James Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 That is how much money Adrian Mutu owes Chelsea as of now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Ouch! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 That's more than I earn in a year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris P Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 what for . breach of contract Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Wow, he better get a move back to the premiership fast! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidAK Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Fucking hell, like they need more bloody money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 right then.... lets get Barton sacked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Tough crowd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest K9 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Unfair on him imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 woah! tragedy is he'll probably be able to pay that off without any help & still live comfortably for the rest of his life even if he stopped playing tomorrow mental Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 expensive bag of coke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 That's more than I earn in a year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimbo Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Bit excessive if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Wow, all for taking a bit of Coke? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I'm sure they really need the money to be fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Wow, all for taking a bit of Coke? Good. Sprinters get banned for life for taking illegal substances and, should they appeal, have to overcome massive obstacles to get their career back on track. If you are caught with drugs in your system, you should be banned for life. No exceptions. Your club should then be free to terminate your contract and seek compensation for their loss (i.e. due what is essentially a X year employment contract at a premium, of which they will not be able to benefit now that the player has been banned for the remainder of the contract). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Wow, all for taking a bit of Coke? Good. Sprinters get banned for life for taking illegal substances and, should they appeal, have to overcome massive obstacles to get their career back on track. If you are caught with drugs in your system, you should be banned for life. No exceptions. Your club should then be free to terminate your contract and seek compensation for their loss (i.e. due what is essentially a X year employment contract at a premium, of which they will not be able to benefit now that the player has been banned for the remainder of the contract). In a sporting sense, coke is a lot better than what numerous sportsmen get away with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Wow, all for taking a bit of Coke? Good. Sprinters get banned for life for taking illegal substances and, should they appeal, have to overcome massive obstacles to get their career back on track. If you are caught with drugs in your system, you should be banned for life. No exceptions. Your club should then be free to terminate your contract and seek compensation for their loss (i.e. due what is essentially a X year employment contract at a premium, of which they will not be able to benefit now that the player has been banned for the remainder of the contract). In a sporting sense, coke is a lot better than what numerous sportsmen get away with. Morally, yes, but an illegal substance is an illegal substance. Too many sportsmen (and women) get away with piddly little bans. It is about time that they are hit where it hurts, which unfortunately nowadays is their wallet. As an aside, it is the same with FA-imposed bans for talking out of line in interviews etc. Why on earth would someone hold their tongue when they know that the FA will *only* impose a £10K fine for it. It is a tenth of a week's wages for some footballers. If the FA started imposing massive fines, players would soon shut their gobs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 He'll get off with paying them a tenner a week or something like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How does that work? Chelsea got money for him anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 He'll get off with paying them a tenner a week or something like that. Good point, he'll probably consolidate all of his existing debts into one easy to maintain weekly payment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How does that work? Chelsea got money for him anyway. Breach of contract. Despite Chelski selling him, they pursued him for (among other things) loss of potential future transfer fee (i.e. if he became the world's best player and his value rocketed). Quite a few elements would have been considered when quantifying Chelsea's loss. In any situation such as this one, the non-defaulting party (Chelsea) is under a duty to mitigate (essentially to minimise as much as possible) their loss. Chelsea mitigated their loss by making some money back on Mutu. They were therefore free to pursue him for the rest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How does that work? Chelsea got money for him anyway. Breach of contract. Despite Chelski selling him, they pursued him for (among other things) loss of potential transfer fee (i.e. if he became the world's best player and his value rocketed). Quite a few elements would have been considered when quantifying Chelsea's loss. In any situation such as this one, the non-defaulting party (Chelsea) is under a duty to mitigate (essentially to minimise as much as possible) their loss. Chelsea mitigated their loss by making some money back on Mutu. They were therefore free to pursue him for the rest. So someone decided he was potentially going to earn Chelsea over £20m? In fact, take his wages into account, which they saved on, that's almost like saying the potential sale could have been £30m!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 his club will help him out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How does that work? Chelsea got money for him anyway. Breach of contract. Despite Chelski selling him, they pursued him for (among other things) loss of potential transfer fee (i.e. if he became the world's best player and his value rocketed). Quite a few elements would have been considered when quantifying Chelsea's loss. In any situation such as this one, the non-defaulting party (Chelsea) is under a duty to mitigate (essentially to minimise as much as possible) their loss. Chelsea mitigated their loss by making some money back on Mutu. They were therefore free to pursue him for the rest. So someone decided he was potentially going to earn Chelsea over £20m? In fact, take his wages into account, which they saved on, that's almost like saying the potential sale could have been £30m!! There will be a massive calculation knocking about somewhere, which we will never see, which will consider things like effect of sponsorship, league place that year (if he were the top scorer for instance, his presence would have been missed and it is foreseeable that it could have made a difference to Chelsea's league position = lesser position equals less money) etc. What you have to keep in mind is that this saga has gone on for years. It is highly likely that a large chunk of the compensation will be paid to Chelsea in consideration of their legal fees (edit: it is a high six figure sum, accordingly to SkySports.com). Also, compensation will have been calculated according to the value of the remaining period of Mutu's contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now