Mutu ordered to pay 9 million to Chelsea!

SpeedFreak · 6 Jun 2008 at 18:57

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/7440416.stm

What do people make of this? IMO, Chelsea should have helped their player through rehabilitation instead of releasing him for free and losing all of their investment. Although Mutu was in the wrong, he was also arguably mentally ill at the time. Chelsea chose to end his contract, not the other way round.

Ripper · 6 Jun 2008 at 18:59

He'll appeal and it won't be anywhere near that at a guess. Chelsea were the ones who chose to release him after all.

FrankJH · 6 Jun 2008 at 19:29

While it was Mutu's fault - that amount of money would be completely wrong

Not because its Chelsea - simply because I cant believe the remainder of his contract was worth anything like that amount (and even that would be harsh to penalise the player for 100% of that worth)

Tute · 6 Jun 2008 at 20:17

Ripper said:
He'll appeal and it won't be anywhere near that at a guess. Chelsea were the ones who chose to release him after all.

Forgive me if i'm missing something - but he tested positive for Cocaine!

If I did, i'd lose my job. It's against the law. Although the fine is huge, he shouldn't have taken it. I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.

Stag · 6 Jun 2008 at 20:41

The fact he lost his job for taking a substance is a joke, if it was performance enhancing then the ban would have made sense. As it was it would have just made his ego bigger and been an arrogant *****.

wedgie · 6 Jun 2008 at 21:52

Does anyone else not quite understand why he has to pay this money?

Yes he did wrong, but it was Chelsea who decided to disgard the player rather than stand by him, it was Chelsea that decided to end his contract and waive any claim to money made from him moving on.

Obviously I have next to zero knowledge on the subject, but it just seems odd when it was Chelsea that ended it, not Mutu.

Oh well, he's still a complete ****ing retard for doing coke while in the middle of his playing career.

Jokester · 6 Jun 2008 at 21:59

Chelsea paid for his services, that as a result of his drugs ban he wouldn't have been able to fulfill. Therefore there was a case for damages.

m@rty · 6 Jun 2008 at 22:08

I wonder if he even has that much money, how much is he on at fiorentina?

FrankJH · 6 Jun 2008 at 22:58

Jokester said:
Chelsea paid for his services, that as a result of his drugs ban he wouldn't have been able to fulfill. Therefore there was a case for damages.

I agree with this completely - I just cant imagine how "damages" equate to nigh on £10m - no way was his contract worth that much

m@rty said:
I wonder if he even has that much money, how much is he on at fiorentina?

HAS to be a lot less than he was on at Chelsea

wedgie · 7 Jun 2008 at 01:38

FrankJH said:
I agree with this completely - I just cant imagine how "damages" equate to nigh on £10m - no way was his contract worth that much

It wouldn't be from his contract though would it? If Chelsea cancelled the contract then he wouldn't have been paid money he shouldn't have.

Surely the damages refer to the £16m they paid to Parma for him??

FrankJH · 7 Jun 2008 at 08:10

wedgie said:
It wouldn't be from his contract though would it? If Chelsea cancelled the contract then he wouldn't have been paid money he shouldn't have.

Surely the damages refer to the £16m they paid to Parma for him??

Sure thats how much he was valued at the instant he was signed - but he played 2 years or something on that contract - and you would never get the full "value" anyway

Also seems to imply(to me) that Mutu benefitted in some way from that £16m, otherwise how can he be accountable for something he didnt actually benefit from (yes he got the wages, but as you rightly said that part was cancelled by Chelsea)

Just trying to think of a reverse situation - if a player while on club business OFF the field was injured badly enough to lose his career, does the above mean he can take the club to court for future loss of earnings? Sounds wrong to me in both directions

wedgie · 7 Jun 2008 at 08:35

I don't fully understand the situation, but the damages do seem to be based on his perceived market value. But then the first point that springs to mind for me, would be that Mutu doesn't control the transfer fees spent on him, so why punish him against it. The ban was for 7 months wasn't it, so it's not like he couldn't have carried on playing for Chelsea after a relatively short period of time, they chose otherwise.

