Don't have a clue about employment contract law - but this seems dodgy as hell to me though.

I can't think of many employment tribunals that would look favourably on an employer holding an employee to ransom by forcing a pay cut.

"Oh, you want that secondment to further your career? in that case sign this contract to agree to a pay cut". I am pretty sure that the employee would have strong grounds to take legal action in that circumstance - particularly in the UK where employment law favours the employee and it is usually pretty hard to fire people. 

5 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Don't have a clue about employment contract law - but this seems dodgy as hell to me though.

I can't think of many employment tribunals that would look favourably on an employer holding an employee to ransom by forcing a pay cut.

"Oh, you want that secondment to further your career? in that case sign this contract to agree to a pay cut". I am pretty sure that the employee would have strong grounds to take legal action in that circumstance - particularly in the UK where employment law favours the employee and it is usually pretty hard to fire people. 

I wish Rom luck trying to win that case. Is not like he is a pillar of professionalism.

The reason we are requesting he takes a paycut is because we are agreeing to send him out on loan. 

We said the only way he is leaving is permanently and have stuck to that. Hes burnt all of those bridges. If we are agreeing to not sit him in the reserves until a permanent move is agreed, and let him join Roma, then we cant keep doing the same Merrygoround every summer. 

so its permanently reduce your wage, or if you dont want to, fine, but then its a permanent move only, see ya later, bye, no loan and rinse and repeat the same problems next summer.

Normally I'm not fond of a loan, but if the loan covers the remaining of his contract and we don't have to pay him ( much), I'm all for it. He will turn against Roma in 12 months, I'm surprised Jose want to work with him again

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

I wish Rom luck trying to win that case. Is not like he is a pillar of professionalism.

In so far as his contract is concerned, actually he is. He trains, he makes himself available for selection, and has complied with every footballing request the club has made. However, clubs have very little power if players choose to make a hash of their transfer dealings. He would win any case for unfair termination with ease and we would be liable to pay out the entirety of his contract in full, plus face potential sporting sanctions as it would be breaching club and FIFA obligations to player contracts. Lukaku is impulsive and insecure, possibly even maliciously petty, but he is not stupid.

The only breach of a standard EPL player contract he has possibly committed is clause 3.2.5 which relates to bringing a club into disrepute and media dealings, but that is not considered so severe it would result in termination. We decided at the time to punish him with a fine etc. so we would be unable to justify retrospective action. Any decision to terminate his contract would likely involve a lengthy appeal/arbitration process similar to the Mutu case, which means the financial impact would affect us for years to come.

The standard contracts also allow EPL clubs to propose variations and amendments to contracts at any time, meaning it is not illegal for us to propose a new contract but there are restrictions on how we do so. There is a general principle that contracts are not valid if signed under duress and any implied demand by the club would make it easy for Lukaku to argue he was "forced' to sign his contract; in turn, this could potentially allow him to terminate his contract with just cause under FIFA regulations, allowing him to walk away freely and potentially be entitled to compensation, not to mention any breaches of English employment law that may also be relevant.

I don't think the club have made any demands of Lukaku. At the end of the day, the club own Lukaku's registration and are entitled to expect he is available to play for the club. The club's position is simply that they are happy to pay him 350k/wk if he plays for us, but will not be subsidising his wages if he doesn't. If a prospective club doesn't want to meet his wage demands then it is on him to sign an altered contract that is feasible for the prospective club, but that's a conversation between him and the other club, not Chelsea.

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

In so far as his contract is concerned, actually he is. He trains, he makes himself available for selection, and has complied with every footballing request the club has made. However, clubs have very little power if players choose to make a hash of their transfer dealings. He would win any case for unfair termination with ease and we would be liable to pay out the entirety of his contract in full, plus face potential sporting sanctions as it would be breaching club and FIFA obligations to player contracts. Lukaku is impulsive and insecure, possibly even maliciously petty, but he is not stupid.

The only breach of a standard EPL player contract he has possibly committed is clause 3.2.5 which relates to bringing a club into disrepute and media dealings, but that is not considered so severe it would result in termination. We decided at the time to punish him with a fine etc. so we would be unable to justify retrospective action. Any decision to terminate his contract would likely involve a lengthy appeal/arbitration process similar to the Mutu case, which means the financial impact would affect us for years to come.

