| Greetings and welcome to The Football Net. We love talking balls, do you? You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. Therefore you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, take part in the banter, vote in polls and enjoy fun competitions such as fantasy football and the betting exchange. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join us today on our football forums to talk balls with us! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Mutu loses Chelsea damages appeal | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 3 2009, 08:14 PM (1,022 Views) | |
| IRL | Aug 3 2009, 08:14 PM Post #1 |
![]()
BANNED
|
Adrian Mutu must pay Chelsea £14.65m after losing his appeal against a Fifa ruling for a breach of contract. The striker, who cost the Blues £15m in 2003, was sacked a year later after he tested positive for cocaine and given a seven-month worldwide football ban. Fifa issued the ruling last year but Mutu described it as "inhumane and unjust" and said he would appeal. However, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) has ruled against the 30-year-old, who now plays for Fiorentina. "The Cas panel concluded that the appeal brought by the player was to be dismissed and the measure of damages, as awarded by Fifa's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), was to be confirmed," said a Cas statement. "Adrian Mutu must therefore pay 17,173,990 euros to Chelsea FC." The compensation figure, based on lost earnings, was calculated on the length of time Mutu's contract had left to run, and was the highest ever handed down by Fifa. After being sacked by Chelsea and serving his ban, the Romanian joined Juventus in January 2005, and at the end of the following season he moved to his current side, Fiorentina. When Fifa announced its verdict, Chelsea welcomed it, calling it "a very significant decision for football". The Chelsea statement continued: "Not only did the Dispute Resolution Chamber make us a very significant monetary award, it also recognised the damaging effect incidents involving drugs have on football and the responsibility we all have in this area." The latest ruling is third time that Cas has been involved in the case. "In 2005, Cas confirmed the decision of the Football Association Premier League Appeals Committee finding that, because of a positive doping test, Mutu had committed a breach of the employment contract without just cause," added the Cas statement. "In 2007, Cas set aside a first decision by the DRC denying jurisdiction and referred the matter back to Fifa to determine and impose the appropriate sporting sanction and/or order for compensation arising out of the dispute." Right decision?? |
| |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Aug 3 2009, 08:24 PM Post #2 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
Wrong, should have just made him pay back whatever wages he earned. |
![]()
| |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 3 2009, 08:26 PM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think that is the amount he has to pay, his wages. Good decision, no reward for cheating |
|
|
| northbank | Aug 3 2009, 08:26 PM Post #4 |
|
Goon Squad
|
chelsea have no class, manchester united had drug problems with rio, but they stayed loyal to him, not sacked him the 1st chance they got. mutu could've been one helluva of a player for them |
![]() | |
|
|
| TheReturnOfTheKing | Aug 3 2009, 08:30 PM Post #5 |
|
Definitely NOT a Terrorist
|
pretty sure they sacked him without pay for the years left as he breached his contract spot on northbank, chelsea should have done what united did for rio with his drug issues, that is support them and give them a 2nd chance |
| no | |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Aug 3 2009, 08:37 PM Post #6 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
I've read that his wages came to near £6m, was under the impression what he has to pay is his transfer fee? |
![]()
| |
|
|
| TheReturnOfTheKing | Aug 3 2009, 10:44 PM Post #7 |
|
Definitely NOT a Terrorist
|
yup he has to pay his transfer fee as chelsea sacked him for abusing his contract. thing is legally what chelsea are doing is right and fair as mutu breached his contract and they were entitled to fire him. him getting sued him is legally right as he cost a lot of money and broke his contract so he owes chelsea the money they wasted on him morally it is incorrect |
| no | |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Aug 3 2009, 10:49 PM Post #8 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
But what does the transfer fee have to do with Mutu, Chelsea were paying him x amount for a service. He broke his contract, surely he should just be paying back the wages. ![]() If Chelsea wanted the transfer fee back then they should have just sold him.. |
![]()
| |
|
|
| TheReturnOfTheKing | Aug 3 2009, 10:54 PM Post #9 |
|
Definitely NOT a Terrorist
|
lost of investment/earnings/performances for what chelsea paid chelsea invested in him a certain amount, he agreed a contract, he broke the contract and chelsea had it in their contract they were right to sack him. chelsea sued him saying he should pay back what they paid for him as HE broke the contract clause, not chelsea. i think the decision will be over turned on appeal at the human rights court as this is the first of its kind legally it is correct but morally it isnt think of it this way, you hire someone to look after your cottage, pay him wages, he breaks his contract may vandalising the property, you would sack him and take him to court as he broke the contract terms, so you expect him to pay back what it cost you |
| no | |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Aug 3 2009, 10:59 PM Post #10 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
"think of it this way, you hire someone to look after your cottage, pay him wages, he breaks his contract may vandalising the property, you would sack him and take him to court as he broke the contract terms, so you expect him to pay back what it cost you" But if I headhunted him from another company and had to pay them a sum I doubt I would get that back as that would just be a fee for the company to give him up. It was Chelsea terminated the contract btw, they could have just docked him wages and then sold him when his ban was up, it was their choice to give him away for nothing. |
![]()
| |
|
|
| RetardedDwarf | Aug 4 2009, 11:34 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Hamster Molester
|
1st, Rio always denied having anything to do with drugs. Mutu was warned by CFC the 1st time it showed up at internal club check, but was caught again about 6 weeks later in offical test, given last warning by CFC but caught yet again by internal check about 6 weeks after that, thats when they decided to get rid. TBH honest, cant see Chelsea getting anything out of this, will just be dragged on and on and FIFA's ruling wont have any power in the real world. At worse for Mutu, it will drag on for another couple of years and he will just retire. |
| |
|
|
| Robertomancity | Aug 5 2009, 04:39 PM Post #12 |
|
What day is it?
|
ferdinand didnt get caught though. Mutu knew what he was doing and cost the club alot of money |
|
|
| TheReturnOfTheKing | Aug 5 2009, 05:26 PM Post #13 |
|
Definitely NOT a Terrorist
|
yes he just said he lost his phone and then got caught talking on his phone that very day the fa tried to contact him then they couldnt contact him at home and after the drugs passed through he said he was ready for the test
|
| no | |
|
|
| SuarezWasNotRacist | Aug 6 2009, 01:10 AM Post #14 |
![]()
monty's bitch
|
After making those comments i assume you have some evidence to back them up?
|
Man Utd's 2017/18 club sponsors:
| |
|
|
| Robertomancity | Aug 6 2009, 10:38 AM Post #15 |
|
What day is it?
|
I mean there was no evidence was found with ferdinand LFC. Just seems like a act of stupidity to me, not trying to avoid it. I remember that mix up with negoui at city, because he couldnt speak english he missed a test. Probably would of done us a favour banning him. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Serie A · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












8:00 AM Jul 13