litigious huffing and puffing by Spuds is simply legal invidiousness to drive up Arnesen’s selling price. Informing a party of an intent to make an approach is not an approach you should calm down. All this moral indignation and demonising of Chelsea lately is as hypocritical it is humorous they are no better or worse than any other club just the object of resentment for their newly acquired wealth and the influence that brings. I feel your pain spuds your man wants to leave you for the bigger better deal hey it happens and you know several years ago now the boot could have been on the other foot but that’s football.

It is called the deep pocket syndrome. Ask insurers’, whenever there is a pile up accident and it is impossible to tell whose error it is, the accident is blamed on the man in a Rolls Royce

Chelsea fans do not worry, all what these baseless vitriol mean is that we are supporting an awesome club. Who would care if West Brom had approached Arnesen?

OZ Chelsea Fan,
I totally agree…...as is their right. Spurs believe they have Chelsea by the balls to some extent (only if the threat of a significant points deduction or worse is deemed likely) and the delay is no more than Spurs negotiating a financial settlement, (call it weighing up options) basically bribery. Pay up or we shop ya. If we shop ya we get less money….so lets talk.
If this is the case they are no better than Chelsea in this matter and yes they do have a track record as do every other club in football. It happens.
I guess when you are talking about multi-million pound deals, taking the moral high road for a CEO is a tough and brave choice when shareholders look at you at the end of the financial year.
But football is heading that way fast, I just think Chelsea have taken this to the next level, basically sticking two fingers up at the system because they can afford to and no-one is bothered most of the time. The point is, how good is the system if everyone is breaking the rules anyway? Chelsea have just been more open about it and are using this apparent loophole more.
At the end of the day money talks, those who have it get what they want, those who don’t, get less, it does hurt when we lose an asset, anyone, Sol is the prime example, but loyalty is a thing of the past, it doesn’t balance the books or fill individuals pockets.
I feel this is a fair reflection of the events, feel free to tell me I’m wrong.

Just ask yourself this question

You am in a well paid job and like it where i am.Say a bus driver for London United
Would you,honestly, tell LU that you want to go and work for London General, just because they have a new shiny bus, WITHOUT knowing one thing about hours, pay etc

No?
I thought not.

Now answer the question Did FA have prior knowledge of the Chelsea package. Because if you think not then you are more stupid than you look. Nobody does a move like that without knowing what he is jumping into.It is all a shame that a once liked team, has gone to this depth of cynicism regarding ‘the beautiful game’
Over the last few years i have seen it crawl lower and lower in its attitude towards the ‘establishment’
Look how Raneiri was treated, the man has more class in his little finger, than all of SW3

And thats it really, you may have money, but like the majority of lottery winners. there is no class behind it, Never has, never will be.
Great Chelsea names like Micky Droy,Houseman,Mark Hateley,and countless other too mediocre to remember, must be embarrased at being associated with the shirt as the true blue supporter is at these happenings, As Keith Burkinshaw said of Spurs some years ago, ‘there used to be a football club there’. Well that dubious honour has moved further South West. What a damn shame.
I would like to FA to do something positive about the low life in control of Chelsea now, the players i can appreciate, the supporters tolerate, but the management, well fires and expectoration spring to mind. Its a shame it should happen at all, but what can you expect, when you can throw money around like a drunken sailor on shore leave

Old Follower,

You need to ask yourself two honest questions:

(1) Why have Spurs not made any official complaint to the Premier League up till now if they’re so sure of their case?

(2) Why have they spent the whole of today discussing compensation with Chelsea if this isn’t blackmail and a “shakedownâ€??

Maybe if you can honestly answer those questions, you’ll get around to knowing who the real “low lifeâ€? is.

Mr Emetulu,
How can you call Spurs ‘low life’. We clearly didn’t instigate this mess and your failure to realise that point just shows how blinded to reality you really are.
Of course Spurs are out to compensate themselves fully….who the hell wouldn’t? are you mad?

example….please put yourself in this position.
You live in a house that you own, which is about to have a new motorway put right through it, thereby are subject to a compulsory purchase.
Do you a) raise hell and try to get full market value plus a good size compensation package….or b) agree to be shafted without a wimper and take no more than what was worth prior?