The standard contracts also allow EPL clubs to propose variations and amendments to contracts at any time, meaning it is not illegal for us to propose a new contract but there are restrictions on how we do so. There is a general principle that contracts are not valid if signed under duress and any implied demand by the club would make it easy for Lukaku to argue he was "forced' to sign his contract; in turn, this could potentially allow him to terminate his contract with just cause under FIFA regulations, allowing him to walk away freely and potentially be entitled to compensation, not to mention any breaches of English employment law that may also be relevant.

I don't think the club have made any demands of Lukaku. At the end of the day, the club own Lukaku's registration and are entitled to expect he is available to play for the club. The club's position is simply that they are happy to pay him 350k/wk if he plays for us, but will not be subsidising his wages if he doesn't. If a prospective club doesn't want to meet his wage demands then it is on him to sign an altered contract that is feasible for the prospective club, but that's a conversation between him and the other club, not Chelsea.

Cracking post - and far more eloquently put than my post a few above, which was getting at similar points, but without the technical know how to articulate the point! 

As long as he doesn’t wear the shirt ever again i don’t care what happens to him, he’s dead.

hmmm... longing for the day when I don't have to check here again to see if he's f'kd off yet...

11 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

In so far as his contract is concerned, actually he is. He trains, he makes himself available for selection, and has complied with every footballing request the club has made. However, clubs have very little power if players choose to make a hash of their transfer dealings. He would win any case for unfair termination with ease and we would be liable to pay out the entirety of his contract in full, plus face potential sporting sanctions as it would be breaching club and FIFA obligations to player contracts. Lukaku is impulsive and insecure, possibly even maliciously petty, but he is not stupid.

The only breach of a standard EPL player contract he has possibly committed is clause 3.2.5 which relates to bringing a club into disrepute and media dealings, but that is not considered so severe it would result in termination. We decided at the time to punish him with a fine etc. so we would be unable to justify retrospective action. Any decision to terminate his contract would likely involve a lengthy appeal/arbitration process similar to the Mutu case, which means the financial impact would affect us for years to come.

The standard contracts also allow EPL clubs to propose variations and amendments to contracts at any time, meaning it is not illegal for us to propose a new contract but there are restrictions on how we do so. There is a general principle that contracts are not valid if signed under duress and any implied demand by the club would make it easy for Lukaku to argue he was "forced' to sign his contract; in turn, this could potentially allow him to terminate his contract with just cause under FIFA regulations, allowing him to walk away freely and potentially be entitled to compensation, not to mention any breaches of English employment law that may also be relevant.

I don't think the club have made any demands of Lukaku. At the end of the day, the club own Lukaku's registration and are entitled to expect he is available to play for the club. The club's position is simply that they are happy to pay him 350k/wk if he plays for us, but will not be subsidising his wages if he doesn't. If a prospective club doesn't want to meet his wage demands then it is on him to sign an altered contract that is feasible for the prospective club, but that's a conversation between him and the other club, not Chelsea

Hey Syd, thanks for a great informative post mate 

41 minutes ago, Bebe1980 said:

hmmm... longing for the day when I don't have to check here again to see if he's f'kd off yet...

It'll be a relief when he's on the " following our ex's" thread 🤣

https://x.com/fabrizioromano/status/1696234032525136283?s=46&t=vTrr1jO3Iq0fZm1bNnqjyg
 

Here we go. The c*nt is gone, for one season at least!

97,5m a couple of years ago to a 5m loan deal to Roma. 

2 minutes ago, evissy said:

97,5m a couple of years ago to a 5m loan deal to Roma. 

We got absolutely scammed on this one. I see some conspiracy theory that it was a plan between inter and Rom to get inter out of financial, I don’t believe it but you have to wonder.

 

 

More good news. 
 

Interesting detail in Lukaku deal - other than dropping his wages for the year at Roma and further two years of his Chelsea contract, Chelsea have also written a £37million release clause into his new contract variation. Sets the price if he does well at Roma this season #cfc

44 minutes ago, dansubrosa said:

https://x.com/fabrizioromano/status/1696234032525136283?s=46&t=vTrr1jO3Iq0fZm1bNnqjyg
 

Here we go. The c*nt is gone, for one season at least!