Stag · 7 Jun 2008 at 08:55

If there is such a thing as a fair value of compensation, then I would suggest it would be for the duration of Mutu's ban. Say it was 7 months and he was on 50k a week that comes out around the £1.5m mark.

Beerbaron · 7 Jun 2008 at 08:59

The case has taken far too long. Chelsea shouldnt have sacked him, just put him on the transfer list. Surely Juve should have been made to pay a transfer fee.

wedgie · 7 Jun 2008 at 09:09

Stag said:
If there is such a thing as a fair value of compensation, then I would suggest it would be for the duration of Mutu's ban. Say it was 7 months and he was on 50k a week that comes out around the £1.5m mark.

It's not based on his wages. The damages are for a percentage of the original transfer fee, Chelsea are effectively saying we didn't get the £15-16m player we paid for, we blame Mutu, he should compensate us. Even so, it still doesn't make sense to me, nobody forced Chelsea to terminate his contract, they could have stuck by him. Once they ended things with him, it kind of gives up their right to moan when he trys to get on with his career.

DanH84 · 7 Jun 2008 at 10:22

that'll be much reduced in the civil courts obviously.

Jokester · 7 Jun 2008 at 10:29

wedgie said:
nobody forced Chelsea to terminate his contract, they could have stuck by him.

The key part of the case though is that he was banned for 7 months (I think it was basically best part of a full season the way it worked out if I remember correctly).

Not only did Chelsea lose the value of the player (damaged goods effectively), he wasn't able to play for them and as a result they would have had to result in buying someone else to replace him. Not sure what striker was signed to replace him, but they wouldn't have been cheap either.

DanH84 · 7 Jun 2008 at 10:40

he did not set his own transfer value, he didn't leave the club of his own volition, chelsea were under no obligation to go out to purchase another player or to terminate his contract. any fine he receives should be simply what he is directly accountable for which was 7 month ban wages and bonuses. as it was chelsea chose to terminate his contract and therefore by their own actions lost the commodity.

Jokester · 7 Jun 2008 at 11:04

He agreed to the transfer and signed the contract.

He was accountable for the costs incurred to replace him as he was unable to play for Chelsea for the duration of his ban through a deliberate (illegal act) on his part. It's not as if they can choose not to replace him and just play 10 players. As such he would be accountable for the costs incurred for replacing him as well.

Footballers are higher value employee's for this reason because as a small group of individuals they are able to generate huge incomes for the clubs. It's not as if you can just put an advert up in the Job Centre for a new star striker. If players then do something stupid which stops them from being able to fulfill their part of their contract then they are liable for the all the (substantial) costs that the club incur in replacing them for that period. Mutu cost Chelsea £15million, say he signed a 3 year contract and was banned for one season - that's £5million right there.

DanH84 · 7 Jun 2008 at 11:31

Jokester said:
He agreed to the transfer and signed the contract.

He was accountable for the costs incurred to replace him as he was unable to play for Chelsea for the duration of his ban through a deliberate (illegal act) on his part. It's not as if they can choose not to replace him and just play 10 players. As such he would be accountable for the costs incurred for replacing him as well.

Footballers are higher value employee's for this reason because as a small group of individuals they are able to generate huge incomes for the clubs. It's not as if you can just put an advert up in the Job Centre for a new star striker. If players then do something stupid which stops them from being able to fulfill their part of their contract then they are liable for the all the (substantial) costs that the club incur in replacing them for that period. Mutu cost Chelsea £15million, say he signed a 3 year contract and was banned for one season - that's £5million right there.

he agreed to the contract not the transfer value. the value of the transfer was set by negotiations between chelsea and the selling club mutu played no part in that. what he agreed with chelsea would have been solely his contract. his actual registration was passed between clubs for a fee outside of his control. chelsea had a squad of players and if they had chosen to could have replaced him from within the squad for the duration of the ban and kept him on their books as an asset to be kept or sold as they required.