Mutu ordered to pay Chelsea €17m

flanzer

Ouch....wonder has he earned enough of the last few years to pay for this!?

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/sport/mutu-ordered-to-pay-chelsea-2220109.html

Adrian Mutu has been ordered to pay former club Chelsea over 17million euros after losing his final appeal in a legal battle which has lasted over five years, the Swiss Federal Court announced.
The court confirmed on Monday that they have upheld the decision made by FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Mutu was sacked by the Barclays Premier League club in September 2004 after testing positive for cocaine.
The Romania international received a seven-month ban from football, but Chelsea took a firm stance on the forward and sacked him before then suing him to recover the money they paid to sign him.
Press Association

CantGetNoSleep

Would almost certainly say no, even if he saved every cent he earned, and he doesnt seem like that type

Even on €80,000 a week (he is not i'd say) over 10 years, that would be about €20m net after taxes and agents fees, other expenses

adamski8

he would have pocketed a few million in transfer fees too

kenon

I think I remember reading that his teammates will try help him pay it.

Catenaccio!

Bah, overreacting on the whole cocaine issue imo.

flanzer

I always thought Chelsea reacted a bit harsh anyway without showing any compassion or unpaid leave to sort himself out. They did the same to Bosnich too

While not as serious, Man U, at the time of the Ferdinand ban, could have easily tore up his contract, for failing to turn up for his drugs test

whatawaster

I think this is a terrible decision

baldbear

Chelsea are a disgrace they really want to ruin Mutu.

Mister men

Proper order. Wish more clubs would follow Chelsea's lead on the drug problem in the game.

_blank_

proper order.

the scourge of cocaine must be stamped out.

invinciblePRSTV

Mister men wrote: »

Proper order. Wish more clubs would follow Chelsea's lead on the drug problem in the game.

**** that, clubs need to stamp out on players who may be using performance enhancing drugs, not ruin a players financial future because he was using recreational drugs.

Des wrote: »

proper order.

the scourge of cocaine must be stamped out.

Whatever you say Joe Duffy.

joe123

A footballer who is lucky enough to play the game for a living and earning huge money week in week out, who then goes on to take drugs deserves every fine and ban they get.

Stupid idiot brought it on himself.

_blank_

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Whatever you say Joe Duffy.

Oh right, we should let the coke epidemic continue then, yeah?

Nice one.

Do you take coke? Do you know what it does to people, their families and friends?

Do you know that the money people spend on cocaine goes directly to criminals?

Dealer--> supplier --> importer --> producer

These producers of cocaine are animals, who employ animals. They have people working for them under a reign of terror and treat them as worse than slaves.

But yeah, as long as Fiachra in Anabels can have his Friday and Saturday night sniffle, all's good in the hood.

IvySlayer

Chelsea paid good money for him, he took coke which breached his contract I would imagine. No-one forced him to take it. Nothing wrong with what Chelsea are doing is there?

Keith C

bring back the head shops!

_blank_

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

The coke epidemic? you sound like a tabloid headline wrote circa 2007.

Nope, I sound like a normal, decent person who has seen first hand the actions of a coked-up imbecile physically assaulting all-comers and putting one elderly man in a coma, and fracturing the skull of another young man. I could see the blokes brain the hole in his head was that bad.

Recreational drug my bollix. The way cocaine affects people can in no way be called "recreational". Even at it's mildest it turns people into ignorant, staring assholes.

Weed is recreational. Even Ecstasy could be called recreational.

Coke isn't.

invinciblePRSTV

Des wrote: »

Nope, I sound like a normal, decent person who has seen first hand the actions of a coked-up imbecile physically assaulting all-comers and putting one elderly man in a coma, and fracturing the skull of another young man. I could see the blokes brain the hole in his head was that bad.

Violent idiots are violent idiots regardless, whether they are coked up, drunk, junked up or high on head shop shiite.

Des wrote: »

Recreational drug my bollix. The way cocaine affects people can in no way be called "recreational". Even at it's mildest it turns people into ignorant, staring assholes.

Weed is recreational. Even Ecstasy could be called recreational.

Coke isn't.

Nah coke is recreational, this isn't an opinion of mine it's just how it is, across the world people take coke on a recreational basis and have done for years and will continue to do so.

Fromvert

Des wrote: »

Nope, I sound like a normal, decent person who has seen first hand the actions of a coked-up imbecile physically assaulting all-comers and putting one elderly man in a coma, and fracturing the skull of another young man. I could see the blokes brain the hole in his head was that bad.

