Adrian Mutu ordered to pay Chelsea compensation

DeadSkin

Adrian Mutu ordered to pay Chelsea a record £13.8m in compensation

:eek: savage amount of money.
It says he's just after extending his contract at Fiorentina, wonder how much he earns from that.

super_furry

What kind of enforcement powers are there to this? What if he just decided that he wasn't going to pay it?

PHB

I've no doubt in my mind this is going to a real court at which point I'd imagine it'll be dismissed. It's a joke. Also Chelsea doing it is just harsh considering money means nothing to them.

Mossy Monk

Could Mutu retire from football and tell FIFA to get bent?

Seaneh

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Could Mutu retire from football and tell FIFA to get bent?

Probably, didn't Ortega just retire for a year or two when he was ordered to pay Galatasary 7million a few years back and then make a comeback for newells old boys?

Bubs101

In fairness, it's not like Mutu is an angel here. How stupid would you have to be to do cocaine when your a professional footballer. Also, if Chelsea fired him he must have gotten a massive compensation package

leninbenjamin

PHB wrote: »

I've no doubt in my mind this is going to a real court at which point I'd imagine it'll be dismissed. It's a joke. Also Chelsea doing it is just harsh considering money means nothing to them.

the point is Mutu profited from his contract being terminated. that's not fair either. for once i'm taking Chelsea's side on this.

PHB

the point is Mutu profited from his contract being terminated.

That was Chelseas choice though. Nobody forced them to terminate his contract. No other club in the world could probably do that.

bohsman

Did he profit from his contract being terminated? Surely hes wasnt entitled to compensation.

Seaneh

His contract was terminated for unprofessional conduct and stuff so he didnt get compensation, also, Chelsea set him up, they ordered the test, they hung him out to dry, they wanted to get rid of him and not have to pay anything to do it, so they hung him.

Dude ****ed up, so what, who hasnt?

gixerfixer

Im no big fan of the Chelski bandwagon but on this occasion they are right.I dispise coke heads and junkies of all sorts and im glad they have taken a stance against Mutu.Maybe players will think twice before snorting that next line

MagicMarker

Christ, yeah drugs are bad mmkay, but charging someone 13 MILLION because of it is just rediculous!!!!

A spot in a rehab program probably would cost less... probably.

eirebhoy

That's ridiculous. How can they expect him to get that kind of money? You'd need to earn almost £50k a week for 10 years in England to make £14m after tax.

Hero Of College

Chelsea profited through his removal from the club. They should not be allowed to profit further.

leninbenjamin

Hero Of College wrote: »

Chelsea profited through his removal from the club. They should not be allowed to profit further.

how did they profit? they had to write off an asset they purchased for 17million due to a serious breach of contract.

Hero Of College

leninbenjamin wrote: »

how did they profit? they had to write off an asset they purchased for 17million due to a serious breach of contract.

Wages. Stigma. They cut and ran.

CantGetNoSleep

leninbenjamin wrote: »

how did they profit? they had to write off an asset they purchased for 17million due to a serious breach of contract.

They could have sold him once his ban was up

Doubt he is the only famous footballer that takes cocaine

justfortherecor

Chelsea also sacked Bosnich for drug use, was he required to pay a fine afterwards as well? I cant remember.

Guy:Incognito

Wait. Did this not happen a few months back and it was £8m?

Seaneh wrote: »

Chelsea set him up, they ordered the test, they hung him out to dry,

How did they set him up? They didnt make him take drugs. If they knew he was taking them they were perfectly entitled target him.

growler

Seaneh wrote: »

His contract was terminated for unprofessional conduct and stuff so he didnt get compensation, also, Chelsea set him up, they ordered the test, they hung him out to dry, they wanted to get rid of him and not have to pay anything to do it, so they hung him.

Dude ****ed up, so what, who hasnt?

chelsea didn't "set him up", mutu was quickly getting a reputation for being off his nut in london clubs, if he tested by the FA for using prohibited substances after a game , then chelsea would likely get into trouble. He didn't get compensation as he breached his contract . Chelsea paid £15million for him and didn't exactly benefit or get their money back from Parma so were entitled to look to get their cash back.

how much money chelsea have is irrelevant too, suppose Utd wouldn't do the same thing, although they seem to prefer not to do drug tests there i hear.

DeadSkin

Stekelly wrote: »

Wait. Did this not happen a few months back and it was £8m?

I missed that.
Looks like he contested it at the time, I think he can appeal this new one aswell.

suppose Utd wouldn't do the same thing, although they seem to prefer not to do drug tests there i hear.

