Mutu ordered to pay Chelsea €17m

pistolpetes11

From Wikipedia :

Breach of contract saga
Chelsea started to seek compensation from Mutu in early 2005. The Football Association Premier League Appeals Committee decided that the player had committed a breach of his contract without just cause which made Chelsea eligible to claim the compensation. Mutu started his first appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) but the case was dismissed.
On 11 May 2006, Chelsea FC applied to FIFA for an award of compensation against Mutu. In particular, the club requested that the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) should award an amount of compensation in favour of the club following the established breach of the Employment Contract committed by the Player without just cause.
But on 26 October 2006, the DRC decided that it did not have jurisdiction to make a decision in the dispute between the Club and the Player and that the claim by the Club was therefore not admissible.
On 22 December 2006, Chelsea FC lodged a new appeal before the CAS seeking the annulment of the DRC’s decision. On 21 May 2007, a CAS panel upheld the Club’s appeal, set aside the DRC’s decision, and referred the matter back to the DRC, “which does have jurisdiction to determine and impose the appropriate sporting sanction and/or order for compensation, if any, arising out of the dispute” between the Club and the Player,
"
On 6 August 2007, Chelsea FC, on the basis of the Second CAS Award, filed with the DRC a “Re-amended application for an award of compensation”, seeking damages, to be determined on the basis of various factors, “including the wasted costs of acquiring the Player (£ 13,814,000), the cost of replacing the Player (£22,661,641), the unearned portion of signing bonus (£ 44,000) and other benefits received by the Player from the Club (£ 3,128,566.03) as well as from his new club, .Juventus (unknown), the substantial legal costs that the Club has been forced to incur (£ 391,049.03) and the unquantifiable but undeniable cost in playing terms and in terms of the Club’s commercial brand values”, but “at least equivalent to the replacement cost of £ 22,661,641”.
On 14 September 2007, Mutu submitted to the DRC a brief stating the “Position of Player Mutu regarding Chelsea FC’s petition for an award of compensation”, requesting its rejection, and asking FIFA to open an investigation against the Club for having used and/or dealt with unlicensed agents.

But Mutu failed to suspend the arbitration and his claim for unlicensed agent was found no such violation emerged.
On 7 May 2008, FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered Mutu to pay €17,173,990 in compensation to his former club, Chelsea FC, for breach of contract. It included € 16,500,000 for unamortised portion of the transfer fee paid to Parma, €307,340 for unamortised portion of the sign-on fee (received by Mutu), and €366,650 for unamortised portion of the fee to the Agent, but already not to take into account for the determination of the damages the amounts already paid by the Club to the Player (being the consideration for the services rendered) or the remaining value of the Employment Contract (valued for €10,858,500). Mutu have to pay within 30 days after informed the decision in August 2008.
Mutu lodged an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for the second time, On 31 July 2009, the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed an appeal filed by Mutu regarding his fine, Mutu is ordered to pay to Chelsea FC the amount, plus interest of 5% p.a. starting on 12 September 2008 until the effective date of payment, and the matter will be submitted to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its. In addition, Mutu had to pay the costs of the arbitration of both parties, and have to pay CHF 50,000 to Chelsea FC contribution towards the legal and other costs incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

The fine was the highest ever levied by FIFA.
Mutu may be banned from football, forcing him to retire if he does not pay the compensation,although some lawyers have disputed this.

Mutu started his third appeal, this time to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland in October 2009, but on 14 June 2010 this appeal was also dismissed with Mutu again being ordered to pay Chelsea €17m in damages. It was reported that Mutu will appeal to the European Court of Justice.

Exclamation Marc

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

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 !

But I think Chelsea's main grievance was that they bought a player, and he left them and played for another team and they were left short changed. My point is that they should expel him from the club, suspend his wages, and then when he's allowed play again, sell him at cut price, at least you'll still recoup something.

Chelsea seemed to act as if his carrer was over. And in fairness, 3 of the most powerful associations in sport have made many a stupid decision, so whether you agree this was stupid or not, they're by far not flawless in how they've acted in the past.

UnitedIrishman

Suppose, it covers the amount spunked on Jon Obi Sideways.

pistolpetes11

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Suppose, it covers the amount spunked on Jon Obi Sideways.

Nope we still have him , and he is getting better every season

the_monkey

A ****ing DISGRACE , I'm ashamed to be a Chelsea fan over this .

DISGRACEFULL!!!!

A FCUKING DISGRACE !!! SHAME ON YOU CHELSEA!!!

aidan24326

edit

leninbenjamin

He was in breach of contract, leaving Chelsea with little option but to tear it up (because of external pressures and past precedent). As a result Chelsea had to write down their assets because of the loss of his registration. People can say this is harsh or whatever but most employees don't have their registration traded on the open market. I don't really feel that much sympathy for him tbh.

loveissucide

Whilst I agree with the anti-drugs sentiment behind making an example of Mutu, I don't think bankrupting him will have much impact in the War On Drugs.

Exclamation Marc

leninbenjamin wrote: »

He was in breach of contract, leaving Chelsea with little option but to tear it up (because of external pressures and past precedent). As a result Chelsea had to write down their assets because of the loss of his registration. People can say this is harsh or whatever but most employees don't have their registration traded on the open market. I don't really feel that much sympathy for him tbh.

