Crewe director of football Dario Gradi slams Liverpool's pursuit of Max Clayton


Liverpool were dragged into the poaching row engulfing the Barclays Premier League, following claims from Crewe director of football Dario Gradi that a Premier League club had made an illegal approach for one of his academy players, believed to be Max Clayton, 15.

Gradi said: ‘He is an outstanding player by any standards and he has come in and told us that he wants to leave right now to join a big club.

‘The big clubs are stealing other people’s players and you worry financially for the clubs where the players are stolen from. It’s so hard to protect your players. All this goes against the morality of the game — it’s the rich robbing the poor.’

Crewe have not lodged a complaint with the FA and are reluctant to name Liverpool for fear of damaging the relationship between the clubs.

Liverpool declined to comment and it is still far from certain the player will move clubs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...l#ixzz0QUBHpvVv

FIFA told about City's Helan 'steal'

Manchester City have been reported to FIFA by Rennes over the signing of French youngster Jeremy Helan earlier this year.

City snapped up the teenage defender after he reportedly opted against seeing out his first professional contract with the Brittany club.

The Clairefontaine academy player had been wanted by Manchester United in 2008, but the Ligue 1 outfit dug in their heels over his departure.

With the Red Devils out of the picture, City moved in, much to the anger of Rennes who claim his pre-contract agreement tied both him and the club to a contract if he represented France at youth level.

If found guilty of inducing a youngster to break a contract, City could find themselves in hot water after Chelsea were banned from signing new players until January 2011 over their pursuit of Gael Kakuta.

Although Rennes technical director Pierre Dreossi does not expect a decision to be made soon, he is hoping City are punished.

The Blues are understood to be adamant in their belief they have not induced a breach of contract in a case which is further complicated by the fact that Helan and Rennes are at odds, legally, over what he initially signed up to.

"Manchester City must now realise the consequences of their attitude in the Helan case, as it is even more illegal than Kakuta," Dreossi told The Independent.

"We have referred this to FIFA. For us, it was strange to have no discussion from City and now, in the week after the FIFA declaration on Chelsea, I would hope that it will be the same thing for Manchester City.

"Kakuta signed up for just a possibility of a full contract. For Helan, there was definitely one there, under the terms of the pre-contract agreement, because he had played for his country.

"Manchester United said it was not possible to negotiate with us but for City now this is dangerous, though we are not expecting a decision from FIFA for perhaps several years."
http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,1...5543635,00.html

I would be really happy if FIFA are continuously trying to look at these matters. Poaching activities should not be allowed, as it always benefits big clubs with huge financial backing.
As you can see, only EPL clubs are being accused of poaching. IMO, it is because only EPL teams have the advantage of doing so. La Liga and Serie A clubs can only tie above-17 youngsters with a professional contract, so how can they 'poach' a 16 years old youngster?

Spanish clubs do poach players. Even if they don't sign professional terms, a youth contract is still a contract. And taking 14-15 year olds from South America or Africa to put them into the academy is also poaching talent no matter how you look at it. Messi anyone? Probably the difference is that the Spanish and Italian clubs pay some form of compensation when they take these talents over. English clubs however have tried to totally screw smaller European clubs by taking their talent for free. I may be wrong though and I'm sure it doesn't represent the behaviour of all or most English clubs; just a minor few.

to be honest...english club really like to pouch underage youngster from abroad....italy i dunno...but at spain big club at there seldom pouch underage youngster from abroad...look at barca n real madrid...

I would be really happy if FIFA are continuously trying to look at these matters. Poaching activities should not be allowed, as it always benefits big clubs with huge financial backing.
As you can see, only EPL clubs are being accused of poaching. IMO, it is because only EPL teams have the advantage of doing so. La Liga and Serie A clubs can only tie above-17 youngsters with a professional contract, so how can they 'poach' a 16 years old youngster?

Spanish clubs do poach players. Even if they don't sign professional terms, a youth contract is still a contract. And taking 14-15 year olds from South America or Africa to put them into the academy is also poaching talent no matter how you look at it. Messi anyone? Probably the difference is that the Spanish and Italian clubs pay some form of compensation when they take these talents over. English clubs however have tried to totally screw smaller European clubs by taking their talent for free. I may be wrong though and I'm sure it doesn't represent the behaviour of all or most English clubs; just a minor few.

I knew it, that somebody will bring up his name.

Messi's situation looks like Kakuta's, except that Messi was dumped by Newell's Old Boys, while River Plate refused to sign him because of his medical bill. Simply put, the difference is, Messi was clubless when Barca came 'poaching' him, while Kakuta already had a pre-agreement with Lens. We can safely say Chelsea poach Kakuta from Lens illegally, but whom did Barca poach Messi from?

