Adrian Mutu: Proper Fucked !

[refugee]

[quote author=Sunny link=topic=40597.msg1120374#msg1120374 date=1276616083]
Or maybe Chelsea could have helped and supported him with his problem/issue as I'm sure they've supported other players of theirs recently. Don't get me wrong. He's a moron for doing it and getting caught but I doubt he's alone. Chelsea didn't have to sack him they had other options. They chose to sack him. If he'd have been in form at the time it would have been a different story. Now I don't know how much Arian Mutu earns but suffice to day I doubt he can afford £15m. He fucked up, no doubt about it, and his bad relationship with Mourinho probably didn't help but Chelsea showed no duty of care or compassion for one of their players who's made a mistake, albeit an immensley stupid and big one. He used a recreational drug FFS not a performance enhancing one. We all make mistakes, some bigger than others but Chelsea took their pound of flesh by sacking him and then wrung him out by demanding compensation. They could have stood by him or sold him and at least gained some of their financial outlay back - which, in real terms to those super rich cunts, was fuck all anyway.

Mutu behaved like a cunt I agree but Chelsea have behaved like bigger cunts when they really didn't need to
[/quote]

I'm sorry but I don't understand this opinion.

If Liverpool had spent £15 million on Mutu and 5 games into his first season he failed a drug test and was banned for seven months would you have the same opinion? Would you be happy when Egg Nog or some other reserve striker was playing first team football whilst our star Striker was in a clinic getting treated for addiction? Maybe happy is the wrong word, but would you think that we had a duty to treat him for what is quite obviously a long standing problem that he hadn't told anyone about when he signed for the club?

If, given that scenario, you still think we should be helping him then I just don't understand because I would be calling for blood. He took drugs willingly, he knew it could potentially hinder his career, yet he still did it. Why should Chelsea care about someone that quite obviously doesn't care about the club?

I suppose if one of our first team regulars had a problem (i.e. Gerrard) I might be more sympathetic because the pressure of playing for the club may have contributed to his habit, but if Aquaman was caught then sack him off to fuck.

I can't decide if everyone on this site is sympathetic to Mutu because you think Chelsea can afford to have expensive new players in rehab, because the drug culture that is evident amongst the site members is causing you to be more sympathetic to a "tolerable mistake" or some other reason that I just don't see.

I realise I'm going against popular opinion on this site but I just don't get it...

 

[refugee]

[quote author=grjt link=topic=40597.msg1120402#msg1120402 date=1276617476]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=40597.msg1120396#msg1120396 date=1276617281]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=40597.msg1120374#msg1120374 date=1276616083]
Or maybe Chelsea could have helped and supported him with his problem/issue as I'm sure they've supported other players of theirs recently. Don't get me wrong. He's a moron for doing it and getting caught but I doubt he's alone. Chelsea didn't have to sack him they had other options. They chose to sack him. If he'd have been in form at the time it would have been a different story. Now I don't know how much Arian Mutu earns but suffice to day I doubt he can afford £15m. He fucked up, no doubt about it, and his bad relationship with Mourinho probably didn't help but Chelsea showed no duty of care or compassion for one of their players who's made a mistake, albeit an immensley stupid and big one. He used a recreational drug FFS not a performance enhancing one. We all make mistakes, some bigger than others but Chelsea took their pound of flesh by sacking him and then wrung him out by demanding compensation. They could have stood by him or sold him and at least gained some of their financial outlay back - which, in real terms to those super rich cunts, was fuck all anyway.

Mutu behaved like a cunt I agree but Chelsea have behaved like bigger cunts when they really didn't need to
[/quote]


i agree. i can see that he should perhaps be liable for wages earned and any direct costs of sacking him such as legal fees, but making him pay back the transfer fee when he wasn't even party to the contract seems nuts. you could argue that it's chelsea's responsibility to judge a player's character when signing. also, isn't there a legal duty for them to take steps to limit their loss, namely by trying to rehabilitate him?

this is like one of us being sacked and being forced to repay recruitment fees, which can easily exceed £10k. unthinkable, basically.
[/quote]

Youre absolutely right. It implies the player has a say in establishing their own value ie that he chose to be valued at 14m.... what happens if Messi "chosses" to be valued at 35 euros, are the club going to listen then? No.