Do you consider this a ‘low life’ course of action? I think not.
There is no difference in this matter and you well know it as well as we do. Chelsea may well have the financial clout to buy its way through football but please never, ever, make Spurs out to be something you yourself wouldn’t be if the situation was reversed (even FA has made his choice, going from £600k to £2.5M salary, if press is correct, would you?)
Please respond.

Mr Scott,

Put yourself in this position.

1. You’re interested in buying this house and you write to its owners informing them you’d like to take a look around the property and at the same time send a copy of the letter to the house as well – something the existing owners are aware of since it says so at the top of the letter and they can, in fact, read.

2. The owners respond.

3. They tell you can’t take currently a look but also tell you it’s gonna cost you some wedge if you want to buy.

4. Time passes (about 2 weeks in fact).

5. The owners have a quick chat with the house and it turns out it’s quite keen on a set of new owners i.e. you.

6. The existing owners suddenly become severely pissed off and phone the police accusing you of burglary, genocide, child slavery etc. etc.

7. This is situation normal since you always being accused of burglary, genocide, child slavery etc. etc.

7. Loads of other incoherent house owners appear on www.chelseablog.com accusing you of burglary, genocide, child slavery etc. etc.

8. Next while ensuring that the whole world knows what a complete bastard you are being, they let you know that the sale is still on but now it’s gonna cost you your left testicle and even more wonga to make the potential charges go away.

9. You remain confused as to why it took them 2 weeks to come to the conclusion that you are reponsible for burglary, genocide, child slavery etc. etc.

10. A cynical person might believe that this was a way of upping the price but deep in your heart you know that only you could possibly be guilty of burglary, genocide, child slavery etc. etc. and that the existing owners are and always will be absolute paragons of bloody virtue.

Yours burglarisingly,

Mr Accused Child-Slaver

Nice hypothetical mate. Only in this case the house actually has a contract with the owners….hang on, i forgot i was talking to Chelseas fans, here we go….....
Contract (noun) written or spoken agreement, enforceable by law.
(Oxford Dictionary)

Fact: Spurs can make FA sit and twidle his thumbs at home for the next two years. Of course this benefits no-one. Lets cut out all this flannel, you want him you pay for him.

On a side note, when was the fact you guys last mentioned that thing you won a couple months ago?....what was it called, oh yeah the Premiership title, seems to me you’ve been upstaged by both Liverpool winning the Champs League & your own off pitch dealings. That must be hard to take when your club’s business side gets more recognition than its players.

What is so ironic in all these tawdry affairs at this moment, is that it is the Chelsea fans that who are ultimately the victims of this madness.

This aint your club no more. look at man united- they have won everything in the last ten years and are their fans happy.? No they are gutted. They feel impotent- they do not want some one who uses their club as a vehicle for their own personal means. Whatever those means are!

We still do not know WHAT Abramowichs plans are? but suffice to say- it will be the Chelsea fans who will ultimately suffer. this is not jealously from an Arsenal supporter.
Luckilly like Liverpool, Everton and Blackburn we (arsenal)still have a timeless continuity of stable ownership and OUR quaint traditions PRESERVED.It is that- why we support our teams so fervently.

Playing Chelsea pre- the patriotic Russian was feisty, unsanitised fun- it aint now!
Is It Chelsea Village or is Chelsea LImited, out there?

TO sum up – it is not Chelsea we should despise. Ironically they deserve our sympathy and indeed so do Man United.

It is fundamentally the wretched Abramowich and his like (ie Glazer and The Mcdonalds Corporation etc) that the footballing public despise.

YOU MAY HAVE THE TROPHIES -AND THERE WILL BE MANY MORE TO COME BUT ULTIMATELY AT WHAT COST?

Scott,

I’m not arguing over whether or not FA has a contract or not – it’s clear he does otherwise he wouldn’t be in employment – and to continue the housing metaphor contracts can be exchanged.

I am merely suspicious of the timing of Spurs’ “realisationâ€? that FA had been sent a copy of the letter as well as them.

