Been contributing about as much to the team, anyway, as he would have if he'd been playing.

39 minutes ago, petre ispirescu said:

Is there any way Boehly finds another loophole and swaps Garnacho for Mudryk? Can even negociate with the FA for a longer ban, like 10 to 15 years with no appeal.

Would a blood transfusion work?

Appealed to CAS apparently - he’s already served 1.5ish years of it. Hopefully he gets the it overturned and is allowed to play next season. Then we can sell him.

We are all well aware Mudryk is the perfect Iraolo winger aren’t we? If that’s the path we’re going down with management.

I for one am willing to forgive the god fearing young man that was unfortunately spiked by the KGB whilst away on International duty.

Instantly slots in as our 2nd best winger behind Estevao next season.

What's 3 sh*t wingers when you can have 4!

Well it's surely official now, he's the worst transfer in our history. sh*t when he played, to the point where he was relegated to Conference League games, now officially banned for 4 years.

Should have just let Arsenal sign him.

At least now we can sack the f**kwit and sue him.

Justice for Mudryk

3 hours ago, The Boehly Babes said:

We are all well aware Mudryk is the perfect Iraolo winger aren’t we? If that’s the path we’re going down with management.

I for one am willing to forgive the god fearing young man that was unfortunately spiked by the KGB whilst away on International duty.

Instantly slots in as our 2nd best winger behind Estevao next season.

Hopefully the KGB can slip something into Garnacho's Fanta Orange very soon.

5 hours ago, Munkunku said:

Appealed to CAS apparently - he’s already served 1.5ish years of it. Hopefully he gets the it overturned and is allowed to play next season. Then we can sell him.

No guarantee he will get it reduced by CAS. Some comparisons were made to Pogba but different cases and drugs involved. Knowing the way we go about things he will have his ban extended ;)

4 hours ago, GarnachoCheese said:

Justice for Mudryk

Yep. 4 years. That's his justice. For being a junkie . . .god fearing junkie (which makes it worse).

5 hours ago, dkw said:

At least now we can sack the f**kwit and sue him.

This is the best outcome for Chelsea. Pogba got four years and served 18 months after his appeal.

13 hours ago, just said:

Hopefully the KGB can slip something into Garnacho's Fanta Orange very soon.

Novichok in Neto’s morning milk too, do us a favour and start again with all our wingers.

Made a post somewhere in this thread mentioning that the third party investigation is all that matters after Mudryk and his team showed "proof" that he didn't intentionally take it. Conveniently after months have already passed to get their story straight.

To think we only signed this imbecile drug mule because Arsenal wanted him.

I hate these sporting directors, and I rarely hate anyone.

Just shows how far we’ve fallen as a club that we’ll all happily throw a impressionable, virtuous young man under the bus for attempting to not only improve himself but also the team as well, yet not a word will be said against players like Pedro Neto bringing the club continuously into disrepute by throwing themselves to the ground in a manner akin to taking a bullet at point blank everytime a butterfly flaps its wings within 100 metres of him.

If this unfair treatment was being dished out to a Liverpool player they’d have t-shirts made, protests, tifo’s the lot.

We are sh*t.

#JusticeForTheMisha1

On 30/04/2026 at 03:17, dkw said:

At least now we can sack the f**kwit and sue him.

And add another ~£50m pounds to our FFP/PSR fail this season? Unlikely

1 hour ago, The Boehly Babes said:

Just shows how far we’ve fallen as a club that we’ll all happily throw a impressionable, virtuous young man under the bus for attempting to not only improve himself but also the team as well, yet not a word will be said against players like Pedro Neto bringing the club continuously into disrepute by throwing themselves to the ground in a manner akin to taking a bullet at point blank everytime a butterfly flaps its wings within 100 metres of him.

If this unfair treatment was being dished out to a Liverpool player they’d have t-shirts made, protests, tifo’s the lot.

We are sh*t.

#JusticeForTheMisha1

Brilliant satire....

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

And add another ~£50m pounds to our FFP/PSR fail this season? Unlikely

Is that what would happen? I thought contractual breaches were treated differently?

1 hour ago, The Boehly Babes said:

happily throw a impressionable, virtuous young man under the bus for attempting to not only improve himself but also the team as well

#JusticeForTheMisha1

Mutu, Bogarde, Mark Bosnich, etc. Yep, Mudryck has secured his position in the all time Chelsea Virtuous XI

On 01/05/2026 at 12:37, dkw said:

Is that what would happen? I thought contractual breaches were treated differently?

Interestingly this BBC article I read this morning suggests we wouldn't be, but I haven't found it backed up elsewhere.