I would guess what Chelsea have argued is that Mutu was aware of his value when he signed the contract, and as such was aware of his liability
[/quote]

True, he has no say in his value, but he does go through an extensive medical process before signing and I'd assume that at some point he filled out a form, or was asked directly if he had taken non prescription drugs. Had he not lied, then I'm fairly certain that Chelsea wouldn't have signed him in the first place.

 

[caparo]

Well legally (English law) it's bullshit because Chelsea didn't lose 16million pounds as a result of Mutu taking drugs:
Even if he didn't take the drugs, Chelsea wouldn't be "16 million pounds richer" today for so many reasons:

(1) 16 m is what they spent on trying to acquire him. It's not what they lost by not sacking him.

(2) They could have chosen not to terminate him - instead mitigate their losses etc.

(3) Even if he was clean, they probably wouldn't have played him.

(4) Even if they played him, they wouldn't be richer by 16 million. What else would they have won by virtue of him playing, that they didn't?

More importantly, he doesn't owe a duty to them to ensure that he is worth 16 million. 16 mil is what you agreed to pay the other club for the player's registration. It's not what the player asked for. If a player just decided to be shit for the season (see, e.g. any random LFC player) he wouldn't have to reimburse the Transfer Fee to his club. Because he didn't get a cent of it. That's what his salary is fo. (ironically you prob couldn't deduct his salary for shit performance tho under EU law).

To illustrate this point, if you ran Cristiano Ronaldo over with a car tomorrow (and yes I do mean in a totally accidental way) you might have to pay Ronaldo his loss of earnings, but you shouldn't have to pay Real Madrid the 80 million pounds they paid for him.

 

[Rosco]

I don't quite understand how a case between an English company and a Romanian National ended up in a Swiss court.

 

[refugee]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=40597.msg1120443#msg1120443 date=1276624375]
I don't quite understand how a case between an English company and a Romanian National ended up in a Swiss court.
[/quote]

To ensure neutrality.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=refugee link=topic=40597.msg1120446#msg1120446 date=1276624568]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=40597.msg1120443#msg1120443 date=1276624375]
I don't quite understand how a case between an English company and a Romanian National ended up in a Swiss court.
[/quote]

To ensure neutrality.
[/quote]

haha

To be outside EU rules seems more likely

 

[Farkmaster]

I don't understand how he can be responsible for his transfer fee, Caparo is correct.

 

[refugee]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=40597.msg1120447#msg1120447 date=1276624699]
[quote author=refugee link=topic=40597.msg1120446#msg1120446 date=1276624568]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=40597.msg1120443#msg1120443 date=1276624375]
I don't quite understand how a case between an English company and a Romanian National ended up in a Swiss court.
[/quote]

To ensure neutrality.
[/quote]

haha

To be outside EU rules seems more likely
[/quote]

I don't doubt that for a second.

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=40597.msg1120448#msg1120448 date=1276624980]
I don't understand how he can be responsible for his transfer fee, Caparo is correct.
[/quote]


that was MY point originally - he just hijacked it with his fancy legal speak. i must be due commission.

 

[refugee]

[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=40597.msg1120448#msg1120448 date=1276624980]
I don't understand how he can be responsible for his transfer fee, Caparo is correct.
[/quote]

[quote author=refugee]he has no say in his value, but he does go through an extensive medical process before signing and I'd assume that at some point he filled out a form, or was asked directly if he had taken non prescription drugs. Had he not lied, then I'm fairly certain that Chelsea wouldn't have signed him in the first place.[/quote]

This, in my opinion makes him directly responsible for Chelsea paying £16million to Fiorentina payment.