Yeah, I realize about the youth contract. Italian clubs also use such contracts for their youngsters. So doesn't it mean Spanish and Italian clubs could also seek for compensations? For instance, the Cesc case, can't Barca claim anything?

I use to think that Arsenal 'poach' legally because they pay the compensation for Cesc to Barca, and Barca was angry because they felt that the amount was too small. Not sure though, it is just my assumption.

I'm not so sure about calling those paying compensation as "legal poachers" as from what I know, those being reported are deemed to be put on inducements to the players to void their contracts or whatsoever.The focus is more onto the inducements, no?

I'm not so sure about calling those paying compensation as "legal poachers" as from what I know, those being reported are deemed to be put on inducements to the players to void their contracts or whatsoever.The focus is more onto the inducements, no?

Yes, indeed.

IMO, the reason why Man Utd managed to poach Macheda (as in Cesc's case) with ease was because they were only required to pay very minimal amount of compensation, since he was signed near the end of his youth contract. It sounds legal, no?

On the other hand, the inducement that Chelsea offered to Kakuta was because they couldn't find a way to buy out the pre-agreement. How to evaluate a pre-agreement? So they had to convince Kakuta to dishonor the agreement and leave Lens, with the thought that the pre-agreement is not regarded as a kind of a contract by FIFA. Maybe that is where Chelsea got it wrong.

I dont think is wrong to pouch youngsters. Clubs especially english clubs uses the crack of the current football law to improve their team. Since the youngster does not have any legally binding with the their team, what is wrong if they decided to join a bigger team to train them up? Clubs like Chelsea paid Kakuta's parent a sum of money may sounds wrong, but at the end of the day Kakuta decided to join Chelsea. So I do not see anything wrong.I think new rule to prevent these incident to happen will be implement

Blue part:That doesn't mean they wont raid other clubs for youngsters...

Red part:

And what? LOL This coming from a manutd fans? Ferdinand from manu academy?Rooney?Ronaldo?Ince? You made my day.

You are as good entertainer as Golden...

I thought Man Utd produce own young players rather than stealing from others...

Beckham, Neville, Giggs...are all from the great academy of Man Utd...

Maybe you guys should add Rio Ferdinand, Rooney, Paul Ince and Ronaldo to the list...

Blue part:That doesn't mean they wont raid other clubs for youngsters...

Red part:

And what? LOL This coming from a manutd fans? Ferdinand from manu academy?Rooney?Ronaldo?Ince? You made my day.

You are as good entertainer as Golden...

don't flame.he didn't say what list.MamulaMoon,is it poached players list or academy list?lol

Beckham, Neville, Giggs...are all from the great academy of Man Utd...

Maybe you guys should add Rio Ferdinand, Rooney, Paul Ince and Ronaldo to the list...

I thought Man Utd produce own young players rather than stealing from others.

You should see where the player starts to shine and improve instead of where he started to play football. For example, fabregas shone when he joined arsenal tho he's from barcelona.

This is kinda out of topic tho.

Ichighost, whether beckham and giggs are originally from manutd or not it doesnt matter, because they became the best and improved the most when they're in manutd.

I beg to differ.Just because he shines and improves there, that doesn't mean he is from their academy.Simple.How sure are you that he wont shine and improve in his former academy?No one can be sure of that.Regardless of whether he improve, shines or fades, it's undeniable fact that it's one of the classic example of big clubs raiding starlets...

this is getting hotter

Man United could face Fiorentina complaint

From my understanding,
From the 1st word until the last word, I cant and I didn't  see him talking about "poached players" list.It's all about academy and funnily the 1st sentence is,
Where is it the talk about poached player?

Is either you guys have some problem understanding his post or you guys defending him for the sake's of defending.

not everybody here is a professor in english.. sometimes people just dont know how to express themselves correctly cause of lack of knowledge in foreign language

Is not about language.It's pretty obvious he is saying those players are academy players.Cant you see it?Closely after Beckham,Neville, Giggs, he said can add "ronaldo and co" into the same list.

Seriously, I dont know why you are defending him for the sake of defending when it's pretty obvious language isn't really the matter here.

Oh well...Each to his own...

he didnt, u put that urself
its kinda offtopic now.. dun wanna turn this thread into man utd bashing or english class
plus, everybody has their own opinions.. u have ur's and i have mine.. case closed
now more clubs started to enter the spotlight.. trying to get some money there?

Not because he in a better club..but because he dive and smile after that...that really irritated..no offense...

Blue part:That doesn't mean they wont raid other clubs for youngsters...

Red part:

And what? LOL This coming from a manutd fans? Ferdinand from manu academy?Rooney?Ronaldo?Ince? You made my day.

You are as good entertainer as Golden...

is there anything to point that he's a UTD fan? i guess he's not even a football fan

Why tottenham copied our glory glory song?

