mutu ordered to pay chelsea £13.68m!!

[mattie]

Chelsea shouldn't incur a loss because an employee breached his contract.

Plenty of employers have tough drug terms in their contracts of employment nowadays - and they're not employing professional athletes. Plus, those athletes will themselves get suspended if the FA catches them on one of their routine testing visits (Rio comes to mind).

You might argue it was harsh but it was all about making a point and Mourinho laying down the law - and they were obviously fully within their rights.

Again, why should Mutu be responsible for a fee he had no influence upon and received no benefit from? And which (if I am correct in saying this) his contract - which he stands charged of breaching, assuming that there are such clauses within it - is in no way related to?

eta: Christ. Apologies for that last sentence. Woah. Even I don't understand it.

 

[London_Calling]

 

[mattie]

It's friday ffs.

Perhaps a beer would fix it.

 

[agricola]

Again, why should Mutu be responsible for a fee he had no influence upon and received no benefit from? And which (if I am correct in saying this) his contract - which he stands charged of breaching, assuming that there are such clauses within it - is in no way related to?

eta: Christ. Apologies for that last sentence. Woah. Even I don't understand it.

Good point.

If Mutu had been recieved renumeration via his contact for the £13-odd million, I could see the sense in this... but he wasnt, he had his contract torn up by Chelsea after the drug test.

Most importantly, the clubs might not like where this precedent appears to lead - after all, if players are financially responsible for their value (as expressed in potential transfer fees) going down as the result of their actions, then they surely (from a legal standpoint) have a good case that they should have a financial interest in their value when it goes up as the result of their actions.

 

[1927]

Good point.

If Mutu had been recieved renumeration via his contact for the £13-odd million, I could see the sense in this... but he wasnt, he had his contract torn up by Chelsea after the drug test.

Most importantly, the clubs might not like where this precedent appears to lead - after all, if players are financially responsible for their value (as expressed in potential transfer fees) going down as the result of their actions, then they surely (from a legal standpoint) have a good case that they should have a financial interest in their value when it goes up as the result of their actions.

Thats already the case tho isn't it. Players get a percentage of the transfer fee.

 

[London_Calling]

I'm not sure if I understand the point, however as we know, Mutu breached his contract, Chelsea weren't only entitled to do what they wanted with the contract but, if they decided to end it, they were entitled to compensation from Mutu.

That's a standard rule in relation to people or companies breaching any kind of contract; you have to pay compensation because the other party has relied on the contract in good faith and will suffer loss as a result of your actions. There always has to be a sanction otherwise the concept of a contract becomes meaningless.

As it was Mutu stood to benefit from his breach because he could offer his services elsewhere free of a multi-million fee, and therefore receive hugely inflated wages.

In any jurisdiction, contract law is not going to allow that. It might be that this case treads new ground (and may even be contrived for all I know of contract law in the past 15 years) but the principle of the party breaching not benefitting from the breach is sacrosanct.

 

[1927]

I'm not sure if I understand the point, however as we know, Mutu breached his contract, Chelsea weren't only entitled to do what they wanted with the contract but, if they decided to end it, they were entitled to compensation from Mutu.

That's a standard rule in relation to people or companies breaching any kind of contract; you have to pay compensation because the other party has relied on the contract in good faith and will suffer loss as a result of your actions. There always has to be a sanction otherwise the concept of a contract becomes meaningless.

As it was Mutu stood to benefit from his breach because he could offer his services elsewhere free of a multi-million fee, and therefore receive hugely inflated wages.

In any jurisdiction, contract law is not going to allow that. It might be that this case treads new ground (and may even be contrived for all I know of contract law in the past 15 years) but the principle of the party breaching not benefitting from the breach is sacrosanct.

Its also more than likley that the contract with Mutu included express terms about what would happen if he was tested positive and I would think there was a term in there somewhere, which is included in ALL employment contrcats, that the employee should not do anything to the dtriment to the employer. taking drugs as a professional footballer was always going to affect Chelsea adversely as there was no way they could be seen to condone his behaviour by continuing to employee him. If this case makes the porr darling prima donnas in the EPL think twice about the re behaviour then good. i can see it now being followed for claims in the future. It would have given Newcastle a get out of gaol free card in the case of Joey barton. They could have sacked him and then claimed their money back from Barton.

 

[mattie]

I'm not sure if I understand the point, however as we know, Mutu breached his contract, Chelsea weren't only entitled to do what they wanted with the contract but, if they decided to end it, they were entitled to compensation from Mutu.

That's a standard rule in relation to people or companies breaching any kind of contract; you have to pay compensation because the other party has relied on the contract in good faith and will suffer loss as a result of your actions. There always has to be a sanction otherwise the concept of a contract becomes meaningless.

As it was Mutu stood to benefit from his breach because he could offer his services elsewhere free of a multi-million fee, and therefore receive hugely inflated wages.

In any jurisdiction, contract law is not going to allow that. It might be that this case treads new ground (and may even be contrived for all I know of contract law in the past 15 years) but the principle of the party breaching not benefitting from the breach is sacrosanct.

I've tried to find an equivalent outside of sports, but I'm struggling - in general, you don't have to register employees or pay to transfer their employment from other agencies.

The transfer fee is for the player's registration, not for the 'contract' to play football - that's the contract made independently of the selling club, with the player only. That's the contract he breached. So he forfeits wages, which were the reciprocal part of the contract. He wasn't party to the transfer agreement - 1927's point is a good one, but from what I gather that's only if sold against their wishes and is written into players' contracts - so I can't see how he can be bound by its terms.