 

[darkstarexodus]

[quote author=refugee link=topic=40597.msg1120422#msg1120422 date=1276620442]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=40597.msg1120374#msg1120374 date=1276616083]
Or maybe Chelsea could have helped and supported him with his problem/issue as I'm sure they've supported other players of theirs recently. Don't get me wrong. He's a moron for doing it and getting caught but I doubt he's alone. Chelsea didn't have to sack him they had other options. They chose to sack him. If he'd have been in form at the time it would have been a different story. Now I don't know how much Arian Mutu earns but suffice to day I doubt he can afford £15m. He fucked up, no doubt about it, and his bad relationship with Mourinho probably didn't help but Chelsea showed no duty of care or compassion for one of their players who's made a mistake, albeit an immensley stupid and big one. He used a recreational drug FFS not a performance enhancing one. We all make mistakes, some bigger than others but Chelsea took their pound of flesh by sacking him and then wrung him out by demanding compensation. They could have stood by him or sold him and at least gained some of their financial outlay back - which, in real terms to those super rich cunts, was fuck all anyway.

Mutu behaved like a cunt I agree but Chelsea have behaved like bigger cunts when they really didn't need to
[/quote]

I'm sorry but I don't understand this opinion.

If Liverpool had spent £15 million on Mutu and 5 games into his first season he failed a drug test and was banned for seven months would you have the same opinion? Would you be happy when Egg Nog or some other reserve striker was playing first team football whilst our star Striker was in a clinic getting treated for addiction? Maybe happy is the wrong word, but would you think that we had a duty to treat him for what is quite obviously a long standing problem that he hadn't told anyone about when he signed for the club?

If, given that scenario, you still think we should be helping him then I just don't understand because I would be calling for blood. He took drugs willingly, he knew it could potentially hinder his career, yet he still did it. Why should Chelsea care about someone that quite obviously doesn't care about the club?

I suppose if one of our first team regulars had a problem (i.e. Gerrard) I might be more sympathetic because the pressure of playing for the club may have contributed to his habit, but if Aquaman was caught then sack him off to fuck.

I can't decide if everyone on this site is sympathetic to Mutu because you think Chelsea can afford to have expensive new players in rehab, because the drug culture that is evident amongst the site members is causing you to be more sympathetic to a "tolerable mistake" or some other reason that I just don't see.

I realise I'm going against popular opinion on this site but I just don't get it...
[/quote]

I would want Liverpool to support a player in that position. I'd be right pissed at the player and may not ever want him to set foot on the pitch again but would like to see him get the treatment he needs.

As for the comparison to Terry and Cole, I think it's perfectly valid because both of those twats' actions are far more morally reprehensible than anything Mutu did. Regardless of effect on ability to play, Terry and Cole are representatives of the club and I would likely want any Liverpool players acting as such to be sanctioned severely.

And the legal argument mentioned by caparo is very true as well. I could see making his responsible for wages, legal fees, etc but not his transfer fee, which was Chelsea's choice to pay. We're not suing Dossena because he neglected to tell us he was shit.


Sunny: Mutu reputedly used the coke to boost his abilities in the bedroom, so I'm not sure it's fair to say it wasn't a "performance-enhancing substance". 😉

 

[refugee]

[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=40597.msg1120541#msg1120541 date=1276631260]
I would want Liverpool to support a player in that position. I'd be right pissed at the player and may not ever want him to set foot on the pitch again but would like to see him get the treatment he needs.
[/quote]

This a morality argument, and I obviously don't share your values because I would want the player shot our of a cannon into the heart of The Lying Rag for being such a useless cunt. So fair enough, your a better man than me. Although I think a lot of people would change their opinions on if a banned player was causing Liverpools form to suffer (I don't mean you specifically).