Ahem!

On 11/08/2023 at 22:30, WhiteWall said:

I genuinely think Jose gets a rock bottom loan deal sorted for Roma at the end of the window to cover Tammy's absence. I think he is back in the wings watching it all play out.

 

10 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

More good news. 
 

Interesting detail in Lukaku deal - other than dropping his wages for the year at Roma and further two years of his Chelsea contract, Chelsea have also written a £37million release clause into his new contract variation. Sets the price if he does well at Roma this season #cfc

So 40mill euros, which would be what we have left owing on his FFP cost as of next summer.

 

Good job on the club getting Rom to resign on lower wages and a release clause.

You really have to applaud the work Winstanley and Stewart have done this summer. 
 

OUT:
- Kepa (loan)
- Mendy
- Koulibaly
- Azpilicueta
- Ampadu
- Kovacic
- Kante
- Loftus-Cheek
- Hall
- Havertz
- Mount
- Ziyech
- Pulisic
- Aubameyang
- Lukaku (loan)

10 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

You really have to applaud the work Winstanley and Stewart have done this summer. 
 

OUT:
- Kepa (loan)
- Mendy
- Koulibaly
- Azpilicueta
- Ampadu
- Kovacic
- Kante
- Loftus-Cheek
- Hall
- Havertz
- Mount
- Ziyech
- Pulisic
- Aubameyang
- Lukaku (loan)

There is of course one big question mark against the work. Especially considering that Lewis had committed to a long-term contract, and Ian still has not.

Send him to Lazio next season !

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

You really have to applaud the work Winstanley and Stewart have done this summer. 
 

OUT:
- Kepa (loan)
- Mendy
- Koulibaly
- Azpilicueta
- Ampadu
- Kovacic
- Kante
- Loftus-Cheek
- Hall
- Havertz
- Mount
- Ziyech
- Pulisic
- Aubameyang
- Lukaku (loan)

Just CHO, Sarr and Cucurella to go then.

3 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

You really have to applaud the work Winstanley and Stewart have done this summer. 
 

OUT:
- Kepa (loan)
- Mendy
- Koulibaly
- Azpilicueta
- Ampadu
- Kovacic
- Kante
- Loftus-Cheek
- Hall
- Havertz
- Mount
- Ziyech
- Pulisic
- Aubameyang
- Lukaku (loan)

It might have been nice to keep Mount and Pulisic imho. But I do not feel that we NEED either of them.

 

 

17 minutes ago, TheCeleryKing said:

It might have been nice to keep Mount and Pulisic imho. But I do not feel that we NEED either of them.

 

 

trying to limit our high earners as much as possible, life goes on. But it wouldn't surprise me though if Pulisic has an injury free season over in Italy.

4 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

You really have to applaud the work Winstanley and Stewart have done this summer. 
 

OUT:
- Kepa (loan)
- Mendy
- Koulibaly
- Azpilicueta
- Ampadu
- Kovacic
- Kante
- Loftus-Cheek
- Hall
- Havertz
- Mount
- Ziyech
- Pulisic
- Aubameyang
- Lukaku (loan)

And how many of us thought this was possible a couple of months ago? We can still get CHO out of the door yet, Sarr could potentially be a big task considering his silly wages but hopefully we get a loan deal wrapped up for him. 

1 hour ago, TheCeleryKing said:

It might have been nice to keep Mount and Pulisic imho. But I do not feel that we NEED either of them.

 

 

Pulisic had to go in my opinion. Having never shown anything but glimpses of promise, he had never done anything to convince the club, the coaches, the fans, or the league, that he belonged. Worse, he had convinced himself that his future was a way from Chelsea. Pulisic's was a high priority departure.

Edited August 29, 20232 yr by OhForAGreavsie

6 hours ago, evissy said:

97,5m a couple of years ago to a 5m loan deal to Roma. 

We have no one to blame but ourselves. My own guess, a reasoned one I think, but a guess all the same, is that Roman was the driving force behind this deal. Wherever the blame lies, the deal was done and we are stuck with its consequences until it is over. In the meantime, all we can salvage is a determination to learn the lessons.