Chelsea Force Mutu to Retire?

[refugee]

[quote author=Terrier link=topic=35582.msg936301#msg936301 date=1251805895]
Fuck Mutu, he deserves it.

I didn't see him weeping upon signing his 70k a week contract.

These are professional footballers who have an obligation to the club and to the fans. They get paid massive amounts of money and live lives that most can only dream of.

If they coke / drug it up, they risk the wrath of both sides of the law. Fuck them.


[/quote]

*2

 

[Whaddapie]

So, chelski sacked him, rather than wait until his ban was lifted and then sell him? And now, because they chose one course of action over another and suddenly realised that they could have gotten a few quid had they chosen the other option, they feel they deserve money back from the player..?

Ridiculous.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=35582.msg936055#msg936055 date=1251787623]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936049#msg936049 date=1251786986]
Chelsea tried to sue him for the wages they were due to pay him, but hadn't as well.

Most courts try to ensure that the plaintiff has tried to mitigate their losses, and base the amount of damages on the mitigated loss.
Chelsea immediately terminated his contract, so they gave up any chance of ever mitigating the loss. Yet still were awarded most of the transfer fee back.

[/quote]

Most of the transfer fee ? They paid €30M for him and were awarded €12 million - that isn't even close to most. The rest to date is interest I assume.
[/quote]

The case report from the Court case states they paid 22.5m euro for Mutu ,and the award was around 17m euro.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=keniget link=topic=35582.msg936143#msg936143 date=1251796918]
I think the money awarded to Chelsea is way over the top. I don't think getting caught doing drugs should mean you're forced to either start from scratch or give up your career. The punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

Chelsea could've opted to work with Mutu and force him to go into rehab or something. They could've fined him and then sold him on in order to recoup some of the money. They chose to sack him.
[/quote]

This is where it gets interesting. Apparently Mutu refused treatment once, and that's why he was sacked.

Apparently he had a coke problem, Chelsea knew about it and arranged a private drug test for him.

He hadn't really set the world alight had he ? And he was owed about 10m in wages, Chelsea probably didn't think he had any future value because of the coke problem so decided to get out of having to pay him those wages over the following few years.

Since then he's reignited his career by scoring more than a goal every two games with Fiorentina.

 

[Frogfish]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936701#msg936701 date=1251826699]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=35582.msg936055#msg936055 date=1251787623]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936049#msg936049 date=1251786986]
Chelsea tried to sue him for the wages they were due to pay him, but hadn't as well.

Most courts try to ensure that the plaintiff has tried to mitigate their losses, and base the amount of damages on the mitigated loss.
Chelsea immediately terminated his contract, so they gave up any chance of ever mitigating the loss. Yet still were awarded most of the transfer fee back.

[/quote]

Most of the transfer fee ? They paid €30M for him and were awarded €12 million - that isn't even close to most. The rest to date is interest I assume.
[/quote]

The case report from the Court case states they paid 22.5m euro for Mutu ,and the award was around 17m euro.
[/quote]

On 6 June, 2008 Mutu was ordered by FIFA to pay Chelsea £9.6 million (€12 million), to compensate for the transfer fee the club paid for him.

This fine was later increased, on appeal by the Dispute Resolution Chamber to £13.68 million.

On 31 July, 2009, the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed an appeal filed by Mutu regarding his fine, now stated at £14.65m (€17,17m), to be paid to Chelsea.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=35582.msg936726#msg936726 date=1251827315]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936701#msg936701 date=1251826699]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=35582.msg936055#msg936055 date=1251787623]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936049#msg936049 date=1251786986]
Chelsea tried to sue him for the wages they were due to pay him, but hadn't as well.

Most courts try to ensure that the plaintiff has tried to mitigate their losses, and base the amount of damages on the mitigated loss.
Chelsea immediately terminated his contract, so they gave up any chance of ever mitigating the loss. Yet still were awarded most of the transfer fee back.

[/quote]

Most of the transfer fee ? They paid €30M for him and were awarded €12 million - that isn't even close to most. The rest to date is interest I assume.
[/quote]

The case report from the Court case states they paid 22.5m euro for Mutu ,and the award was around 17m euro.
[/quote]

On 6 June, 2008 Mutu was ordered by FIFA to pay Chelsea £9.6 million (€12 million), to compensate for the transfer fee the club paid for him.

This fine was later increased, on appeal by the Dispute Resolution Chamber to £13.68 million.

On 31 July, 2009, the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed an appeal filed by Mutu regarding his fine, now stated at £14.65m (€17,17m), to be paid to Chelsea.
[/quote]

So my point being Chelsea have been awarded most of the transfer fee back 17m out of 22.5m is correct, isn't it ?

