Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:03 am

14 million?

They sacked him didn't they?

Just because he sorted out his life he is being punished.. football is just a joke. the rich get richer...

Chelsea shouldn't even be allowed to buy players, yet they are gonna get 14 million for a player they sacked and refused to help???

Absolute joke!!!

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:28 am

How?

He took class A drugs, got found out and banned. Chelsea lost a 15m signing due to his own actions, sacked him and sued him for losses.

Seems 100% fair to me.

by **dawson99** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:40 am

They sacked him. How many other footballers have been done for this sort of thing and they put them in programmes. They sacked him, its there loss.

what was he supposed to do? Sort his life out and never play again? Was there something in his sacking saying they should get paid if he plays again? Nope. Just a farce I say.

by **SeaofRed** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:41 am

Didn't Mutu refuse to pay Chelsea £8m a few years ago?

by **Greavesie** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:59 pm

If Chelsea sacked him then £14m is well excessive, he should be punished but not to the extreme he is

by **Owzat** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:13 pm

They chose to sack him, I think the compensation is unrealistic and unreasonable. He made a mistake, it would be like sacking Green and asking him to pay his transfer value in compensation for letting that goal in.

It isn't like he walked out or went to jail, in those circumstances if he left by his own volition then fair enough

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:21 am

Also I just hear he is currently serving another 9 month doping ban. The guy's a fucking smackhead, he deserves everything he gets.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:34 pm

it is abit extreme but it makes sense as Chelsea did lose money. im sure if it was our club who had Mutu back then, you will be singing a different tune.

by **LFC2007** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:12 pm

dawson99 wrote:14 million?

They sacked him didn't they?

Just because he sorted out his life he is being punished.. football is just a joke. the rich get richer...

Chelsea shouldn't even be allowed to buy players, yet they are gonna get 14 million for a player they sacked and refused to help???

Absolute joke!!!

Going soft are you?

by **ConnO'var** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:28 am

Owzat wrote:it would be like sacking Green and asking him to pay his transfer value in compensation for letting that goal in.

No it wouldn't owz.....

Letting a goal in is not a violation of your contract terms unless it was done on purpose, in which case it would become a case similar to fraud.

Taking recreational drugs is a violation of the contract. As such, Chelsea were well within their rights to sack the guy. They couldn't very well sell him off in good conscience and recover their transfer could they? Breach of contract.

He did it to himself and deserved everything that's come his way, IMO

by **dawson99** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:55 pm

How many other players were found guilty of taknig drugs and were helped by the club?

If you made such alarge investment you could suspend him, or maybe, and this is a novel idea, help him through the bad patch... not just sack him, which is what they did.

by **Ben Patrick** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:00 pm

I dont think its on that they took the decision to sack him and then want to be compensated as well,
It was their decision.
They could have stood by him and tried to support him.

by **ConnO'var** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:42 am

We differ in opinion Ben and Daws......

People need to be responsible for their actions. As an adult he had the free will and ability to discern right from wrong. If he was dumb enough to resort to RECREATIONAL drugs as a means of an out to whatever personal issues he had, then IMO he had it coming.

Helping somebody out is always a good thing but you have to draw the line somewhere. We are not or rather should not be a welfare state or there'll be people lining up left, right and center to be on the "dole" to use an Aussie term.

If there's an easy way out, there are always people out there who will look to exploit it to their own advantage and hide behind perceived disadvantages. Help those who really need it.... the homeless, the starving, the disabled etc etc... by all means and most accounts, they deserve the assistance.

A millionaire footballer who doesn't have the discipline to handle "issues"? Doesn't make my heart bleed.

Do we help someone like Joey Barton because he's got anger issues after repeated offences? Not me.... I'd plant his @rse in jail and throw away the key.

by **Ben Patrick** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:05 am

ConnO'var wrote:We differ in opinion Ben and Daws......

People need to be responsible for their actions. As an adult he had the free will and ability to discern right from wrong. If he was dumb enough to resort to RECREATIONAL drugs as a means of an out to whatever personal issues he had, then IMO he had it coming.

Helping somebody out is always a good thing but you have to draw the line somewhere. We are not or rather should not be a welfare state or there'll be people lining up left, right and center to be on the "dole" to use an Aussie term.

If there's an easy way out, there are always people out there who will look to exploit it to their own advantage and hide behind perceived disadvantages. Help those who really need it.... the homeless, the starving, the disabled etc etc... by all means and most accounts, they deserve the assistance.

A millionaire footballer who doesn't have the discipline to handle "issues"? Doesn't make my heart bleed.

Do we help someone like Joey Barton because he's got anger issues after repeated offences? Not me.... I'd plant his @rse in jail and throw away the key.

I agree with all that you are saying.

Except the part that they can then look to sue the player.
At the end of the day whatever he has done has its own punishment. If the club chooses to administer their own (sacking him) they cant then ask to be compensated.
It was there decision.

If the player was banned for life by FIFA then i would agree, but he wasnt.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:15 pm

Ben Patrick wrote:
ConnO'var wrote:We differ in opinion Ben and Daws......

People need to be responsible for their actions. As an adult he had the free will and ability to discern right from wrong. If he was dumb enough to resort to RECREATIONAL drugs as a means of an out to whatever personal issues he had, then IMO he had it coming.

Helping somebody out is always a good thing but you have to draw the line somewhere. We are not or rather should not be a welfare state or there'll be people lining up left, right and center to be on the "dole" to use an Aussie term.

If there's an easy way out, there are always people out there who will look to exploit it to their own advantage and hide behind perceived disadvantages. Help those who really need it.... the homeless, the starving, the disabled etc etc... by all means and most accounts, they deserve the assistance.

A millionaire footballer who doesn't have the discipline to handle "issues"? Doesn't make my heart bleed.

Do we help someone like Joey Barton because he's got anger issues after repeated offences? Not me.... I'd plant his @rse in jail and throw away the key.

I agree with all that you are saying.

Except the part that they can then look to sue the player.
At the end of the day whatever he has done has its own punishment. If the club chooses to administer their own (sacking him) they cant then ask to be compensated.
It was there decision.

If the player was banned for life by FIFA then i would agree, but he wasnt.

he breached the terms of his contract and Chelsea were looking to regain what they had lost. its an employer/employee kinda thingy. makes sense to me though he figure is obscene.

Liverpool FC Forum

Another f*cking farce - Mutu must pay cheatski 14mill

Who is online