Nah, they just forget

whatawaster

leninbenjamin wrote: »

how did they profit? they had to write off an asset they purchased for 17million due to a serious breach of contract.

They wrote off an asset, but also an obligation to pay him millions over several years.

The ruling is an absolute joke.

super_furry

Again though, who's going to make him pay it? Doesn't seem like there's any legal standing there at all.

MagicMarker

Surely there should be stipulations in contracts that if you're caught cheating/doing something illegal then you're entitled to nothing?

TonyD79

When they sacked him it would have been a good idea to agree with FIFA that they could claim compensation back from the next club who signed him. But once they sacked him he owes them nothing. Id laugh if he ends up playing against Chelsea for a team in the CL knockout stages and scores the winning goal -costing them 13 million in prize money! Wonder if he would do that infamous Robbie Fowler celebration!!!

Fratton Fred

I went to the Chelsea Newcastle game straight after this happened and there was an article in the programme about Mutu's sacking. He was sacked incidentally and got no compensation.

Chelsea had noticed he was becoming withdrawn from the rest of the team and heard that he had developed a drug problem. it wasn't just a case of a few lines on a night out, it was a serious problem and they tried to help.

They paid for counsellors, offered to give him time off if he spent it in the priory sorting himself out, the works. The guy didn't even try and carried on taking coke. Chelsea tried everything and eventually grassed him to the doping people who collared him outside a nightclub.

They had basically given him every chance they could (They had only just bought him for £17m) and he threw it back at them so they sacked him. He then walks into another job a few months later on maga wages again, what the hell should Chelsea do? it is only fair they try and get some of their money back.

One thing I would say about Mourinho, he was very even handed to his payers, any of the stepped ou of line off the pitch and he was very quick to fine them. After Mutu's sacking Chelsea players have kept themselves pretty clean, compared to some.

OhNoYouDidn't

Chelsea fired him, whether they were right or wrong to do so is a seperate debate. They did not have to sack him, but they chose to anyway. Contract ripped up, no compensation, there is the door.

For them to push for compensation, and get it, is ludicrious. Basically this is them getting a transfer fee for a player they made a decision to teminate their contract.

Why are they going after him and not Juve or Fiorentina?

Between this and the Barca v FIFA case, the balance of power is clearly shifting towards the bigger clubs

Duras

That's just embarassing... How low can you go to come with a decision like that?

Chelsea (Ranieri) wanted to get rid of the guy, they FIRED him. He was using cocaine, so? He is not any more, those who where stupid enough to fire him them are stupid still. He found another job and now he has to pay 13 million pounds? For what? As he got fired in the first place? Would such a thing be in his contract? "If we decide to fire you then you are eligible to pay us millions?" I doubt.

I think Mutu should call into a REAL court these jokers that came up with this decision. He's the one that should get all the money.

Fratton Fred

Duras wrote: »

That's just embarassing... How low can you go to come with a decision like that?

Chelsea (Ranieri) wanted to get rid of the guy, they FIRED him. He was using cocaine, so? He is not any more, those who where stupid enough to fire him them are stupid still. He found another job and now he has to pay 13 million pounds? For what? As he got fired in the first place? Would such a thing be in his contract? "If we decide to fire you then you are eligible to pay us millions?" I doubt.

I think Mutu should call into a REAL court these jokers that came up with this decision. He's the one that should get all the money.

wtf???

He was taking Cocaine, which, if caught, would have meant a ban. Chelsea asked him to stop even offered assistance to help him stop. he continued, was caught and banned from playing football which prevented Chelsea from using the services of an asset they paid £17m for.

He negligently did something that would have left him in breach of his contract, that is what they are going after him for.

grahamo

I'm with the club on this one. Chelsea paid a lot of money (I think £17M) for his services and Mutu totally f***ed them over. What I don't understand is that even though Chelsea sacked him they must have held onto his registration, that way they could have got some of their outlay back. If Mutu signed for his new club on a free he would have earned big bucks from it.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wtf???

He was taking Cocaine, which, if caught, would have meant a ban. Chelsea asked him to stop even offered assistance to help him stop. he continued, was caught and banned from playing football which prevented Chelsea from using the services of an asset they paid £17m for.

He negligently did something that would have left him in breach of his contract, that is what they are going after him for.

But Chelsea reported him to the doping people...

The key flaw in that arguement is Chelsea sacked him. They did not have to, but for right or wrong chose that course of action. Tearing up his contract negates any right they have to a transfer fee / compensation from him.

What you are essentially arguing is that if a player cannot be selected because of his actions he can be financially punished. So if a player injures himself clubs are entitled to compensation? Its illogical.

Fratton Fred

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But Chelsea reported him to the doping people...