I merely note that:
1) It comes hard on the heels of the Ashleygate report

2) There has been huge media bollocks regarding activation of the suspended points deduction outlined in said report – when in fact any sports journalist who can read should have been able to note that
a) The points deduction relates to rule K3.
b) ArnesenGate would be covered under Section U10.
c) The one therefore has bugger all to do with the other.
d) Unfortunately, printing that doesn’t sell any newspapers so let’s imply it’s a possibility anyway

So mucho negative publicity – more “enemy of footballâ€? bollocks and now “you want him you pay for himâ€?

Andy E

P.S. You may not be aware but we won the league this year

Dear UNLUCKY LUCKY GOONER (sorry couldn’t resist it),

I’m not sure that it was ever “myâ€? club precisely. It belonged to the Mears family then The Bearded Wonder (and several mysterious off-shore trusts) and now Roman Abramovich.

The only comment I have on my impotence is that it’s just a vicious rumour. The present regime is a damn site more committed to listening to the fans than Bates ever was. In addition, while I don’t go for long walks in the moonlight with Comrade R during which he confides his inner-most strategies, I’m entirely happy with my present rate of suffering and complete ignorance of his future plans for world domination

Yours Not At All Pissed Off

Andy E.

Dear Andy – you give a civilised response to my blog.

But seriously do you like and admire this guy?
I mean why was he at the Ire versus Israel game, Satutday, and then the Ricky hatton fight?

Is he a philantropist?
And if he is-why would he be tainted with the likes of Kenyon around him?
WHy the ticket hike next season?
why the extortionate £30 charge for the kids trophy snaps?
SUrely a philantropist (if he is?)
deserves a better press than he is getting?

try viagra -

Andy,
I take your points mate.
a) Spurs may well be using the timing of this to their advantage, as you suspect – i agree.
But it is also likely that this is just how it played out, none of us can say for sure.

b) Spurs are in their rights to do this if the approach to FA was against Prem League rules – only the clubs will know if this is the case.

c) Spurs must be sure of their claim to print it on the website – but again no proof as of yet. Got the worlds attention tho didn’t it? How much pressure is on Chelsea now & has that helped our cause any?

d) And for me this is the main one; we all know FA wants the money and if what i am to understand is correct (we both agree) that Ashley & Arnesengate can’t be linked (ps. i don’t even think Chelsea can lose points from U10 -technical staff) and therefore cost you points. Then its not really worth reporting Chelsea to the PL. I believe the 2 year ‘garden leave’ is a far bigger chip in the game for Spurs.

So lets face it, Spurs have sat down and thought this one through (however long this was) without jumping straight on the phone to the PL. They’ve kept their options open and entered into discussions with Chelsea to get the best deal. The media for sure will jump on us if we deal just as much as you, count on it. But its easy to say ‘take the moral high ground’, why shouldn’t we get compensation. Besides, surely we are just playing the game as Chelsea are, aren’t we? (ie. using the system, the media & massaging the rules, shall we say).

PS. i know you won the league and without the histrionics you get when AFC throw their toys out of the pram. Chelsea are impecable on the pitch, reverse off it. Thats the impression the football world is getting tho, shame.

I was going to type in a couple of reponses to the above posts and instead I read this and got severely p*ssed off….

An extract from an article in today’s Guardian

LINK

A Premier League disciplinary commission ’s ruling last week that Chelsea should be fined a total of £500,000 and be handed a suspended three-point penalty for their “tapping upâ€? of Arsenal ’s Ashley Cole has complicated the issue.

Spurs protested over a perceived breach of the Premier League ’s rule U10 and it was a separate edict, K5, under which Chelsea were charged over Cole. But Spurs do not believe the two situations are disconnected and, in the event that any complaint is sustained against Chelsea, must be expected to push for the three-point penalty to be triggered. Given that such a penalt would benefit clubs such as Arsenal and Manchester United, Chelsea are concerned that Levy has been subject to pressure from other clubs.

So yet again we get more irreponsible and totally inaccurate reporting from a major broadsheet. The facts:

1) Chelsea weren’t fined £500,00 they were fined £300,000 and Jose Mourinho was fined £200,000. Still let’s not bother about that fact and add the two numbers together anyway.

2) Chelsea were charged under FAPL Rule K3 not K5. Still let’s not bother to be accurate about that either; it was either K3 or K5 and I can’t quite remember which and can’t be bothered to check so let’s take a guess.

