Chelsea transfer ban lifted as Lens accept £1m over Gael Kakuta row

By Matt Barlow Last updated at 12:43 AM on 5th February 2010

Gael Kakuta

Centre of the storm: Kakuta


Chelsea have escaped their transfer ban after reaching an out-of-court agreement to pay Lens a fee of around £1million for Gael Kakuta.

The settlement represents compensation for the French club for training and developing Kakuta before he crossed the English Channel to Stamford Bridge at the age of 16.

In return, Lens agreed to drop the complaint which prompted FIFA’s dispute and resolution chamber to ban Chelsea from two consecut ive transfer windows.

The case was due to be heard next month by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) until the lawyers struck a deal yesterday.

‘We are pleased to have come to an amicable resolution of the matter and that it has been ratified by CAS and recognised by FIFA,’ said Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck.

Lens were furious when they lost their talented teenager to Chelsea in the summer of 2007. The Premier League club claimed Kakuta was free to move but Lens insisted they had a pre-contract agreement signed by the player before his 16th birthday.

They lodged an official complaint with FIFA, with president Gervais Martel accusing Chelsea of offering ‘a lot of money’ to Kakuta’s family to persuade him to leave and demanding £4.25m in compensation.

Lens were awarded only £115,000, however, as FIFA chose instead to make an example of the wealthy Premier League club with a two-window transfer ban.

FIFA also fined Kakuta £680,000 for breaking the pre-contract deal and banned him from football for four months.

When the punishment was delivered last September, Chelsea sent their legal team into action . They appealed to CAS, who froze the transfer ban pending the hearing.


It left Chelsea free to trade in the January window but they opted not to sign anyone when the market opened. Confidence had increased at Stamford Bridge that the pre-contract agreement signed by Kakuta was not legally binding and that they could win the case.

Lens are in serious financial trouble. They are desperately seeking £10m before the end of the season to pay off debts and have lodged another complaint with FIFA, claiming Portsmouth owe them millions in unpaid transfer fees for Nadir Belhadj
and Aruna Dindane.

In the end, a financial agreement was of far greater value to them than any point of principle and they dared not risk losing the case and incurring legal costs of their own.

The French club were last night suggesting they had secured a fee of £2.8m but FIFA
are expected to confirm their case had been undermined.

As part of yesterday’s settlement, Lens conceded that the pre-contract agreement with
Kakuta was ‘not valid’ and that, therefore, the teenager could not be accused of breaking it and Chelsea were ‘not liable for breach of contract’.

‘As a consequence, in light of these new circumstances, the sanctions imposed upon Chelsea FC and the player by the FIFA dispute resolution chamber had to be lifted,’ CAS confirmed. Kakuta, now 18, is free to continue his career and Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay said: ‘We are pleased Chelsea has been cleared of any wrongdoing and that the matter is closed.’

 


 

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

Wait for it...!, "Disgusted" from Manchester, "Outraged" from Liverpool", "Angry" from North London....Where are you? All this shows is that the issue of "protecting young footballers from exploitation" has been exposed for what it is... A scam to make a few "bucks."..

Click to rate     Rating   8

Once again biased reporting on a Chelsea story. The official statement issued by CAS is unequivocal that a valid contract did not exist between Kakuta and Lens. It goes on to say that Chelsea could not be guilty of enticing Kakuta to break a contract that did not exist in the first place. Legally, Lens did not have a case.

Your story implies that Lens dropped the case after accepting a payment from Chelsea, which was the equivalent of the fines imposed on Chelsea and Kakuta in the first place. In reality Lens dropped the case because they could not win it. I would suggest that Chelsea only paid the money to Lens as they realised that taking the case through the legal procedure would probably cost the same in legal fees if not more in the long run and would bring the matter to a close much more quickly. A very common arrangement in legal disputes in business.

Click to rate     Rating   11

according to bruce buck chelsea paid the fine that had been levied by fifa to lens & nothing else. maybe check those figures you're bandying about...& no, putting "around" £1m doesn't make it ok.

the truth is chelsea have accepted a deal that was brought to them by lens & fifa...who, going by the precedent set in the sissoko case (CAS ruled the contract aspirant had no bearing on international transfers) and any interpretation of eu contract regulations re: minors (you can't sign a legally binding contract at 14), were going to end up looking really stupid. it was akin to attempted extortion.

chelsea have tried to build bridges here...good for them i guess...but i really wanted the CAS to rule in their favour properly...& that truly was the only possible outcome, no matter how you look at it. fifa need to be held to task for the irresponsible & frankly biased way they treat football. chelsea are not the bad guys here...whether you like them or not.

Click to rate     Rating   10

"Lens confirmed that their pre-contract agreement with Kakuta was 'not valid' and that, therefore, the teenager could not be accused of breaking it and Chelsea were 'not liable for breach of contract'.

So why have Chelsea allegedly paid for an out-of-court settlement? If there was no breach of contract, there is nothing to pay. More to this than meets the eye. Par for the course in the Del Boy world of football.

Click to rate     Rating   10

Yet another question mark over the integrity of FIFA. They clearly have an agenda to harm or boost, depending on what side of the English Channel you are on.

Click to rate     Rating   8

does that mean the English hating FIFA will apologise? I don't think so.

Click to rate     Rating   8

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.