Recreational drug my bollix. The way cocaine affects people can in no way be called "recreational". Even at it's mildest it turns people into ignorant, staring assholes.

Weed is recreational. Even Ecstasy could be called recreational.

Coke isn't.

Maybe, just maybe, that imbecile would have done that regardless of him taking Coke.

Gillington

Whilke I think Chelsea are right in doing their bit to help with ridding drugs from the game,17 million is very harsh

stovelid

Petty of Chelsea, imo.

Exclamation Marc

Whilst I agree Mutu was in the wrong, and the cocaine issue is a big one, this seems more punitive then fair.

I remember Ortega received an 11million fine a couple of years back, but I think when he signed for a new club they paid most of it.

I don't really see what this does other than financially cripple the man and it seems as if this is more about making an example of him than a relevant punishment. Chelsea chose to sack him, they could simply have suspended him without pay until his ban was over, so why Chelsea are able to recoup so much is beyond me.

I think it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent in football where clubs are able to recoup money on players who do something to inflict a ban upon themselves. I suppose its fine if its limited to drug offences, but hopefully it'll never extend to other offences.

whatawaster

Whilst Mutu is undoubtedly an idiot and has a problem, a fine of 17m is completely over the top and not befitting the crime.

Chelsea cancelled his contract and that should have been the end of it. As far as I’m concerned they took a financial risk in purchasing the player in the first place (players are investments after all, like shares). They took a moral stance in sacking the player. If they were so concerned about the loss of transfer fee they could just as easily have helped him rehabilitate and resurrect his career (not saying this would have been the right thing to do or would have worked). All they have done is bankrupted a man who is obviously troubled and has a wife and three kids.

andyman

So if I worked in a nightclub, got paid whatever an hour and my contract said I wasn't allowed drink during work. I decided to drink during work, got caught and get sacked. Would I have to pay a ****load of money as well? Absolutely not.

This is petty from Chelsea and the football world has it out for Mutu. He got banned for 9 months for taking a weight-loss drug that was LEGAL when he gave a sample but banned a couple of weeks later.

kenon

andyman wrote: »

So if I worked in a nightclub, got paid whatever an hour and my contract said I wasn't allowed drink during work. I decided to drink during work, got caught and get sacked. Would I have to pay a ****load of money as well? Absolutely not.

I doubt you would have a €22.5m transfer fee to this nightclub.

Columbia

I was about to say this was a poor decision, but it depends what is written into footballers' contracts. The fact that the Swiss Federal Court, the Court of Sports Arbitration, and FIFA themselves have all come to the same conclusion without even lessening the fine suggests that Chelsea's grounds are pretty solid, which to me smacks of a contractual clause which Mutu submitted to.

Very, very harsh, but if he signed the contract then he should have been aware of the contents, and if he was aware of it then he shouldn't have been such an idiot. Footballers these days seem to think of contracts as fusty old bits of paper that are to be treated as a formality, something they can immediately forget about unless their paycheck doesn't arrive some week.

andyman

Cocaine isn't a performence enhancer though. This is what baffles me.

x in the city

andyman wrote: »

Cocaine isn't a performence enhancer though. This is what baffles me.

17million

lol

that is all.

Carcharodon

Des wrote: »

Nope, I sound like a normal, decent person who has seen first hand the actions of a coked-up imbecile physically assaulting all-comers and putting one elderly man in a coma, and fracturing the skull of another young man. I could see the blokes brain the hole in his head was that bad.

Recreational drug my bollix. The way cocaine affects people can in no way be called "recreational". Even at it's mildest it turns people into ignorant, staring assholes.

Weed is recreational. Even Ecstasy could be called recreational.

Coke isn't.

I would love to know your stance on beer, wine and spirits since your a mod on that forum. I personally find people to be a lot more ignorant staring assholes when drunk rather when on coke.

Chelsea really do seem to be going for their pound of flesh, Mutu is an idiot but the punishment does seem to outweigh the crime.

eagle eye

How on earth is he responsible for the transfer fee. Surely Chelsea should have done their homework before signing him. I'm not condoning the behaviour of the player in any way, I'm just startled that he could be sued for the transfer fee.

PHB

It's ****ing ludicrous how professional sport treats non-performance enhancing drug use. Frankly, I think it's utterly unacceptable rules.