They changed it to "Glory glory tottenham hotspurs"??? LOL?

come on , enough of man utd,

lets move on to a much bigger picture here...

The chelsea case.. Is gael kakuta really worth that 2 years ban? =/

Hahhaha..okey....look like their lovers also know the habit of their player..

back to the topic..look like several english club reported to FIFA now...left Pool and Arsenal now from the top 4...

okay let's get something straight. there are people here who actually believe french/italian/spanish/german clubs have NEVER poached a youngster from other smaller teams before? u actually think they're all angels?and platini/blatter is the saviour of football? wow..u guys deserve an award. and its not the good kind. 

okay let's get something straight. there are people here who actually believe french/italian/spanish/german clubs have NEVER poached a youngster from other smaller teams before? u actually think they're all angels?and platini/blatter is the saviour of football? wow..u guys deserve an award. and its not the good kind. 

okay let's get something straight. there are people here who actually believe french/italian/spanish/german clubs have NEVER poached a youngster from other smaller teams before? u actually think they're all angels?and platini/blatter is the saviour of football? wow..u guys deserve an award. and its not the good kind. 

Dude asking Mutu to pay 17mil to Chelsea...was not even a help..they complicated a lot of things...dont look everything direct..try to think the other side of it..

I mean the player himself..begging former club to reduce the 17mil...asking from club to split the bill...now look like Mutu career in trouble...

It is just the same of Kakuta case...Fifa should not limit his earning...he play and train harder so that he can earn a good money...did his former club can give him the salary Chelsea give it to him? No..so we pay for what we done....simple..Why Ronaldo cost nearly 80mil...cuz he play hard to impress the world....to make sure he earn a gud salary..

Sometimes is not just about Club...sometimes it is about players...

Wenger against ban on signing Under-18s

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has become a rare voice against blocking the trade of Under-18 footballers, defending his club's policy of signing the best young players from around the world and claiming the rules should actually be relaxed.

The French coach criticised the current rules which make it difficult for English clubs to sign youths from Asia, South America and Africa.

Wenger claims that stopping a practice that Leeds chairman Ken Bates has described as "baby farming" would actually put the players at more risk and they would likely fall prey to unscruplious agents.

FIFA are determined to clean up the game after last week banning Chelsea from signing any players until 2011. Since the Gael Kakuta ruling a whole host of offended clubs have come out to demand action.

Most of Europe's top clubs have stated they would support a ban on any transfers for under-age players, but Wenger strongly disagrees claiming there are many advantages to joining big clubs with a professional infrastructure.

Arsenal have one of the most cosmopolitan academies in Europe with players from all over the globe.

"People think that we take 30 players every year and you get them into your academy," he said. "No, it's not like that. When we take one or two, we give them a top level education, we give them a top level scholarship, and we look after them socially.

"Look at the alternative. If you ban players from moving before the age of 18, you know what will happen? The player will be sold anyway,'' he said. "To whom? To agents. At what age? At 13, 14. Where will they go? Not to top-level clubs with top-level education.

"They will go to clubs who have been bought by business people, of a very low level, and will stay there until the age of 18 waiting to be sold. The money will go out of the game. You have always to look if you make one decision, what kind of alternative?

"If your players cannot move to the best clubs, I believe they will not improve. At the end of the day, to be a top-level player is to be with the best. You can speak bout the compensation level, is it right or not. I am open to that.

"I am against the process of stopping the players moving to the top level. If you have a child who is a good musician, what is your first reaction? It is to put it into a good music school, not in an average one, so why should that not happen in football?

"If a player goes to Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United, it is all clean and he gets a good education. That is why I am very sharp on cases like that. We have to respect the rules that are in place.

"England is, at the moment, in a weak position for taking young players because they inflict a big handicap on themselves by the fact that they have no access to Asian players, no access to South American players, no access to African players.

"On top of that, if it was impossible to take European players then you will have a big handicap in the future for English football. What is happening now is a case that I have fought for a long, long time against - people with regressive ideas.

"To expose your local players to top-world class players does not harm your players, it improves your players because it respects one basic rule - the best to become better have to play better. If you have a good national team today, it just proves it conforms to what I have preached for a long, long time - don't hide the best players in England from being exposed with the best ones, because that will make them weaker.

"Get them to be confronted with the best and make them stronger."

sos soccernet

what do u guyz think??? 

Until there are some minor clubs report any french/italian/spanish/german club to FIFA of trying to poach their youngster, you have to accept that only the English have been really greedy.

If you are going to accuse FIFA of being anti-English, well, maybe you didn't read yet about Roma's similar 2 years ban.

In fact, I believe, FIFA have been really biased toward Chelsea recently, when they asked Mutu to pay 17 million euros to Chelsea. Huh, they are indeed 'anti-English'.

