Lags Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2009...balls_foll.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 So who agree's? Is this judgement fair? Personally I think it is. If we paid a million for a player (Ricky Lambert for arguement sake) and he went off and failed a drugs test he'd get banned and we'd have to sack him. Same so far. We would (quite rightly) want to reclaim the money we spent on his transfer, for a club like us, not having someone scoring 20-odd goals and still being a million down could quite easily be the difference between the championship and administration and a ten-point deduction. Dont forget, we'd have to pay out again to get a player of the same calibre, we'd effectivley be paying twice for one (replacement) player, who might not be as good as our initial investment. Granted Chelski have a lot of money behind them but if I were in charge at Stamford Bridge, I'd be doing exactly what they are doing, squeezing him for every penny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 That's an expensive few lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 So who agree's? Is this judgement fair? Personally I think it is. If we paid a million for a player (Ricky Lambert for arguement sake) and he went off and failed a drugs test he'd get banned and we'd have to sack him. Same so far. We would (quite rightly) want to reclaim the money we spent on his transfer, for a club like us, not having someone scoring 20-odd goals and still being a million down could quite easily be the difference between the championship and administration and a ten-point deduction. Dont forget, we'd have to pay out again to get a player of the same calibre, we'd effectivley be paying twice for one (replacement) player, who might not be as good as our initial investment. Granted Chelski have a lot of money behind them but if I were in charge at Stamford Bridge, I'd be doing exactly what they are doing, squeezing him for every penny. Yeah but... "Damaging the Chelsea brand"? I mean FFS. I just thought it was wildly excessive, for effectively a mistake he made. He's not turned out to be a notorious drug-snorting monster since leaving, and he's pretty much got his life back on track. Where's the consistancy? What happened when Mark Bosnich got done for the exact same offence? He just got sacked by the club and simply went away. It's a scary precident that may have been set here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 That is a good read. I find it crazy that he could be liable for the value of a contract signed between Chelsea and Parma. By all means sack him for breach of contract but isn’t it the club’s problem if they sign a player with, “bad character?” It’s also pretty evil that Chelsea did a test on him without his knowledge, maybe he should have told them then that he couldn’t play for them due to breach of trust and demand they pay his contract up in full? Good job for a gangly England striker and an absent minded centre-back, amongst others, that their clubs haven’t been out to get them. Anyway, it’s a bit strange seeing a club taking the moral high ground when you know that it’s owner would have your eyeballs plucked out and boil you slowly in oil if you crossed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Yeah but... "Damaging the Chelsea brand"? I mean FFS. I just thought it was wildly excessive, for effectively a mistake he made. He's not turned out to be a notorious drug-snorting monster since leaving, and he's pretty much got his life back on track. Where's the consistancy? What happened when Mark Bosnich got done for the exact same offence? He just got sacked by the club and simply went away. It's a scary precident that may have been set here. I can understand him damaging the Chelsea brand, afterall, Latics is involved heavily in the community with kids. If one of our players gets the manager in a head-lock and hits another player, its damaging to our clubs reputation. It is excessive, but only becuase of how much he was worth and how much he was being paid. Its all inproportion to the values involved. Given my hypothetical example above, would you want to sue Ricky Lambert for the £1m if he had been caught taking drugs while playing for us? If not, the club has to stand losing a million pounds with nothing what-so-ever in exchange for that. Should have had a ritual burning on clayton playing fields, or hell, chuck it down the river. Football clubs are losing enough money without over-paid and expensive pillocks shafting them too, just becuase they couldnt obey the law. Chelsea have done what any other club would have done and they were right in doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I can understand him damaging the Chelsea brand, afterall, Latics is involved heavily in the community with kids. If one of our players gets the manager in a head-lock and hits another player, its damaging to our clubs reputation. It is excessive, but only becuase of how much he was worth and how much he was being paid. Its all inproportion to the values involved. Given my hypothetical example above, would you want to sue Ricky Lambert for the £1m if he had been caught taking drugs while playing for us? If not, the club has to stand losing a million pounds with nothing what-so-ever in exchange for that. Should have had a ritual burning on clayton playing fields, or hell, chuck it down the river. Football clubs are losing enough money without over-paid and expensive pillocks shafting them too, just becuase they couldnt obey the law. Chelsea have done what any other club would have done and they were right in doing so. I'm sorry, but I just cant agree with any of this... surely football is still governed by some simliarity to the employment law govening everyone else? Thousands of people get sacked every day, some for very similar things as Mutu, and are not made to pay thier previous employer... Say an office worker gets caught doing a cheeky bit of Ching at the xmas do... fair cop, see you later sonny, clear your desk by the morning - Gross Misconduct (if the employer doesnt decide to work with the employee to get over thier problem, which happens a lot). The Employee leaves and it is all forgotten about. The employer however doesnt take the employee to court to claim back the recruiter fees, plus the costs of replacing him/her (on average anywhere between 3-6 times salary depending on what statistics you believe). So... someone on a £30k salary could end up paying anywhere up to £200k for getting sacked... absolute tosh... That is what blooody interviews are for - to judge the character of the employee... and why 99% are on 3 months probation... in case there is a mistake with this process. Football should be no difference. This is all a farce and Chelsea should be ashamed. Stop throwing your weight about and buying lawyers that tie everyone up in knots so farcical rulings like this take place, and admit this was a big screw up by all parties. The employer should have a responsibility for the behaviour of thier employees. Stop turning idiots into millionaires if your are not prepared to accept the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I can understand him damaging the Chelsea brand, afterall, Latics is involved heavily in the community with kids. If one of our players gets the manager in a head-lock and hits another player, its damaging to