|
A follow-up to yesterday's news on the signing of Spanish wonder-kid Cesc Fabregas, kindly provided by
Peter Wickett from Barcelona....
"There is a half page spread on the story in the sports section of El Pais
which is the Spanish equivalent of the Independent/Guardian."
"It says that he has signed a six year contract and (slightly worryingly)
that the deal is 'virtually done' - I never like that word virtually. He is,
apparently, one of the shining stars of the Barcelona youth team (current
champions of Spain). They say he's a central midfielder 'typical number
four from the Barcelona school' - implication being that he's a Guardiola
type of player (we can only hope!). A good passer, able to get forward and
can get physical. So far so good!"
"They also says that Barcelona intend to fight this one as they successfully
did against Arsenal a few years ago when Arsenal tried to sign another Barca
youth player called Nano [see here] - that time they did it by offering Nano more money
than Arsenal. This time they are going to use a different tactic - in order
to make this move possible under FIFA regulations Fabregas's father has had
to change the family residence to the UK. Apparently, if Barcelona can
prove that the family is not resident in London then the transfer would not
be valid. I think this all has to do with the age of the player and FIFA
regulations on the transfer of youth players."
"By way of coincidence the Spanish under 17s are playing tonight against the
USA for a place in the quarters of the world youth cup.
Interestingly, the Yanks will be playing the 14 year old wonderkid Freddie
Adu (who the red nosed one from Manchester is trying to get his boot
throwing mits on). Who knows tonight might be the first installment of
Cesc v Adu which by 2010 will be the Vieira v Keane of its day!"
We'll keep you all posted...
Rupe adds...
More titbits from the Standard:
Professional contracts are not allowed in Spain until a player reaches the age of 18. They claim that "there is no suggestion that Arsenal have acted improperly" and that a compensation fee of around £200,000 is likely.
|