Just breaking that City have suspended Toure for failing a drugs test.
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/March/Club-statement-kolo
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/March/Club-statement-kolo
Kolo Toure Suspended for Failed Drugs Test
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
When did he sign for City? Two years ago? I suppose if he's in breach of his contract he'd have to pay his remaining contract out. I guess he's on over 100k a week too
Not too sure how they'll go about it tbh. Will they try to recoup the fee they paid, his 'value' as is stated in their accounts (which is based on what they paid - depriciation) or the value of the remainder of his contract.
IINM, in the Chelsea/Mutu case, Chelsea tried to sue Mutu for the transfer fee they paid (around £17m?) but were awarded around £14m, not that they have or will receive a fraction of that.
Possibly but as Azza's quoted, it appears that the term 'specified substance' refers to drugs which could have a credible non-doping explanation.
He could still end up getting a reasonably large ban though. Let us all hope it's less than the 8 months Ferdinand got though, the reaction from your lot would be spectacular
edit: and if they were performance enhancing drugs, lets hope he kept the receipt
Last edited:
I suspect the ~£200k per week helped too
And I think we're all getting ahead of ourselves. Who knows, maybe it was just some innocent mistake and he'll get a slap on the wrist; a fine and a couple of months suspension. Lets wait until we've heard all the facts before deciding on whether stoning or the electric chair is the appropriate punishment.
Was it Jim White? He's always shouting.
It claims to be a footballer, I'm not so sure though.
Claims 'Sky Sources'. There's nothing official as yet.
Providing a satisfactory explanation for missing the test is not given, any player that misses a test should be treated as if they failed it.
It's a valid point that spamalot makes. If you start handing out lesser punishments for those that miss their tests, players that expect to fail a drugs test would simply 'miss it'.
From what I remember being said at the time of the Ferdinand incident, it's nigh on impossible to 'miss' drugs tests anyway. IIRC, several ex-players said that the testers will escort you from the pitch/training ground and don't leave your side until you've produced a sample.
Last edited:
Is this a serious post?
Different substances will stay in your system for varying periods but there's always going to be a cut off point where the levels of that 'drug' in your system drop below the threshold.
If for example you've taken a substance a month ago that is likely to stay in your system for around a month, a days difference could be the difference between failing the test or not. There's good reasons why the tests are carried out randomly Frank, it's not just for a laugh.
And to be clear, I'm talking generally, not about the Ferdinand incident specifically.
Agree regarding consistency, however without knowing the details of either case it's impossible to know whether either punishment was fair.
How very convenient for City and Toure
Backdating it to when City suspended him is only common sense, I do think that the close season shouldn't count as part of his suspension though.
A player that's missed a test could have tested positive for anything, where as we know exactly what Toure took.
Imo, a player that's missed a test should be punished as if he tested positive for whatever the most serious drug testing offense is and receive the maximum ban. That ban should only be decreased from that depending on how legitimate their reason for missing the test was.
What Toure tested positive for and was charged with (iinm), was considered a relatively minor offense and he should only be punished according to that.
I'm not a drugs expert like you so I don't know the exact effects of what Toure took. However the testers are experts and only charged him with taking a 'specified substance', which have a credible non-doping explanation. He should therefore be punished based on that.
If somebody misses a test, you don't know if or what they've taken and therefore, providing they don't have a good reason, they should be treated as if they've committed the most serious offense. If they weren't then the easy answer would be to 'miss' your test if you thought you may fail the test.
There is an arguement that any failure or failure to take a test should result in an equal fixed punishment but is it just as guilty to test positive for every drug?
If somebody misses a test, you don't know if or what they've taken and therefore, providing they don't have a good reason, they should be treated as if they've committed the most serious offense. If they weren't then the easy answer would be to 'miss' your test if you thought you may fail the test.
There is an arguement that any failure or failure to take a test should result in an equal fixed punishment but is it just as guilty to test positive for every drug?
Last edited:
We've been over this making billions rubbish before. Being born into the ruling family of an oil rich state doesn't make you smart or a great businessman.
In case you don't know, although entry to Europe is only effected from the 2013/14 season, it's based on figures from the 2011/12 to 2012/13 seasons. To be able to participate in the 2013 CL, clubs can lose no more than a total of €45m in those 2 previous seasons.
To put that into perspective, City's last set of accounts showed a €137m loss. It's going to take some creative accounting for City to meet the requirements.
In case you don't know, although entry to Europe is only effected from the 2013/14 season, it's based on figures from the 2011/12 to 2012/13 seasons. To be able to participate in the 2013 CL, clubs can lose no more than a total of €45m in those 2 previous seasons.
To put that into perspective, City's last set of accounts showed a €137m loss. It's going to take some creative accounting for City to meet the requirements.
It's not even as straight forward as selling. What a lot of people don't understand is that buying a player for £30m doesn't equate to a £30m expense on the years profit and loss account and neither does selling a player for £30m equate to a £30m income on the profit and loss account.
Players are assets and are recorded on the balance sheet. When buying a player, the expense that goes onto the profit and loss account is effectively the depreciation of the asset year or year. Take Torres's deal to Chelsea as an example (£50m on a 5 year contract): Chelsea won't post a £50m expense on this years accounts, it will be spread over 5 years at £10m a year (as in 5 years his contract is up and available to leave for free), with the players (assets) value dropping by £10m per year.
When selling a player the number that is recorded on the profit and loss account is the difference between what they're sold for and their book value. Using Torres as an example again; after 1 year Torres's book value is £40m so if Chelsea decided to sell him for £30m, they'd actually record a loss of £10m on the current years accounts. And if he was sold for £50, they'd record a £10m profit.
Signing players for extortionate fees is a double edge sword. Because City paid big money for what were fairly average players - unless their contracts are all but up, meaning their book value is low - they're likely to record significant losses even when selling players.
Players are assets and are recorded on the balance sheet. When buying a player, the expense that goes onto the profit and loss account is effectively the depreciation of the asset year or year. Take Torres's deal to Chelsea as an example (£50m on a 5 year contract): Chelsea won't post a £50m expense on this years accounts, it will be spread over 5 years at £10m a year (as in 5 years his contract is up and available to leave for free), with the players (assets) value dropping by £10m per year.
When selling a player the number that is recorded on the profit and loss account is the difference between what they're sold for and their book value. Using Torres as an example again; after 1 year Torres's book value is £40m so if Chelsea decided to sell him for £30m, they'd actually record a loss of £10m on the current years accounts. And if he was sold for £50, they'd record a £10m profit.
Signing players for extortionate fees is a double edge sword. Because City paid big money for what were fairly average players - unless their contracts are all but up, meaning their book value is low - they're likely to record significant losses even when selling players.
I'm not actually sure. There's nothing stopping ordinary companies doing it but I'm not sure if football clubs can. I suspect not as if they could, they would have done it by now.
Even if they could, it's too late now anyway. As above, it only effects European qualification from the 2013/14 season but qualification for that season is based on your financial results from this coming season and the following season.