3) “Spurs do not believe…..blah blah…. push for the three-point penalty to be triggeredâ€?. Regardless of what Spurs may or may not believe and what “must be expectedâ€?, the Premier League is quite unequivocal on this matter and I quote:

A fine of £300,000 and 3 points will be deducted, only to be activated in the event of a Rule K3 offence being committed during the 2005/06 Premier League season and at the discretion of the Disciplinary Commission dealing with that further offence.

Seems clear enough to me. Yep looked at it again and still can’t see anything about U10 in there…..

Still let’s not bother about that fact either and continue to pretend that the two issues can be linked.

There’s a quote from Ibsen:

It is inexcuseable for scientists to torture animals; let them make their experiments on journalists and politicians

Never a truer word…

Andy E.

Very true, the hype is being whipped up into more of a frenzy day by day, each journalist looking to find a new bit of info to stir it up some more.

From my side of the fence, Spurs, this can be only be good to put pressure Chelsea. But, if we do get what we want, Parker, whatever, it will turn on us for sure….’Spurs Sell Out’ or similar headlines.

Yes, (if the story is true about Man U & Arsenal backing Spurs) its partly motivated by the chance of a head start next season. But, surely we cannot deny that those three clubs have genuine cause for complaint against Chelsea, re:Kenyon, Cole & FA, aswell. Which motive is stronger….who can say?

Please answer me a simple but fair question.
Do you as Chelsea fans truly believe that they have treated these other clubs fairly and with respect?
Or put in another way, would you be happy if this were Man U?

Finally, alot of the criticism that has been levelled at Chelsea in the last few days hasn’t just been by journalists. We’ve had at least two former FA/PL chiefs plus a host of prominent footballing faces, inc club chairmen. So how will the view be taken by the PL officials (who can’t say too much publicly when in office) and the PL Chairmen themselves? This would worry me as a Chelsea fan.

Un-confrontationally and as ever opionally,

Scott

Scott,

I wonder how much “genuine cause for complaintâ€? some of these teams have. I could argue it’s more like rampant hyprocrisy.

For example, I have to ask myself how much Sol Campbell knew about Arsenal’s interest prior to his move across North London?

How much did Jap Staam know about Man U’s interest prior to an “officialâ€? approach being made.

Allegations were made at the time and nothing came of it.

What worries is that the actual truth of the matter is a complete irrelevance – it neither sells newspapers nor serves the agendas of some of these clubs.

I don’t imagine that Man U or Arsenal actually give a toss whether FA goes to Chelsea or not but it serves them well to be putting the boot in behind the scenes.

When Peter Kenyon moved from Old Trafford, I recall annoyance but at no stage can I remember official inquiries being mooted – it was all about cash and the length of the “gardening leaveâ€?.

Of course, it’s now convenient to be seen to be saying to Spurs “what you as well?...terrible state of affairs…can’t be allowed…must be stopped…three points deduction…blah blahâ€?

Andy E.

Andy,

Again, i agree with you, how convenient it is for these other clubs to front Chelsea now. I also agree that there is a large slice of hypocrisy being served up by these clubs who have in the past done similar things, inc Spurs.

Why then are Chelsea being singled out here? I think there are two reasons. Firstly, ‘green eyed monster’, frankly. Your on top, we want to kick you down. Secondly tho, whereas clubs may of done this on the odd occasion in the past, Chelsea seem to be using this as there main way of signing new staff. Not only that, they don’t seem to be worried about the consequences.

However widespread this ‘tapping up’ problem is, its still wrong – however its defended- within the current rule framework.

Scott

PS Sol was a free agent by then

Scott,

Can’t argue with you that within the current framework that “tapping-upâ€? is not allowed.

What I find ridiculous is the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it arguments if these rules are binned. Other leagues operate without them and manage to cope. Sir Philip Otton’s report contains a lot of this “justificationâ€? in rejecting Ashley Cole’s restraint of trade defence.

There’s much talk of the “devastating effect on squad moraleâ€? and “player churnâ€?. However, what people seem to forget is that the transfer windows were introduced to prevent precisely that. Continual unsolicited approaches were being made and everyone knew it. Result – limit the “player churnâ€? to twice a year to prevent the farcical ignoring of the rules in the first place.