[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=40597.msg1120541#msg1120541 date=1276631260]
As for the comparison to Terry and Cole, I think it's perfectly valid because both of those twats' actions are far more morally reprehensible than anything Mutu did. Regardless of effect on ability to play, Terry and Cole are representatives of the club and I would likely want any Liverpool players acting as such to be sanctioned severely.
[/quote]

But he is being paid to play football, morality has nothing to do with it (in this point). He did something that was a) illegal and b) would prevent him from playing football, which is what he is being paid to do. Neither Terry nor Cole did anything thatwas illegal nor career hindering.

[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=40597.msg1120541#msg1120541 date=1276631260]
And the legal argument mentioned by caparo is very true as well. I could see making his responsible for wages, legal fees, etc but not his transfer fee, which was Chelsea's choice to pay. We're not suing Dossena because he neglected to tell us he was shit.
[/quote]

But skill is subjective, whereas a question such as "are you taking illegal drugs" is a yes or no answer.

 

[Oncy]

I don't get how he can be liable for the full transfer fee given that in his one and a half years there he helped them qualify for the champions league twice? Shirt sales? Ticket revenues etc?
The (eg) 14m you a play a club for a player is not a barometer solely of their value in football terms over the length of their contract. That commentators favourite 'he's started paying back his transfer fee' is true from the moment a player arrives.
I'm not sure I understand why this is being allowed to happen.

 

[Terrier]

I think it's because they want to make an example of these cretins.

About time, some of these footballers already feel they're untouchables.

His whole life earnings will be snorted away by the Chavs. Painful

 

[darkstarexodus]

[quote author=refugee link=topic=40597.msg1120575#msg1120575 date=1276632456]
[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=40597.msg1120541#msg1120541 date=1276631260]
I would want Liverpool to support a player in that position. I'd be right pissed at the player and may not ever want him to set foot on the pitch again but would like to see him get the treatment he needs.
[/quote]

This a morality argument, and I obviously don't share your values because I would want the player shot our of a cannon into the heart of The Lying Rag for being such a useless cunt. So fair enough, your a better man than me. Although I think a lot of people would change their opinions on if a banned player was causing Liverpools form to suffer (I don't mean you specifically).

[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=40597.msg1120541#msg1120541 date=1276631260]
As for the comparison to Terry and Cole, I think it's perfectly valid because both of those twats' actions are far more morally reprehensible than anything Mutu did. Regardless of effect on ability to play, Terry and Cole are representatives of the club and I would likely want any Liverpool players acting as such to be sanctioned severely.
[/quote]

But he is being paid to play football, morality has nothing to do with it (in this point). He did something that was a) illegal and b) would prevent him from playing football, which is what he is being paid to do. Neither Terry nor Cole did anything thatwas illegal nor career hindering.

[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=40597.msg1120541#msg1120541 date=1276631260]
And the legal argument mentioned by caparo is very true as well. I could see making his responsible for wages, legal fees, etc but not his transfer fee, which was Chelsea's choice to pay. We're not suing Dossena because he neglected to tell us he was shit.
[/quote]

But skill is subjective, whereas a question such as "are you taking illegal drugs" is a yes or no answer.


[/quote]

I certainly don't claim to be a better man than you but I do think that Terry and Cole are more immoral twats than Mutu, even if his actions ultimately were more detrimental to his playing future. I don't mean to defend or condone drug use (my personal history aside) but I don't think it is as repugnant as the actions of either of those other dippits. Unfortunately for Mutu his choices directly contravened the laws of the game.

Ultimately he has to be responsible for his actions but I think the punishment in this case far outstrips the crime. However, while I believe footballers (and celebrities or professionals of all sorts) should probably be held to somewhat higher standards than we hold the "average Joe", I don't think it's a completely disproportionate comparison to taking five years of a bricklayer's salary for being caught smoking a joint. I think that punishment would be held by most to be excessive given the violation.

I was being facetious with the Dossena comment.