Adrian Mutu appeal rejected

[prostak]

Can't see this anywhere else...

The Swiss Federal Court has rejected Adrian Mutu's appeal against the €17m fine imposed by CAS following his positive drug test while at Chelsea.

Can anyone explain why Chelsea are due compensation? He broke the terms of his contract, I imagine, but they willingly terminated it following his ban. They could have retained him, helped him through rehab and then recouped transfer money later, but again chose not to. In the words of Fela, which kind of justice is this?

[Y21_Royal]

Chelsea are perfectly entitled to this. They spent £15m on him and then he breaches his contract by testing positive for cocaine and getting a ban. He can no longer play for them and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't want a part of that transfer fee repaid. Mutu is solely to blame for this and it sends out a warning to other players if they decide to cheat.

I think what is an interesting point is how the figure was reached. It seems very large and from memory (can't be bothered to look it up) Chelsea did get a bit of football out of him

[Thaumagurist*]

.

[cmonurz]

Chelsea are perfectly entitled to this. They spent £15m on him and then he breaches his contract by testing positive for cocaine and getting a ban. He can no longer play for them and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't want a part of that transfer fee repaid. Mutu is solely to blame for this and it sends out a warning to other players if they decide to cheat.

I think what is an interesting point is how the figure was reached. It seems very large and from memory (can't be bothered to look it up) Chelsea did get a bit of football out of him

If I understand correctly, the figure is the value of his contract remaining when it was terminated.

It's difficult to feel sympathy for Mutu, but it does seem a little strange that a club can terminate his contract and then sue him for what was the un-spent cost to the club of that contract.

[Thaumagurist*]

.

[Ian Royal]

Yeah Spacey, injured or suspended players routinely have their pay suspended don't they?

Typical Chelsea, anyone else would have supported him through it or sacked him. Chelsea sue for compensation

[Terminal Boardom]

Yeah Spacey, injured or suspended players routinely have their pay suspended don't they?

Typical Chelsea, anyone else would have supported him through it or sacked him. Chelsea sue for compensation

What gets me is that Mutu got busted TWICE. Typical thick as pig shit footballer.

[Row Z Royal]

Yeah Spacey, injured or suspended players routinely have their pay suspended don't they?

Typical Chelsea, anyone else would have supported him through it or sacked him. Chelsea sue for compensation

What gets me is that Mutu got busted TWICE. Typical thick as pig shit footballer.

Exactly. And Chelsea should be able to go to town on it. It sets an excellent precedent for future conduct in my opinion.

[prostak]

There's a lot of sanctimony going on here. I despise cocaine and what it does to people, but Chelsea made their own decision when they sacked him. Rio Ferdinand committed an equivalent act in the eyes of football law, yet was supported by his club - who ended up with one of the best defenders in the league a few years down the line (albeit one who displayed staggering disloyalty when he stalled over signing his next contract). If I'm laid off for breaching my contract, I'm just kicked out. I'm not forced to repay a sum declared by external agencies to be that which I would have earned the company, or even the unamortised costs of training me. The sums may differ in scale, but the principle should not differ at all.

If Mutu has been 'busted' twice (though I'm fairly sure the second time was for a performance-related drug), then doesn't that suggest he's got a problem? Clubs are perfectly happy to cash in on the playboy image at other times, yet are for the most part very quick to drop anyone with problems. Witness the slow, public death of Paul Gascoigne (20 years and still not over) or the depressive spiral of Justin Fashanu for further examples. You can accuse Mutu of self-destruction all you like, but as long as footballers are kept in the mindset of teenagers well into their 30s then things like this will continue.

[Baines]

If you commit a serious breach of your employment contract (such as getting yourself banned for 7 months so that you can't do your job), the employer is entitled to sue the employee for damages representing what he (the employer) has lost. In this case, what they lost was Mutu's resale value (I see that the amount of the damages was close to what Chelsea paid for him.

The difference with most of us would be that we're not traded like very expensive pieces of meat, as footballers are.

[prostak]

Are you aware of this happening in any other field of employment though? Would a haulage firm sue one of their drivers if he were, say, banned for being drunk at the wheel? I'm not attacking here, I'm actually curious to hear of any equivalents. The guy's bankrupt now anyway, I'd be surprised if Chelsea saw all of that money.

[Baines]

That's sort of my point. The ability of football clubs to prevent "their" player from playing for another club by holding onto the registration is something which isn't found in other employer/employee relationships, so there isn't an equivalence.

They may well not get (all) of their money from Mutu, but I guess that it helps to hang a player or two from time to time, to encourage the others.

[papereyes]

Chelsea are perfectly entitled to this. They spent £15m on him and then he breaches his contract by testing positive for cocaine and getting a ban. He can no longer play for them and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't want a part of that transfer fee repaid. Mutu is solely to blame for this and it sends out a warning to other players if they decide to cheat.

I think what is an interesting point is how the figure was reached. It seems very large and from memory (can't be bothered to look it up) Chelsea did get a bit of football out of him

If I understand correctly, the figure is the value of his contract remaining when it was terminated.

It's difficult to feel sympathy for Mutu, but it does seem a little strange that a club can terminate his contract and then sue him for what was the un-spent cost to the club of that contract.

Perhaps the drugs fine meant that the contract could be terminated - after all Mutu was found to be taking banned substances.

If I'm laid off for breaching my contract, I'm just kicked out.

But you're worth a fraction, a fraction of the fraction of Mutu. You're simply not worth it.
They had a certain investment in the player and chose to try to regain some of this value.

They may well not get (all) of their money from Mutu, but I guess that it helps to hang a player or two from time to time, to encourage the others.

I like this reference.