Is Mudryk still a Chelsea player and when can he return?

Mudryk has been suspended and unable to play for either Chelsea or Ukraine since the FA provisionally suspended him 16 months ago.

He remains contracted to the Blues until 2031, having signed a long deal when he joined for £61m in 2022, as part of the club's plan to amortise the cost of transfers and contracts.

Amortisation means spreading costs out over many years in order to reduce them in each year of a business' accounts.

If Mudryk's ban is upheld by Cas, he would be unable to play again until roughly December 2028, as that is four years since his provisional suspension began.

But if the ban were to be reduced by Cas, he could be back on the pitch in a much shorter timeframe. Sources close to the player believe he could be back in action as early as next season.

Chelsea would be able to terminate Mudryk's contract once the Cas process has concluded, given an anti-doping ban constitutes a breach of employment terms in most footballers' contracts.

Were they to do that, the amortised cost of the remaining years of Mudryk's contract would disappear from the club accounts - effectively writing the expense off and helping their finances significantly.

On the other hand though, Chelsea would be entitled to sell Mudryk for some sort of transfer fee if they maintain his contract and keep paying his wages.

Or they could of course continue to pay his wages as a member of their squad and reintegrate him into the team once the ban has ended

One of the precedents cited here (the Suárez case) suggests we may be able to sue Mudryk for the amortised transfer fee. (Someone more literate in legal/capitalist matters may want to double-check this). Claiming for the cost of replacing the player feels more frivolous than claiming for the cost specifically incurred in signing the player in the first place.

Forgot about him. Ffs another expensive flop signed by these owners.

4 hours ago, PloKoon13 said:

Interestingly this BBC article I read this morning suggests we wouldn't be, but I haven't found it backed up elsewhere.

One of the precedents cited here (the Suárez case) suggests we may be able to sue Mudryk for the amortised transfer fee. (Someone more literate in legal/capitalist matters may want to double-check this). Claiming for the cost of replacing the player feels more frivolous than claiming for the cost specifically incurred in signing the player in the first place.

He wouldn't be able to pay much though. Unless the club had some sort of insurance policy this is going to be written off as a loss.

8 hours ago, forbzy said:

He wouldn't be able to pay much though. Unless the club had some sort of insurance policy this is going to be written off as a loss.

Could he possibly get it on tick?

9 hours ago, forbzy said:

He wouldn't be able to pay much though. Unless the club had some sort of insurance policy this is going to be written off as a loss.

If we get some kind of ruling for us, it would matter for the accounts. Doesn't really matter if he actually pays or not

62 million flushed down the toilet and we had to sell better to accomodate this drugs cheat. Hope the UKR army finds a use for him.

On 01/05/2026 at 21:37, dkw said:

Is that what would happen? I thought contractual breaches were treated differently?

On 05/05/2026 at 03:05, PloKoon13 said:

Interestingly this BBC article I read this morning suggests we wouldn't be, but I haven't found it backed up elsewhere.

One of the precedents cited here (the Suárez case) suggests we may be able to sue Mudryk for the amortised transfer fee. (Someone more literate in legal/capitalist matters may want to double-check this). Claiming for the cost of replacing the player feels more frivolous than claiming for the cost specifically incurred in signing the player in the first place.

No exceptions in the PSR rules. The BBC article is misleading, a contract termination means that the club no longer have account for his cost in future years but in the termination year they would need to wear the full remaining book cost. Otherwise clubs could magically make transfer spending disappear by terminating players.

It's ultimately the club's decision to forfeit the contract. The only way to offset the cost would be to sue Mudryk for compensation (like with Mutu), but that would take years to conclude (like with Mutu) so the club would need to eat the PSR hit this season, in the hopes of winning compensation to offset the cost in the future.

Regarding the Suarez precedent, under the changed FIFA rules it is effectively voided thanks to ECJ's ruling in the Diarra case. In addition to the rulings on the transfer system ECJ also ruled DRC/CAS's calculation methods for compensation ('positive interest') as unlawful, as it attempted to make clubs wholly compensate while restricting players' employment rights and freedom of movement. As a result FIFA/CAS will no longer consider transfer fees or value to the club in compensation decisions, effectively restricting their calculations to the monetary value of the contract. In other words, even if we sue Mudryk, we aren't getting our money back. The best play would be to fine him, see out his ban, and sell him after.

Although neither Mudryk nor England are part of the EU, I presume that the UK still retains a similar employment law to the EU and similar principles may apply in favour of any challenge made by Mudryk in an English court.

Edited May 12May 12 by SydneyChelsea