The current situation is that while the K3 and K5 rules are the result of a collective agreement and the FAPL are entirely happy with them – arguing that football players are a “specialâ€? case – and even the EU has made encouraging noises, the same cannot be said of Rule U10.

This little number says that you can’t talk to anyone (employed in whatever capacity) at another club without that club’s consent. So if I want to headhunt Gladys who cleans the toilets at Neasden United, it’s gonna be sorry gotta talk to Neasden first. That is definitely restraint of trade – so if Gladys wants to go to court, she’s got my full support.

There is an exception of course….and the exception is the manager. Yep that’s right, your manager can talk to whoever he likes and can resign whenever he likes. There is a but….

Compensation gets paid to clubs when the manager moves and to the manager when clubs fire them because both parties have to agree to the cancellation of registration of the manager’s contract of employment. The registration with the Secretary of the PL is the key – you can’t be a manager of a PL team if your contract is not registered and you can’t get registered if you’re already registered somewhere else. No agreement means no movement.

These conditions are handled in Section Q Rules 12 to 14. It seems to me that the rules for the manager could equally apply to players in place of K3 and K5 with some possible modications but without a great deal of difficulty. It would remove the “tapping-upâ€? farce we’ve currently got, you could still keep the transfer windows and wonga would still change hands.

Andy.

P.S. Ah now dear old Sol may have been out of contract by the time he signed. However, there were rumours about him going to Arsenal (and others) back in the previous December. I’ll bet my left ball unofficial approaches were made to him prior to that even if he wasn’t sitting in a London hotel with all involved parties at the time and a News of the World photographer outside.

Andy,

For me, the current framework is definately lacking. On one hand I think as you, scrap it, its a sham anyway, on the other, I think that the punishment for breaking these rules should be reviewed to make it an unattractive option if you get caught.

How could you do this fairly tho. Chelsea are far less bothered about a £300k fine than say, West Brom. Maybe if the penalty increased after each subsequent infraction, like a sliding scale. I think that this will be the more likely route this matter will take, eventually. Depends if clubs tone it down a bit in future.

One thing I know must be done, which is indirectly linked to all this is, the proper regulation of agents. At the moment these guys have a hat full of self imposed guidelines & are at the heart of all these ‘tapping up’ problems. Granted, you do need them to act on behalf of the players/staff, but they need to be able to be brought to account when needed, not just allowed to walk off into the sunset with their cut. Take the Harry Kewell agent, how many millions did he earn out of Leeds?

I just hope the two clubs get their act together and strike a deal before too long. Dragging this out won’t be good for anyone, inc. football itself.

Levy left in limbo over Arnesen stalemate

Now, does anyone still remember the little blackmailers from Spurs who want to play with the big boys? I’m just chuffed that they’re getting their lessons quietly and calmly. Mr Levy jumped out publicly to cry wolf in the midst of a negotiation, accusing Chelsea of all sorts just so he could increase how much to take away. He made all the noises he could make, but Chelsea said nothing beyond the fact that we’re negotiating. He threatened to go to the Premier League, asked for Forssell, tried for Parker and brought a bill large enough to buy fifteen Arnesens; but Chelsea simply ignored him. The News of The World then attempted to start a campaign on Spurs behalf on the matter, while every hypocrite in football had their say. But for Chelsea, there is only one way to deal with blackmailers - call their bluff!

Mr Levy sat there and watched Chelsea collect the £3 million for Forssell and then probably thought to himself, “Oh, they’ll be handing over Parker nowâ€?. But the next he knew Parker was talking Magpie and Chelsea were £6.5 million better. That was probably when it dawned on him that he’d bitten more than he could chew. He then attempted rallying the press with the idea of Carlton Cole only for Chelsea to play deaf while going about their business in the transfer market with the acquisition of Del Horno!

The train is leaving Mr Levy and he’s desperate for a settlement. No! Let him have his Arnesen and his Spurs; we aren’t interested anymore! Okay, it’s not too late - run Mr Levy, run to the Premier League to report Chelsea for tapping-up Arnesen!

Blackmailers!