I would have thought Chelsea should have been able to claim compensation from any team Mutu subsequently joined, but as this involves multiple nations and thus FAs i could see why this would be difficult.

 

[1927]

I think its wrong that Chelsea sack him and yet another club can pick him up for fuck all. FIFA should make a ruling on this, so that if Chelsea decide to get shot of him, then no club can pick up his registration until Chelsea have been recompensed. This will obv cause problems with restraint of trade, but if they are serious about kicking out drug users in the sport then its the obvious way to go. Persoanlly I think football as a sport is being naive if they think they can pay stars obscene amounts of money and not expect them to partake of the finer things in life. Young footballers are the smae as young football fans and coke is the drug of choice of a great many on the terraces and when I was going away regularly it was a must ahve on any long trip, Mutu is certainly not the only footballer to have a coke addiction and I am amazed that there haven't been a lot more. maybe its because other teams hush it up so as not to have to write off a valuable player. The only reason Barton hasn't been sacked by that crap outfit on Tyneside is that they cannot afford to lose any value it may still have.

 

[mattie]

I think its wrong that Chelsea sack him and yet another club can pick him up for fuck all. FIFA should make a ruling on this, so that if Chelsea decide to get shot of him, then no club can pick up his registration until Chelsea have been recompensed. This will obv cause problems with restraint of trade, but if they are serious about kicking out drug users in the sport then its the obvious way to go. Persoanlly I think football as a sport is being naive if they think they can pay stars obscene amounts of money and not expect them to partake of the finer things in life. Young footballers are the smae as young football fans and coke is the drug of choice of a great many on the terraces and when I was going away regularly it was a must ahve on any long trip, Mutu is certainly not the only footballer to have a coke addiction and I am amazed that there haven't been a lot more. maybe its because other teams hush it up so as not to have to write off a valuable player. The only reason Barton hasn't been sacked by that crap outfit on Tyneside is that they cannot afford to lose any value it may still have.

I agree entirely, if he wanted to play elsewhere Chelsea should have been recompensed like they would for any other player - they could boot him out for gross misconduct but should get something for his registration if he goes to another club.

As Mutu was suspended for 7 months I'd be surprised if a team came in for him in that period, so he'd be in limbo.

This seems reasonable to me, he snorted the coke so he can't draw a wage (at least in football) whilst suspended because of it.

 

[London_Calling]

I think its wrong that Chelsea sack him and yet another club can pick him up for fuck all. FIFA should make a ruling on this, so that if Chelsea decide to get shot of him, then no club can pick up his registration until Chelsea have been recompensed. This will obv cause problems with restraint of trade

. . . is the problem that first came to my mind.

 

[iROBOT]

Pretty fucked up state of affairs that a club will sack a player for coke and then go after him for millions whilst fuckers like Barton attack team mates and get a slap on the wrist and Gerard gets left off by a jury that was obviously hand picked from the Kop and faces nothing from the club.

What a message to send to kids, violence is perfectly fine but do something that is only a danger to yourself and you're fucked, well unless it's alcohol you're fucking yourself up with.

Agree.

The world has got it's fucking priorities wrong.

 

[Sunray]

I think its wrong that Chelsea sack him and yet another club can pick him up for fuck all. FIFA should make a ruling on this, so that if Chelsea decide to get shot of him, then no club can pick up his registration until Chelsea have been recompensed.

This is clearly defined in EU law by the Bosman ruling.

 

[1927]

This is clearly defined in EU law by the Bosman ruling.

What? The Bosman ruling talks about employing drug addicts? new one on me!

 

[purplex]

This is clearly defined in EU law by the Bosman ruling.

The Bosman ruling was all about freedom of movement at the end of a contract without requiring a transfer fee.

 

[marty21]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jun/14/adrian-mutu-chelsea

lost his appeal, he still has to divvy up 14m

 

[editor]

International players' union FIFPro said last month it would back Mutu's appeal, alleging Mutu was discriminated against on the grounds of his nationality.

"When the same offence would have been committed by a player in possession of an English passport, then this player wouldn't have had to pay any damages at this dismissal, since the FA Premier League rules do not provide this," said a FIFPro statement

"English passport"

 

[caballero]

Feel sorry for Mutu to be honest! He had an addiction problem and has been royally screwed by Chelsea...

 

[Pickman's model]

Feel sorry for Mutu to be honest! He had an addiction problem and has been royally screwed by Chelsea...

& FIFA

 

[kabbes]

Even as a Chelsea fan, I have to say that this seems a bit off. €17m is a ridiculous amount to expect one person to cough up.

I found this bit of the report a bit... something... though. Not sure what the "something" is. Tragic? Possibly. Telling? Ironic? Dunno. Answers on a postcard.

Mutu is currently serving a nine-month ban after testing positive for sibutramine in January and will be allowed to return to football on 29 October 29.

I mean the bit about the sibutramine, by the way, not the oh-so-typical Guardian typo of "29 October 29".

 

[Silva]

This will hardly be an example for anyone. Chelsea ditched him because they could find and afford a replacement in a heartbeat. Any team on a tight budget would just send him to the sick bay and rehab. Plus, he was hardly a key player - Terry could pull a Tony Montana and Chelsea would do their best to cover everything up (like him banging Bridge's GF, and this was a much less serious situation).

It is a tricky situation. On one hand, Chelsea lost money because of a player's own stupidity. On the other, they've sacked him, and I'm pretty sure they had internal policies that could have sent him to rehab at his own expense and dock his pay until he was cleared to play again.

 

[The Master]

come on, the drug users are getting hit where it counts
their wallets.