Mutu loses appeal

Seaneh

I've been following this for ages.

This happened on Friday btw.

Taken from http://www.football-italia.net/jul31h.html.

"The Court of Arbitration for Sport has rejected an appeal made by Fiorentina striker Adrian Mutu against an order to pay Chelsea £14.5m in damages.

The Blues sacked the Romania international in 2005 after he tested positive for cocaine.

FIFA instructed Mutu to pay the sum last summer, but he decided to take his case to sport's highest court.

“The Court of Arbitration for Sport has today dismissed the appeal filed by the Romanian football player, Adrian Mutu, against the decision rendered by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on May 7, 2008 in which he was order to pay €17,173,990 in compensation… for breach of contract,” a statement read.

Last year, Mutu said he was disgusted by the decision, which he called 'inhumane'.

He feels his offence does not warrant such a stiff sentence. "






I, personally, think it's a disgrace.

How in the name of fu*k is he ment to pay a fine that size and why the fuc*k are chelsea on their high horse chasing him for it?

Dub13

Its mad alright,its like saying if my job sacks me and I get another job I then have to pay back my former employer.

flahavaj

He breached the terms of his highly lucrative contract, a contract to do the best job in the world, a contract most normal people would give their right eye to have. Maybe he should have thought of this before he shovelled cocaine up his nose, shouldn't he?

pickarooney

I looked around for this thread as well and in the end got distracted before opening one.
The story makes absolutely no sense to me. How can you fire someone and then sue them for loss of earnings? How exactly do Chelsea calculate that they would have earned any money at all out of Mutu? He's pretty enough and rather talented but was never going to be a big shirt-seller. Did they somehow prove that he would have won them the Champions League or what?

Besides all which, what he was convicted of was a (minor) criminal offence and I very much doubt he had a clause in his contract saying 'do not get caught with blow'.
And yet he keeps losing his appeal...

IvySlayer

He signed a contract with Chelsea, he broke it, he must pay, simple enough.

Read the small print!

pablodunlop

That's one hefty coke bill

Dub13

I wounder what would happen if he just said fcuk it and walked away from football.

mrDerek

adrian is only human we all have our weak moments.i think its really unfair to ask him to pay such an amount.he is 30 has maybe 4 or 5 years left if hes lucky.i dont think hes on such a contract that would have him making that much by then.one things for sure its the most expensive line anyone will ever do haha

dreamers75

Chelsea are very stringent in their anti drugs policy, Mutu knew of this before he got some nose candy.


tough tbh

mikemac

If he retired could he walk away from the bill?

He isn't that young, his advisors may suggest it

Time Magazine

Dub13 wrote: »

Its mad alright,its like saying if my job sacks me and I get another job I then have to pay back my former employer.

Did your employer pay your last boss €30m to release you from your contract?

colly10

Thats a stupid amount of money for doing coke and they sacked him, the ruling is a joke imo and is impossible for him to pay. They want to destroy him cause he did a few lines

Seaneh

flahavaj wrote: »

He breached the terms of his highly lucrative contract, a contract to do the best job in the world, a contract most normal people would give their right eye to have. Maybe he should have thought of this before he shovelled cocaine up his nose, shouldn't he?

The only difference between him and atleast 40 other premiership players (including some at chelsea at the time) is he got caught!

flahavaj

Dub13 wrote: »

I wounder what would happen if he just said fcuk it and walked away from football.

He'd have the stigma of being a quitter added to the stigma he already has of taking illegal drugs I suppose.:pac:

eddiehead

Dub13 wrote: »

Its mad alright,its like saying if my job sacks me and I get another job I then have to pay back my former employer.

No its not, unless your previous employer paid €30m for your services and you intentionally put yourself in a position where you risk rendering your services usless for a significant period of time.

Dub13

The Economist wrote: »

Did your employer pay your last boss €30m to release you from your contract?

I see your point but when he got caught for drugs and Chelsea decided to sack him surly the contract was null and void.Both party's washed there hands of each other,now in my non legal mind that should be the end of the contract Chelsea did not have to sack him that was a choice.