The key flaw in that arguement is Chelsea sacked him. They did not have to, but for right or wrong chose that course of action. Tearing up his contract negates any right they have to a transfer fee / compensation from him.

What you are essentially arguing is that if a player cannot be selected because of his actions he can be financially punished. So if a player injures himself clubs are entitled to compensation? Its illogical.

If a player cut off his right leg, on purpose then why not? especially if he then got is back three months later and made a shed load of money.

The guy was a coke head, its illegal, its feeds criminals who kill people. its a scumbag way of life, especially for a player who has more money than he could imagine.

We are not talking about a poor single mother here, forced into a life of drugs, we are talking about a professional footballer, with agents and advisors. Despite having everything, he decided that putting **** up his nose was better than playing football.

Deserves everything he gets.

growler

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But Chelsea reported him to the doping people...

The key flaw in that arguement is Chelsea sacked him. They did not have to, but for right or wrong chose that course of action. Tearing up his contract negates any right they have to a transfer fee / compensation from him.

What you are essentially arguing is that if a player cannot be selected because of his actions he can be financially punished. So if a player injures himself clubs are entitled to compensation? Its illogical.

admittedly I haven't read the terms and conditions of Mutu's contract with chelsea , but its reasonable to assume one of the terms would be to refrain from taking illegal drugs, so they fired him for a breach of contract thats not "tearing it up" its the opposite.

Comparing it to injury is plain daft, if a player gets injured from football, car crash etc. then the club could not and would not fire them, if a player decided to take up rugby in his spare time then i'd be pretty sure the contract would cover that scenario also.

These guys get paid a fortune for a few years its not beyond the pale to expect them to live by a few simple rules, like not taking illegal drugs, while earning their fortune, retire at 33 and spend the rest of your life off your head if you so wish, at least you can afford it.

Chelsea were perfectly within their rights to sack him and perfectly entitled to seek compensation from mutu for being an idiot.

delija_sever029

Poor Mutu,now he wont have any money left for drugs.....:D

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If a player cut off his right leg, on purpose then why not? especially if he then got is back three months later and made a shed load of money.

The guy was a coke head, its illegal, its feeds criminals who kill people. its a scumbag way of life, especially for a player who has more money than he could imagine.

We are not talking about a poor single mother here, forced into a life of drugs, we are talking about a professional footballer, with agents and advisors. Despite having everything, he decided that putting **** up his nose was better than playing football.

Deserves everything he gets.

Regardless of whether Chelsea were right or wrong to sack him, they made that decision. They made the call that protecting the asset was less important than taking a stand and getting a problem of the wage bill.

To then turn around and decide that they want to protect the asset too is having their cake and eating it too.

The fired him, they lose any entitlement on his contract as he is a free agent.

growler wrote: »

Chelsea were perfectly within their rights to sack him and perfectly entitled to seek compensation from mutu for being an idiot.

Why are they entitled to compensation for him being an idiot?

Guy:Incognito

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Why are they entitled to compensation for him being an idiot?

Because him beign an idiot cost them £17m. Thats a lot of money in anyones language.

Bubs101

Mutu was an absolute eejit but he's not responsible for how much Chelsea agreed to pay for him. It wasn't his decision and I doubt it made any difference to him how much was paid. That was Chelsea's decision and as a result we should bear the brunt of the bill, but Mutu should still have to pay something, a much smaller amount but something for principal alone

Guy:Incognito

Bubs101 wrote: »

Mutu was an absolute eejit but he's not responsible for how much Chelsea agreed to pay for him. It wasn't his decision and I doubt it made any difference to him how much was paid. That was Chelsea's decision and as a result we should bear the brunt of the bill, but Mutu should still have to pay something, a much smaller amount but something for principal alone

The transfer fee is irrelevant and is not what the issue is. Market forces set the price at £17m. It would be the same story is the figure was £1.7m

growler

Bubs101 wrote: »

Mutu was an absolute eejit but he's not responsible for how much Chelsea agreed to pay for him. It wasn't his decision and I doubt it made any difference to him how much was paid. That was Chelsea's decision and as a result we should bear the brunt of the bill, but Mutu should still have to pay something, a much smaller amount but something for principal alone[/QUOTE}

sorry bubs, but of course it made a difference to mutu how much chelsea paid for him as he benefited directlly from the transfer fee and, like any club chelsea are entitled to get thier money back from this pisstaker. he descided to do take this route , his responsibility, his problem. I quite liked mutu as a cfc player , but he was in the wrong here, he made some very bad choices and deserves to get punished for the them. Fvck principals, if it was anyone else the crowds would be baying for blood.
me drunk :pac: