Jump to content

Mutu saga continues


Eton Blue at the Chelsea Megastore

Recommended Posts

The other Mutu threads have been archived, so had to start a new one.

 

http://hereisthecity.com/2013/10/18/chelsea-set-for-21m-windfall-report/?

 

 

Chelsea could finally receive money demanded via a court for Adrian Mutu, according to Italian reports.

Unbelievably the Adrian Mutu-Chelsea dispute still continues even a decade on.

Chelsea are fighting for money owed to them, with Europe's highest courts previously backing the club's case.

The dispute stems back to Mutu's exit from Chelsea and subsequent signing for Juventus.

Mutu was dismissed by Chelsea late 2004 after testing positive for cocaine, just a year after Roman Abramovich paid £15.8m for his services.

The Blues were then angered by Mutu signing for Juventus on a free in January 2005, despite being officially banned from sport. He was actually registered to Livorno and loaned later to Juventus as the Turin club had too many non-EU players, with Romania at this stage not part of the union.

Chelsea argued Mutu was still in breach of contract, and took the case to court. It was decreed that Mutu, the architect of his own woes, would have to pay a huge â‚¬17m fine.

He has appealed this unsuccessfully three times, but has always maintained he is unable to repay the money and Chelsea have not seen a penny.

The interest on the fee now stands at â‚¬21m, accruing at €2,500 per day and Chelsea have decided to 'go after' Juventus and Livorno instead.

Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport report this Friday that FIFA's chamber of dispute resolution panel has ordered the two clubs to pay the money to Chelsea.

Both clubs are however planning to appeal the decision, arguing he was not Chelsea's player at the time he was signed.

The 34-year-old currently plays for French side Ajaccio, but says he intends to retire at the end of the season.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



We wont ever see a penny of that i dont think.

It was such a shame he was a screw up. He could have been amazing. He was amazing when he first turned up. Then the drugs and partying took over and he wasted it all way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I remember that we was criticised in some quarters for sacking Mutu rather than helping him rehabilitate.

 

Honestly sometimes we really can't win. 

 

Why Mutu was allowed to appeal on 3 separate occasions is lost on me. 

 

 

Makes you wonder if honest pays doesn't it ! Maybe we were better off covering it up like Man Utd 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Wasn't it internal drug testing, not even the random samples from after games?

So yes, we could quite easily covered it up had we wanted to.

The reason he was given a test was because he was asked a number of times if he had a problem, he denied it each time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites





this has gone too far, he was only 22/23 and and people make mistakes. we didn't have to sack him, we could of rehabilitated him and some of his transfer fee back.

very messy situation in which there will now be no real winners.

The club offered to help him 3 times, and all 3 times he said no. He was on breech of his contract and deserved to be sacked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



It benefitted the club as they no longer had a player on drugs who refused help. He was responsible for his own downfall, he had to face the consequences.

Edited by dkw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's unfair that Mutu pay the transfer fee anyway, he didn't set it nor represent that he was worth it?

 

No idea about the details regarding his ban so can't speak for whether I think Juve/Livorno should be made to pay us money.

 

Either way, would be funny to be getting some free moula off the cheating matchfixers. Maybe they can send us Pirlo/Pogba and we can call it even.

Edited by Jonty
Link to comment
Share on other sites



The issue is not about his drug use or addiction.

 

The issue from the club's perspective is that Mutu terminally breached his contract, and then was picked up by Juventus free of charge amd consequence.

 

From the club's perspective they had lost an extremely valuable asset for nothing and for no reason within their control, while Juventus profited immensely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is not about his drug use or addiction.

 

The issue from the club's perspective is that Mutu terminally breached his contract, and then was picked up by Juventus free of charge amd consequence.

 

From the club's perspective they had lost an extremely valuable asset for nothing and for no reason within their control, while Juventus profited immensely. 

 

The club didn't have to sack him though, its like getting sacked from a job, getting a new job, then your ex employer suing you for a new job. It is a ridiculous situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The club didn't have to sack him though, its like getting sacked from a job, getting a new job, then your ex employer suing you for a new job. It is a ridiculous situation.

 

Yeah they did, I don't think you'd keep many jobs if you test positive for Cocaine.

 

It's a complicated situation. He knew the club valued him at the price and he breached the contract but in the end only Chelsea lost the money. It's not his fault or the clubs the courts decided that he was actually liable for it but that's how it went.

Edited by Stim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club didn't have to sack him though, its like getting sacked from a job, getting a new job, then your ex employer suing you for a new job. It is a ridiculous situation.

The club were well within there rights to sack him, they offered him all kinds of help which he refused. I think you'll find most companies would sack someone under those circumstances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club didn't have to sack him though, its like getting sacked from a job, getting a new job, then your ex employer suing you for a new job. It is a ridiculous situation.

 

it's more like if your job spent £20m on you then they'd be pretty pissed off if you screwed them over and left them with nothing to show for it and they would seek financial renumeration if that happened...especially if you actually benefited financially to a tune of at least equal to what they lost.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In

Well, this is awkward!

Happy Sunny Days GIF by Atlassian

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to show these to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum running. Over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off and whitelisting the website? Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interference with your experience on The Shed End.

If you don't want to view any adverts while logged in and using your account, consider using the Ad-Free Subscription which is renewable every year. To buy a subscription, log in to your account and click the link under the Newbies forum on the home page.

Cheers now!

Sure, let me in!