Dub13

flahavaj wrote: »

He'd have the stigma of being a quitter added to the stigma he already has of taking illegal drugs I suppose.:pac:

He would also have £14.5m in his back pocket.I could put up with a lot of stigma for £14.5m.

flahavaj

Dub13 wrote: »

I see your point but when he got caught for drugs and Chelsea decided to sack him surly the contract was null and void.Both party's washed there hands of each other,now in my non legal mind that should be the end of the contract Chelsea did not have to sack him that was a choice.

The independent arbitrator obviously thought otherwise.

Maybe any other millionaire footballers thinking of doing something as stupid as taking coke will think twice about doing it now. When you're dealing with the sums of money these guys earn, the penalty has to be extortionate to act as a deterrant; hitting them for a few hundred thousand is pointless.

flahavaj

Dub13 wrote: »

He would also have £14.5m in his back pocket.I could put up with a lot of stigma for £14.5m.

If he has 14.5 million in his back pocket, then whats the problem with paying up and moving on?:pac:

pickarooney

Just reading about the case there. The original fine was 'only' GBP£9.6 million but it was practically doubled on appeal. I can't find anything on the justification of the increase though.

Time Magazine

Dub13 wrote: »

I see your point but when he got caught for drugs and Chelsea decided to sack him surly the contract was null and void.Both party's washed there hands of each other,now in my non legal mind that should be the end of the contract Chelsea did not have to sack him that was a choice.

Nah. Half-way through construction your new house falls down. You sack the builder and you sue him for the money you paid him. (Or paid to his previous employer - point is that you're out of pocket and you claim that back.)

Dub13

flahavaj wrote: »

If he has 14.5 million in his back pocket, then whats the problem with paying up and moving on?:pac:

Principle's,his former club sacked him by choice he should not pay them a penny.

joe123

Ive said it before and Il say it again. Any footballer who is priviliged and lucky enough to play football for a living and to then go out and take drugs is a ****ing idiot and doesnt deserve ****.

pickarooney

The Economist wrote: »

Nah. Half-way through construction your new house falls down. You sack the builder and you sue him for the money you paid him. (Or paid to his previous employer - point is that you're out of pocket and you claim that back.)

When you put it that way, it makes a little more sense.

DSB

Dub13 wrote: »

Principle's,his former club sacked him by choice he should not pay them a penny.

He breached contract, legally Chelsea are 100% sound. And is it really that wise to be getting into an ethical debate about a club who boast Didier Drogba, Ashley Cole, John Terry, Nicolas Anelka and Michael Ballack as some of its respectable employees?

Dub13

The Economist wrote: »

Nah. Half-way through construction your new house falls down. You sack the builder and you sue him for the money you paid him. (Or paid to his previous employer - point is that you're out of pocket and you claim that back.)

I can see that point.

I would think a common ground would be to have a max fine for however long his ban was which I think was 1 year,as he was unable to play for Chelsea while banned.I could understand this but once the ban was up he was free and able to continue his career with Chelsea.

Now maybe Chelsea don't want a drug user on there playing staff,fine then sack him but don't come looking for compensation.

JPA

Dub13 wrote: »

I wounder what would happen if he just said fcuk it and walked away from football.

Why would that change anything? He'd still owe them.

flahavaj

Dub13 wrote: »

Principle's,his former club sacked him by choice he should not pay them a penny.

He broke the terms of his contract, so they sacked him in accordance with the terms of that contract. For taking a hard stance against drug taking and setting a good example, Chelsea are the last ones who deserve to be out of pocket. They are entitled to be compensated for the money they spent bringing him to the club. As the one who took the decision to stick coke up his nose, Mutu quite rightly should be held liable.

pickarooney

flahavaj wrote: »

He broke the terms of his contract, so they sacked him in accordance with the terms of that contract. For taking a hard stance against drug taking and setting a good example, Chelsea are the last ones who deserve to be out of pocket. They are entitled to be compensated for the money they spent bringing him to the club. As the one who took the decision to stick coke up his nose, Mutu quite rightly should be held liable.

But at the same time, the size of the transfer fee was nothing to do with the player. He never asked them to pay 30 million for his services. If he'd gone to Chelsea on a Bosman could they have sued him? Could Chelsea not sue Parma who sold them 'defective goods'?