This decision is the logical extension of the rules, but frankly, whether Mutu uses cocaine or not should be none of his employers business, and if you want to make a case for stamping out cocaine, what about every other thing that people do, hash, ecstasy. Should employers be able to test for this in all their employees. It's not up to companies to enforce drug bans, its up to the government.

IvySlayer

PHB wrote: »

It's ****ing ludicrous how professional sport treats non-performance enhancing drug use. Frankly, I think it's utterly unacceptable rules.

This decision is the logical extension of the rules, but frankly, whether Mutu uses cocaine or not should be none of his employers business, and if you want to make a case for stamping out cocaine, what about every other thing that people do, hash, ecstasy. Should employers be able to test for this in all their employees. It's not up to companies to enforce drug bans, its up to the government.

PHB, Mutu signed a contract with Chelsea. He breached it by dangerous what is a very dangerous and addictive drug.

Des

Des wrote: »

But yeah, as long as Fiachra in Anabels can have his Friday and Saturday night sniffle, all's good in the hood.

Such a ****ing stereotype. Pat on the back Des.:rolleyes:

Exclamation Marc

andyman wrote: »

Cocaine isn't a performence enhancer though. This is what baffles me.

Technically its not, but it seemed to psych up Diego Maradona to no end at the 94 world cup

Carcharodon

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Technically its not, but it seemed to psych up Diego Maradona to no end at the 94 world cup

Was it not ephedrine he tested positive for.

PHB

IvySlayer wrote: »

PHB, Mutu signed a contract with Chelsea. He breached it by dangerous what is a very dangerous and addictive drug.

Bleh. He breached it because the contract had in it a clause relating to drugs, because the sporting authorities have rules for recreational drug use. My problem is with the legality of the clause in the first place.

The only thing that should be of relevance to his employers is whether his performance suffered. Everything else is frankly, none of their ****ing business. Please can anyone tell me how this is in anyway different from alcohol consumption. If an employer had a clause relating to alcohol being banned and a player breached it then was ordered to pay 17 million there would be uproar. The only difference is that one was made illegal because it was discovered relatively recently and one has been around for centuries. Alcohol has ruined thousands and thousands of lives, yet is always ignored in these debates. Why? Because enough people like doing it, and therefore we ignore the negatives. What one does in their own home is up to them and maybe their government, it's not up to companies.

Guy:Incognito

andyman wrote: »

Cocaine isn't a performence enhancer though. This is what baffles me.

It may well have had a negative effect on his game while at Chelsea.

Therefore Chelsea have been cheated.

TonyD79

I think we need to check whats in Berbaflops smokes!! 30 million escape clause!!

If you sack a player Im sorry you then cant go ask for a transfer fee. Its like if I you donate something to the charity shop and then go sue the next owner when it became of great value. Think the should be able to sue him for a few million but after his drugs nobody was gonna pay 17 million for him

IvySlayer

PHB wrote: »

Bleh. He breached it because the contract had in it a clause relating to drugs, because the sporting authorities have rules for recreational drug use. My problem is with the legality of the clause in the first place.

The only thing that should be of relevance to his employers is whether his performance suffered. Everything else is frankly, none of their ****ing business. Please can anyone tell me how this is in anyway different from alcohol consumption. If an employer had a clause relating to alcohol being banned and a player breached it then was ordered to pay 17 million there would be uproar. The only difference is that one was made illegal because it was discovered relatively recently and one has been around for centuries. Alcohol has ruined thousands and thousands of lives, yet is always ignored in these debates. Why? Because enough people like doing it, and therefore we ignore the negatives. What one does in their own home is up to them and maybe their government, it's not up to companies.

Bleh yourself :P

Wouldn't he have been banned by the FA?

EDIT: What am I saying He WAS banned for 7 months. Chelsea have a right to demand the money back for losses imo.

Exclamation Marc

andyman wrote: »

Cocaine isn't a performence enhancer though. This is what baffles me.

Carcharodon wrote: »

Was it not ephedrine he tested positive for.

It was, but I think Argentina pulled Maradona from the tournament before FIFA did so he was never subsequently tested a second time or for anything else. All FIFA could do was expel him from the WC even though he was already sent home.

Des

Des wrote: »

Oh right, we should let the coke epidemic continue then, yeah?

Nice one.

Do you take coke? Do you know what it does to people, their families and friends?