 

[Frogfish]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936730#msg936730 date=1251827386]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=35582.msg936726#msg936726 date=1251827315]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936701#msg936701 date=1251826699]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=35582.msg936055#msg936055 date=1251787623]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936049#msg936049 date=1251786986]
Chelsea tried to sue him for the wages they were due to pay him, but hadn't as well.

Most courts try to ensure that the plaintiff has tried to mitigate their losses, and base the amount of damages on the mitigated loss.
Chelsea immediately terminated his contract, so they gave up any chance of ever mitigating the loss. Yet still were awarded most of the transfer fee back.

[/quote]

Most of the transfer fee ? They paid €30M for him and were awarded €12 million - that isn't even close to most. The rest to date is interest I assume.
[/quote]

The case report from the Court case states they paid 22.5m euro for Mutu ,and the award was around 17m euro.
[/quote]

On 6 June, 2008 Mutu was ordered by FIFA to pay Chelsea £9.6 million (€12 million), to compensate for the transfer fee the club paid for him.

This fine was later increased, on appeal by the Dispute Resolution Chamber to £13.68 million.

On 31 July, 2009, the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed an appeal filed by Mutu regarding his fine, now stated at £14.65m (€17,17m), to be paid to Chelsea.
[/quote]

So my point being Chelsea have been awarded most of the transfer fee back 17m out of 22.5m is correct, isn't it ?
[/quote]

Well it depends it the figure of 22M is correct and how it was calculated. The other figure quoted is 30M.

 

[Rosco]

That figure was produced as evidence in court by Chelsea FC.

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/3459/5048/0/Award 1644 FINAL.pdf

 

[Frogfish]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936741#msg936741 date=1251828084]
That figure was produced as evidence in court by Chelsea FC.

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/3459/5048/0/Award 1644 FINAL.pdf
[/quote]

That document also states that :

the Club agreed to pay the Former Club, under a transfer agreement
(hereinafter referred to as the “Transfer Contractâ€), the amount of Euro
22,500,000, “net of any and all fees, taxes or other transaction costsâ€;

I would imagine that tax alone would bump that figure up very considerably, without the other transaction costs and other smaller expenses noted in the same document of Signing On Fee and Agent's Fees. Probably ending up close to the 30M Euro quoted no ?

 

[Rosco]

For fucks sake Froggie - they paid 22.5m euro for him, not 29m.

The fees were 500,000 on agents and 300,000 on a signing fee, both of which were partly recovered in the award.

 

[Frogfish]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936800#msg936800 date=1251830245]
For fucks sake Froggie - they paid 22.5m euro for him, not 29m.

The fees were 500,000 on agents and 300,000 on a signing fee, both of which were partly recovered in the award.
[/quote]

I'm not getting this. It says in the document, and I've highlighted it in Red, that the fee quoted was NET of taxes and other transaction costs (legal fees whatever).

Assuming just VAT at 15% (or is it 17.5% - maybe it's changed) before any other taxes due, then that is a hefty increase to around 26M. That being the case then the 22.5M is exactly as stated in the document a NET figure and not the actual amount paid out by Chelsea. Now is that assumption right or wrong or am I totally missing something here ?

 

[Rosco]

Chelsea FC produce evidence in court of what they paid for Mutu and you dispute it.

Wonderful.

The transfer fee is still 22.5m.

 

[Frogfish]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936818#msg936818 date=1251831084]
Chelsea FC produce evidence in court of what they paid for Mutu and you dispute it.

Wonderful.

The transfer fee is still 22.5m.
[/quote]

I'm not disputing their evidence at all ! I'm disputing your claim that they paid 22.5M for him when in fact they probably paid considerably more because certain expenses associated with the claim (VAT, any other Taxes due) are not acceptable for claim for reimbursement being beyond that particular court's jurisdiction !

The document states very clearly 22.5m NET and then just as explicitly says excluding taxes. I'm trying to ascertain what exclusions there were but it seems neither you nor anyone else here knows that (not that I would expect any of you to know exactly what taxes were payable).

Obviously Chelsea had to pay these taxes, VAT, legal fees, signing on fees and agents fees and so the actual amount paid for Mutu was in fact no-where near 22.5M !

As an aside, and based on the evidence above, it seems we should also calculate a percentage discount off LFC transfer values (maybe 20% - 25%) that discount being associated costs and not money in hand.

 

[Rosco]

You've actually just outdone me for pointless arguing about the value people put on assists. Well done.

 

[Frogfish]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=35582.msg936832#msg936832 date=1251832033]
You've actually just outdone me for pointless arguing about the value people put on assists. Well done.

[/quote]

Ouch ! That hurts. And here all I was doing was trying to ascertain absolute clarity 😉

 

[Rosco]

you were asking for it !

 

[Squiggles]

It's an insane ruling

He may owe them some cash but that much is insane.