Dub13

JPA wrote: »

Why would that change anything? He'd still owe them.

What I mean is The Court of Arbitration for Sport rulings legally enforceable in normal courts.If not and he walks away from football then case closed and Chelsea got no cash.

yayamark

I think its great and this sort of thing should happen more often

It sends out the strictest message

DONT DO DRUGS

flahavaj

Dub13 wrote: »

What I mean is The Court of Arbitration for Sport rulings legally enforceable in normal courts.If not and he walks away from football then case closed and Chelsea got no cash.

This has nothing to do with whether he should have been hit for the amount he was anyway.

Neil3030

pickarooney wrote: »

But at the same time, the size of the transfer fee was nothing to do with the player. He never asked them to pay 30 million for his services. If he'd gone to Chelsea on a Bosman could they have sued him? Could Chelsea not sue Parma who sold them 'defective goods'?

That doesn't really matter though. Chelsea will say, in no uncertain terms, "buddy, we paid big money for you, so if you do anything that warrants a sacking, you will owe us big money". That will then be in the contract somewhere.

flahavaj

pickarooney wrote: »

But at the same time, the size of the transfer fee was nothing to do with the player. He never asked them to pay 30 million for his services. If he'd gone to Chelsea on a Bosman could they have sued him? Could Chelsea not sue Parma who sold them 'defective goods'?

He'd still have breached his contract. Earnings etc, money spent on him so far would have to be taken into account. Perhaps it would have been a smaller fine if he was free, I don't know. Whether he "asked" ror the money to be paid for him is ridiculous tbh, the point is it was paid for him. Again, Parma aren't liable, Mutu is: hes the one who was stupid enough to take drugs.

pickarooney

I guess it should act as a deterrent to Cristiano Ronaldo in any case

abelard

pickarooney wrote:

I guess it should act as a deterrent to Cristiano Ronaldo in any case

Real would probably encourage him, leak it to the media, and then try sell CR7 branded cocaine to Spanish kids.

flahavaj

abelard wrote: »

Real would probably encourage him, leak it to the media, and then try sell CR7 branded cocaine to Spanish kids.

Fergie sold them a virus.:pac:

pickarooney

He could fail a cocaine test just by breathing in Madrid.

noodler

What if they'd sacked him for underperforming (as many ppl do in the real world)? Would Chelsea still be entitled to 15m?

Whole thing smacks of opportunism from Chelsea for me.

shayser

noodler wrote: »

What if they'd sacked him for underperforming (as many ppl do in the real world)? Would Chelsea still be entitled to 15m?

Whole thing smacks of opportunism from Chelsea for me.

If I remember correctly, things had gone a bit pear shaped on the pitch for Mutto prior to his positive test. Chelsea realised that he wasn't performing anywhere near what they had hoped having spent so much money on him and wanted rid. The positive test was perfect timing.

Would they have sacked Zola, or Terry? I don't think they would.

The bigger lesson again is, if you damage the corporation we will do you and we will do you good.

DSB

noodler wrote: »

What if they'd sacked him for underperforming (as many ppl do in the real world)? Would Chelsea still be entitled to 15m?

Whole thing smacks of opportunism from Chelsea for me.

Underperforming isn't breach of contract, and I don't think you can sack someone for underperforming unless they're on probation. Don't mean to be overly rude, but its a bit mad to be talking about legal matters like that if you've no idea. The chap was caught taking hard drugs, thats gross misconduct and will get you sacked in most jobs, Chelsea paid serious money for his services, and that contract, and now that hes breached it, they're naturally going to want to be reimbursed for something which happened of no fault of their own.

I mean I'm sure there are other factors and if it'd been John Terry or Lampard I'm sure they'd have been more lenient, but with no precedent, he can't prove that, so Chelsea are well within their rights, and you'd have to question their business if they weren't following something worth as much as this up.

noodler

DSB wrote: »

Underperforming isn't breach of contract, and I don't think you can sack someone for underperforming unless they're on probation. Don't mean to be overly rude, but its a bit mad to be talking about legal matters like that if you've no idea. The chap was caught taking hard drugs, thats gross misconduct and will get you sacked in most jobs, Chelsea paid serious money for his services, and that contract, and now that hes breached it, they're naturally going to want to be reimbursed for something which happened of no fault of their own.