But why not wait until they could sell him off and mitigate their loss?

m@cc@

eagle eye wrote: »

Surely Chelsea should have done their homework before signing him.

What kind of homework would that be? Asking him if he does cocaine? Ask the club if he does cocaine? Have people follow him for 6 months to see his habits?

WalterMitty

Can he not claim drink spiked or something. Loads of premierleague footballer use it as its out of your system quick and doesnt have as negative effect on fitness as alcohol.

cournioni

Ridiculous decision.

mirwillbeback

I wonder are Villa going to sue Heskey, as it's clear he's been taking tranquilizers since he signed.

pistolpetes11

the_monkey wrote: »

A ****ing DISGRACE , I'm ashamed to be a Chelsea fan over this .

DISGRACEFULL!!!!

A FCUKING DISGRACE !!! SHAME ON YOU CHELSEA!!!

You shouldnt post when you have been drinking

At least over on the Chelsea forum were used to your incessant ramblings !

pistolpetes11

loveissucide wrote: »

Whilst I agree with the anti-drugs sentiment behind making an example of Mutu, I don't think bankrupting him will have much impact in the War On Drugs.

If the club were to even get 10% of the amount of the fine I would be completely shocked , as I mentioned earlier , he will only give an affordable portion of his wages ( hopefully he has to give more ).

This will result in him having to live a normal lifestyle not the superstar one he has become so used to , how my heart bleeds for him .

GavRedKing

I dont get all the Chelsea backlash, it was FIFA who originally ordered Mutu to payback Chelsea, after Chelsea deservedly sacked him for being a drug user.

Then the case went down the legal road of Mutu looking for an over ruling and at that stage iirc the courts decided he should pay more then what FIFA ordered him to pay, he has failed another drugs test to recently and after his latest challenge he lost he now has to pay nearly 18 million euro.

I think the fine is a joke but he deserves to have to pay something, no place in any sport for drugs of any nature IMO.

mudokon

FireballPitcher wrote: »

But I think Chelsea's main grievance was that they bought a player, and he left them and played for another team and they were left short changed. My point is that they should expel him from the club, suspend his wages, and then when he's allowed play again, sell him at cut price, at least you'll still recoup something.

Chelsea seemed to act as if his carrer was over. And in fairness, 3 of the most powerful associations in sport have made many a stupid decision, so whether you agree this was stupid or not, they're by far not flawless in how they've acted in the past.

What do you mean by expel him from the club? sounds like firing him to me or do you mean just never allow him to play for Chelsea again?

I'm guessing Chelsea would have only been able to suspend his wages until the ban was served. Then they would have had to have kept paying him until he left or his contract ran out.

Exclamation Marc

mudokon wrote: »

What do you mean by expel him from the club? sounds like firing him to me or do you mean just never allow him to play for Chelsea again?

I'm guessing Chelsea would have only been able to suspend his wages until the ban was served. Then they would have had to have kept paying him until he left or his contract ran out.

What I mean is keep him on the Chelsea books but don't pay him whilst the ban is in effect (which would surely be legal considering he can't perform what he's paid to do) and sell him at a cut cost at the end of the ban.

If they can't sell him at the end of the ban (even for a reduced fee) then sack him, and at least then Chelsea have tried to recoup some of their money.

Chelsea only went after Mutu months after he had signed for Juventus, they didn't bring him to court whilst he was banned (which if the breach of contract was their mean grievance, they would have gone after him more or less immediately after they fired him). The way they went about it, starting proceedings months after his move to Juventus seems more of a "he's playing for someone else, and we got no compensation for it" reaction, when they would have received something if they had tried to sell him themselves.

mudokon

FireballPitcher wrote: »

What I mean is keep him on the Chelsea books but don't pay him whilst the ban is in effect (which would surely be legal considering he can't perform what he's paid to do) and sell him at a cut cost at the end of the ban.

If they can't sell him at the end of the ban (even for a reduced fee) then sack him, and at least then Chelsea have tried to recoup some of their money.

Chelsea only went after Mutu months after he had signed for Juventus, they didn't bring him to court whilst he was banned (which if the breach of contract was their mean grievance, they would have gone after him more or less immediately after they fired him). The way they went about it, starting proceedings months after his move to Juventus seems more of a "he's playing for someone else, and we got no compensation for it" reaction, when they would have received something if they had tried to sell him themselves.

If Chelsea had decided to keep hold of Mutu until after the suspension & had not paid him for that period then I doubt they could legally have sacked him if they couldnt find a buyer. That would have resulted in Mutu facing two seperate penalties for the one incidence. Chelsea would then have to honour the rest of his contract unless there was a further breach.

Chelsea were not given the all clear to pursue Mutu for compensation by the Premier League until the 20th April 2005 & Mutu's ban ended in May that year. Link.

So in light of that the period in question was probably based around Chelsea choosing a course of action & then presenting this case to the PL & awaiting the verdict, not as a result of any tardiness in Chelsea wanting to file a claim against Mutu.

bohsman

Im sure he's been able to get all his belongings into his familys name/offshore bank accounts over the course of 3 appeals.