Honestly, I think Mr Wenger is being selfish and ignorant. Read the article, young kids are being sold like cattle even now. Is it really that hard to establish feeder clubs or have links with clubs all around the world and help them train those kids locally so they do not have to be uprooted and sent somewhere far from home.

Good for the club, good for the community and also good for the kids.

@Kerplunk: Innocent until proven guilty. European clubs in general tend to bring in youngsters at a far younger age (ard 8-13). And for players that are older normally a fee is involved. What the English clubs are criticised for now are for bringing in players just before they can sign professional contracts by offering them a lucrative pro contract (because it's allowed in England) and without compensating a fee. It may be legal but to me it's unethical. That is what I want to see being cracked down. Chelsea may have been unlucky because Kakuta had signed a pre-agreement with Lens but that doesn't mean that all the other European clubs practice the same way mainly because there is no loophole for them to exploit. The whole thing would have been a non-issue if the clubs that trained these players since they were 8 yrs old were being compensated in the first place.

How much do you compensate them when there's no contract involve. What is the amount that seems fair to both sides? Reluctant seller will quote sky high price while buyer will find ways to nick those youngster for free since there's practically no contract binding them. What if seller determine to hang into their prized asset & buyer determine to get their hands on the said asset while the asset himself determine to move on to better things? Do we need to consider the opinion of the youngster since there's no contract? If not, then buyer & seller is equally guilty for treating the youngster like a piece of meat.

Trouble is determining the amount of compensation. For pro, their transfer fee mostly based on their income/year. If this approach are used to compensate those small clubs, it's practically nil.
On the other hand, do the buyer just pay whatever the figure quoted by seller? It's a no brainer since, why would they pay the seller asking price when they know they can get it for far less if its decided by tribunal.

BTW bet all those big clubs across Europe would like to have a youth policy like the English. Its just that government policy prevented them from signing contracts with youngster like the English

In such cases once the youngster wants a move, the seller can't really hang onto them. But you're right, it's difficult to quantify what would be an adequate fee. Which is why there needs to be legal guidelines drawn up whether by FIFA or by some other body. Most of these cases are decided by a tribunal currently and in most cases the fee was accepted by the seller. Chelsea's case is unique because the player had signed a pre-agreement. Chelsea will argue that such an agreement shouldn't be legally binding. It's interesting FIFA has chosen to uphold it. Might open a new can of worms.
Well if they were able to sign players on pro contracts as early as the English there wouldn't be any problems would there
But if the cases were reversed I definitely can see the same outcry happening. Clubs at the end of the day will only look after their interests.

I disagree. It is like the doping of thoroughbred racehorses in america (google eight belles). The 'solution' is obvious - for racehorses stop the use of dopes), for football stop the transfer of under 18s.
In both cases, it will change the face of the sport, and most are not willing to do this.

If NO kids are allowed to leave their countries to learn their trade elsewhere until they are 18, then clubs will have no choice to either develop their local lads or spend money developing an academy on foreign soil in partnership of local club. And yes, it is true that not one club can have 100 academies in 100 nations, so it is again a matter of making priorities. Heck, this even levels the playing field imho.

It will change football, for the better imho.

Well, if the whole family moves, then that in itself solves part of the problem - the trafficking of young kids who are left to fend for themselves when they are either found to be not good enough or when some other kid breaks their legs for good in training.

okay verx fair enough maybe other european clubs practice the signing of youngsters when they're younger, but like u said it will still come down to one's definition of poaching. i mean..younger doesn't necessarily make it right. and i support the idea that a suitable compensation fee should be agreed.

however like vreis said this could cause even more headaches as clubs will struggle to agree on a certain amount. some players show a lot of promise when the're young, but flop later on instead, and some peak much later. so most clubs would be reluctant to splash out millions due to the huge risk involved. regarding kakuta, its still a complicated problem as a pre-contract shouldn't be legally binding especially when u signed it at 15 or below.
and one thing i still can't quite understand is why they're bringing it up now instead of 2 years ago when we signed him.

its as if they've decided he's suddenly starting to look like a star and they want more money for it.
so who's the one being greedy now? if they really think that's the case, then obviously kakuta started to rapidly develop under CHELSEA'S TUTELAGE not theirs. imagine if clubs who couldn't care less about releasing their young hopefuls, suddenly realise they just let the next messi/lampard/ronaldo slip through their grasp and they demand an extra (insert obscene amount here) euros/pounds because the boy happened to train with them in the past.

isn't that unethical too?

I could be wrong but I think Lens filed their case to FIFA even back then. I just think that it has taken that long for FIFA to act upon it.

@Verx, no system is perfect and nothing is fair, but for every one 'genius' that is given a shot for a better life, they are another nine (if not more) who fail and are abandoned.

People will always find loopholes, and no decision will cater for everyone, but clearly in this case the majority is suffering for the benefit of the chosen few.