Do you know that the money people spend on cocaine goes directly to criminals?

Dealer--> supplier --> importer --> producer

These producers of cocaine are animals, who employ animals. They have people working for them under a reign of terror and treat them as worse than slaves.

But yeah, as long as Fiachra in Anabels can have his Friday and Saturday night sniffle, all's good in the hood.

Life's too short.. Enjoy what ya can.

Exclamation Marc

TonyD79 wrote: »

I think we need to check whats in Berbaflops smokes!! 30 million escape clause!!

If you sack a player Im sorry you then cant go ask for a transfer fee. Its like if I you donate something to the charity shop and then go sue the next owner when it became of great value. Think the should be able to sue him for a few million but after his drugs nobody was gonna pay 17 million for him

I completely agree. Its Chelsea's fault for sacking him. They should have kept him and suspended his pay (which I'm sure would be legal in the circumstances), but sacking him and then having a whine after he tries to restart his career is just Chelsea's fault. Stupid decision.

Mr Alan

Deleted User wrote: »

Life's too short.. Enjoy what ya can.

While i don't really agree wit Des' hardline stance, your's is nonsense and nothing but a sound bite, 'life's too short, enjoy what ya can', could also be an excuse for rape, stealing, a multitude of things to be honest.

x in the city

Carcharodon wrote: »

Was it not ephedrine he tested positive for.

yup

diego too **** all drugs in usa 94, and the ones he did take in the 80s did **** all to enhance performance on the pitch, if anything they would hinder it

but anyway.

craggles

The man's life is ruined. He'll never pay all that off.

Exclamation Marc

craggles wrote: »

The man's life is ruined. He'll never pay all that off.

Nah, he'll declare bankruptcy and start earning from scratch again or he'll find someway around it.

He won't have that sort of money on him, but he'll be allowed earn again and take wages, maybe with a % going to Chelsea (unless he can make some deal with them maybe)

If clubs like Portsmouth can declare bankruptcy, forfeit all debts to its creditors and be allowed trade again, then so should Mutu.

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

While i don't really agree wit Des' hardline stance, your's is nonsense and nothing but a sound bite, 'life's too short, enjoy what ya can', could also be an excuse for rape, stealing, a multitude of things to be honest.

Check my post history if you want my view on drugs and my actual arguments.

ntlbell

Mr Alan wrote: »

While i don't really agree wit Des' hardline stance, your's is nonsense and nothing but a sound bite, 'life's too short, enjoy what ya can', could also be an excuse for rape, stealing, a multitude of things to be honest.

line of coke.

Rape.

I see where you're going here.

Mr Alan

Deleted User wrote: »

Check my post history if you want my view on drugs and my actual arguments.

no thanks.

ntlbell wrote: »

line of coke.

Rape.

I see where you're going here.

obviously rape is a far more serious crime, but the point i was trying to make was clear.

shoplifting is a more similar comparrison.

pistolpetes11

FireballPitcher wrote: »

I completely agree. Its Chelsea's fault for sacking him. They should have kept him and suspended his pay (which I'm sure would be legal in the circumstances), but sacking him and then having a whine after he tries to restart his career is just Chelsea's fault. Stupid decision.

Yeah 3 of the most powerful associations in sport have made a stupid decision :rolleyes:

Chelsea have every rite to cover their losses because of the illegal actions of this man .

People saying saying they should of held onto him and let him recover must be off there heads themselves , the last thing you want on your team is a recovering drug addict whom has been taking a drug which drastically weakens the heart.

Anyhow chelsea will never see all the money as he will end up just paying back a portion of his wages (thats even if he is getting any at the moment , since he is banned again, also no professional sports man/woman should need to be taking weight loss drugs !!!)

You can be sure, all the lawyers and barristers will get there's before the clubs gets a sniff !

ntlbell

Mr Alan wrote: »

obviously rape is a far more serious crime, but the point i was trying to make was clear.

shoplifting is a more similar comparrison.

I think his point was very clear.

Life is short, you should try and expirience as much as you can in life.

I think it's obvious that doesn't mean. rape,pedohila,murder etc.

:rolleyes:

gosplan

This is such a massive load of me arse.

If Mutu had been playing like Drogba, there's no way Chelsea would be taking this line.

Chelsea do what's best for Chelsea. That's all.

And the rest of you, moralising about any facet of a game that pays people 150K per week while half the world's population lives on less that $2 a day is totally stupid.