I mean I'm sure there are other factors and if it'd been John Terry or Lampard I'm sure they'd have been more lenient, but with no precedent, he can't prove that, so Chelsea are well within their rights, and you'd have to question their business if they weren't following something worth as much as this up.

With no precident what maes your opinion anymore informed? Why don't City sue Johnson for getting himself so out of shape? DItto Arsenal

noodler

Furthermore, It is a 'crazy' thing to do to hold players accountable for their (inflated in Chelsea's case) market value.

Underperforming is a breach of contract in any other job in the world.

DerekD Goldfish

I think its ridiculous to fine him such a sum he will be luck to earn 14.5m in the rest of his career gross he net would obviously be far less than that he is going to lose to the majority of everything he has ever worked for.
He took drugs something that would get him a slap on the wrist in a criminal court.
Im not condoning his behaviour be he made a mistake and I think he is being made to pay a disproportionate cost.
Chelsea did pay a large fee for him and he did sign a lucrative contract but the fee had nothing to do with him.

DM_7

I don't get it, Chelsea bought Mutu from Parma. The transfer fee was to get Parma to release Mutu from His contract (No?). Any fee paid to Parma shouldn't come into it. Its not like he was taking drugs to improve his performance, if he was then he would be liable for the fee based on performances he had while taking drugs to help his play.

If Mutu did something that caused him to be banned then he should have gone without pay for that period with the time he was unavailable added to his contract. If chelsea sacked him that was a decison they came too themselves.

I don't understand how they can sue Mutu after they sacked him.

ilovelamp2000

flahavaj wrote: »

He breached the terms of his highly lucrative contract, a contract to do the best job in the world, a contract most normal people would give their right eye to have. Maybe he should have thought of this before he shovelled cocaine up his nose, shouldn't he?

He didn't shovel cocaine up his nose.

He dipped his cock in it.

Bubs101

DM-ICE wrote: »

I don't understand how they can sue Mutu after they sacked him.

Because they paid Mutu the remainder of his contract.

As far as I'm concerned it serves Mutu right. He's a proffessional athlete for ****s sake. He knows he's not allowed do coke and he knows if he gets caught he's ****ed and he knows that Chelsea are quite strict based on what happened to Bosnich. So now he's paying the penalty that two courts deemed he should and rightfully so. And I love Mutu, I think he's a top 10 world player. In retrospect, the banning made him take his career far more seriously and benefited him but he can't havge thought he'd have gotten away with it.

TBH though, I'd say the real reason behind the fine is so that other players on massive contracts who want out of a club can't just have a great night with china white, a years paid holiday and then a massive signing on fee waiting for them at their next club. No other option but detterant fine

Seaneh

Bubs101 wrote: »

Because they paid Mutu the remainder of his contract.

No they didnt!

His contract was terminated unconditionally for misconduct, they didn't pay him a penny after they sacked him.

Bubs101

Seaneh wrote: »

No they didnt!

His contract was terminated unconditionally for misconduct, they didn't pay him a penny after they sacked him.

In that case Champo lies

leninbenjamin

I think people are forgetting that footballers aren't just your average employee. Their registrations are considered assets that appear on the balance sheet like property or stock. Thus if a footballer is in breach of contract, not only does it result in the termination of his services to the club, but it also results in the write-down of the balance book through the loss of the registration.

It may seem harsh, but i think it sets a good precedent. Chelsea may not need the money, but imagine if the same thing happened at a small club struggling to keep afloat through financial pressures. In theory, the loss of a player's registration could potentially upset a balance sheet enough to affect their ability to avail of credit.

Fromvert

IMO I don't think it is fair at all to sue Mutu after you have sacked him and the fine is completely over the top.

If Chelsea want to sue him, sue him for the 8 months they lost from him being unable to play and then sell him on if they don't want him, otherwise keep him and play him.

TBH if this was Terry or Lampard at Chelsea or Torres and Gerrard at Liverpool, or Rooney at United this would not happen because the supporters wouldn't let one of their idiols and best players get sacrificed for the club to come out smelling of roses.

Thats my opinion anyway.