Mutu loses appeal

Bob the Seducer

So how much did Chelsea go after Mark Bosnich for?

If memory serves he took them to court for unfair dismissal (and lost) but I don't remember them demanding a hefty fee from him.
The simple fact is Mutu was an idiot for doing drugs but he failed one drugs test in his career, Joey Barton fails at being a member of society repeatedly but he still hasn't been sacked for it. I'd consider Mutu to be less of a long term liability yet Chelsea released him while Newcastle held on to Barton and will still find someone to buy him if and when they chose to sell.

Chelsea could have kept Mutu until the end of his ban and sold him on for a hefty chunk of what they paid for him, they chose to write off that expense at the time. Later, they went after the player, more than likely having being told by their legal team that they couldn't go after the club that signed him on a free transfer.

I can't see them ever getting paid in full, has Mutu even earned that much in his career?

podge018

Terrible decision.

Chelsea sack him. Fair enough. But to then sue him afterwards for money they lost because THEY SACKED HIM is scandalous.

eZe^

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?

IvySlayer wrote: »

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

Read the small print!

eddiehead wrote: »

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.

This is an absolute DISGRACE of a decision. Did Mutu ASK to be transfered for 14.5 million? That was what Chelsea were willing to pay for him, that's an arbitrary transfer fee between two clubs. If anything Mutu should only be made pay the wages that he was given while at the club. What if he had gone for 80 million, or 2 million, he'd have a completely different debt depending on how badly Chelsea wanted to acquire his services. Ridiculous decision...

DerekD Goldfish

Bob the Seducer wrote: »

I can't see them ever getting paid in full, has Mutu even earned that much in his career?

Doubt it certainly not net anyway.
He was on about 2.5m last year with Fiorentina

http://www.football-italia.net/aug2j.html

Meanwhile, Mutu’s Fiorentina teammates have decided on a whip-round to raise funds for his fine

some bloody whip around although as he is the highest paid player at the club cant see them getting anywhere near it.

leninbenjamin

eZe^ wrote: »

Did Mutu ASK to be transfered for 14.5 million?

I'm pretty sure when Roman's Roubles came calling he didn't think twice.

It was also written into his contract that drug abuse was grounds for gross misconduct (Chelsea were much more strict on writing these things into contracts after the Bosnich fiasco). So Mutu knew what the potential penalties were.

Chelsea also came under enormous pressure from outside authorities to be shot of him, fom both FIFA, The world doping authority, the FA and their fans.

the other side of it was Mutu would have gained from the whole thing if it weren't for the fine. He was suddenly a free agent who could command a large signing on fee and wages that were equivalent to what Chelsea paid him.

Chelsea lost a player worth over 10 million, they lost his services for the rest of the season meaning there was a void in the squad, they lost his image rights and their brand was sullied by the whole affair.

the decision to sue Mutu was one of the few things Chelsea have done this decade that i don't disagree with.

eZe^

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I'm pretty sure when Roman's Roubles came calling he didn't think twice.

It was also written into his contract that drug abuse was grounds for gross misconduct (Chelsea were much more strict on writing these things into contracts after the Bosnich fiasco). So Mutu knew what the potential penalties were.

Chelsea also came under enormous pressure from outside authorities to be shot of him, fom both FIFA, The world doping authority, the FA and their fans.

the other side of it was Mutu would have gained from the whole thing if it weren't for the fine. He was suddenly a free agent who could command a large signing on fee and wages that were equivalent to what Chelsea paid him.

Chelsea lost a player worth over 10 million, they lost his services for the rest of the season meaning there was a void in the squad, they lost his image rights and their brand was sullied by the whole affair.

As I said, then make him pay the wages he would have been personally provided with during the stages where he was absent from the squad. Mutu was given none of that 14.5 million, so it's not like he was pocketing that money and Chelsea just cut their loses with him. It's doesn't matter that he was viewed as being worth 14.5 million, because transfer fees are arbitrary in that they are based on much much more than just the players worth. I think that's why is an unbelievably unfair decision.

leninbenjamin

eZe^ wrote: »

As I said, then make him pay the wages he would have been personally provided with during the stages where he was absent from the squad.

in an ideal world, that might be the most amicable solution, but given the state of the real world, it's incredibly naive to believe such an event could occur.

two obvious reasons:

a) Mutu had already fallen out with the clubs hierarchy and made it pretty clear to them he wasn't going to compromise on the issue.

b) It's illegal. The maximum a player can be fined is two weeks wages.

Chelsea had two options. Shoulder him, against the players wishes and the wishes of the hierarchy of the sport. Or be shot of him and try to cut their losses.

Honestly man, if you ran a shop would you be happy to stand in support of an employee who got wasted and trashed some of your inventory?

gosplan

Chelsea won't see a penny of this money.

Decision was taken by The Court of Arbitration for Sport who have no legal power to make him pay up.

Dub 13 is right, if he just retires then Chelsea really can't touch him. IMO decision was made as a deterrent to other players.


Interesting decision though as regards breach of contract, what if you drink and drive and smash your legs up? I hear that most footballers have it written into their contract that they're not allowed cycle a bike - what if you pop down to the shops on your BMX to get some milk and suffer a career ending injury on the way - would Chelsea sue you for the remainder?


As regards people on the high and mighty buzz - I've done plenty of stupid things in my twenties. If I was on 30K plus a week and had a load of free time, I probably would have done a lot more.

eirebhoy

IvySlayer wrote: »

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

Read the small print!

It's an incredibly harsh punishment. End of.

Mutu was taking coke on a daily basis. He was sometimes missing training because of it and had terrible mood swings. He was addicted according to Mourinho.

stovelid

Smacks of a PR exercise (given that it's a drugs offense) or grudge on the part of Chelsea. I doubt they would have been so hard on a number of other players in the same situation.

Technically any club could hammer a player for missing a drugs test, attacking a fan or punching a teammate.