our clubs reputation. It is excessive, but only becuase of how much he was worth and how much he was being paid. Its all inproportion to the values involved. Given my hypothetical example above, would you want to sue Ricky Lambert for the £1m if he had been caught taking drugs while playing for us? If not, the club has to stand losing a million pounds with nothing what-so-ever in exchange for that. Should have had a ritual burning on clayton playing fields, or hell, chuck it down the river. Football clubs are losing enough money without over-paid and expensive pillocks shafting them too, just becuase they couldnt obey the law. Chelsea have done what any other club would have done and they were right in doing so. Hmm. An extra quarter of a million jobs lost in the last three months, getting sucked deeper and deeper into the bloody chaos of Afghanistan, the Government has nationalised the banking system, fears of a global flu pandemic abound, we are only building a 12,000 seater stadium, knife crime is rife on our streets, North Korea is testing rockets to deliver it’s nukes and war and famine are sweepingthrow Africa, and you are concerned about fundamentally changing English law because you feel sorry for Abramovich losing out on a business deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I'm sorry, but I just cant agree with any of this... surely football is still governed by some simliarity to the employment law govening everyone else? Thousands of people get sacked every day, some for very similar things as Mutu, and are not made to pay thier previous employer... Say an office worker gets caught doing a cheeky bit of Ching at the xmas do... fair cop, see you later sonny, clear your desk by the morning - Gross Misconduct (if the employer doesnt decide to work with the employee to get over thier problem, which happens a lot). The Employee leaves and it is all forgotten about. The employer however doesnt take the employee to court to claim back the recruiter fees, plus the costs of replacing him/her (on average anywhere between 3-6 times salary depending on what statistics you believe). So... someone on a £30k salary could end up paying anywhere up to £200k for getting sacked... absolute tosh... That is what blooody interviews are for - to judge the character of the employee... and why 99% are on 3 months probation... in case there is a mistake with this process. Football should be no difference. This is all a farce and Chelsea should be ashamed. Stop throwing your weight about and buying lawyers that tie everyone up in knots so farcical rulings like this take place, and admit this was a big screw up by all parties. The employer should have a responsibility for the behaviour of thier employees. Stop turning idiots into millionaires if your are not prepared to accept the consequences. How many employers pay £XM to employ said person though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 As far as I'm concerned Chelsea are scum and Mutu's a fecking idiot. So ideally they'd both lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 How many employers pay £XM to employ said person though? Its irrelevant. That is still the cost of employing the person. A standard executive search fee would be 33% of salary. Still a lot of money to throw away if the person is a nobber. Its why the interview process is crucially important to get right. Look at Wengers process, he wont sign anyone before a psychological profile has taken place, i'd expect more clubs to take this level of care if they are really that bothered about throwing millions about... I have no sympathy at all with Chelsea, and if this sticks it could set a terrible yard-stick for loads of such actions. It could leave clubs able to sue players for any reason that transfers dont work out... from other 'addictions' such as drinking and gambling, to simpler things, such as just turning out to be crap. Its quite frankly embarrassing, and something that every single football player should be backing to be quashed. It should eb the same as any industry. Punish the employee, but financial recompense... nah way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 How many employers pay £XM to employ said person though? I don't think you get it Simon, and I certainly don't think you've even read the story itself. It's the principle and the precident that'd been set. Football is a different industry but surely the employment laws must be the same? I'm against greedy footballers anyway as a rule, but I can't help feeling sorry for Mutu a little. Had he got a decent legal team he'd have not found himself up :censored: creek like this. At the end of the day, the club are responsible for recruiting the right kinds of people. Take Joey Barton for instance. How much "brand damaging" has he been up to in his time at Citeh and Newcastle? It's ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 How many employers pay £XM to employ said person though? As it happens, quite a few. A lot of American owned City firms get staff to sign contracts agreeing to random drugs tests. It's far from uncommon for them to be tipped off so that they know to stay clear of the Bolivian marching powder at the weekend/night out/morning break though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't think you get it Simon, and I certainly don't think you've even read the story itself. It's the principle and the precident that'd been set. Football is a different industry but surely the employment laws must be the same? I'm against greedy footballers anyway as a rule, but I can't help feeling sorry for Mutu a little. Had he got a decent legal team he'd have not found himself up :censored: creek like this. At the end of the day, the club are responsible for recruiting the right kinds of people. Take Joey Barton for instance. How much "brand damaging" has he been up to in his time at Citeh and Newcastle? It's ludicrous. Exactly. Its a bad example as I think everyone would quite enjoy Barton being sued... but as per my above point, if Mutu can owe £15m for the 'brand damage' of doing a cheeky line, what would that prize nob owe for being utter scum... It would just start court actions left right and centre... its embarassing, and as FMS says, would not get past any sane judge in the land if Chelsea didnt probably invest more in Lawyers than the amount they are trying to reclaim... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 As it happens, quite a few. A lot of American owned City firms get staff to sign contracts agreeing to random drugs tests. It's far from uncommon for them to be tipped off so that they know to stay clear of the Bolivian marching powder at the weekend/night out/morning break though. Its more than City firms. My best mate had a very boring 6 months before taking up a work placement in Chicago! Its still backs up this story... if it happens they are kicked out of the firm for breach of contract, not sued for the value of thier recruitment and replacement... madness.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I can understand what your saying and I can appreciate employment law but you'd be pretty pissed off if it happened at latics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I can understand what your saying and I can appreciate employment law but you'd be pretty pissed off if it happened at latics... I’d be pretty pissed off if Latics were shopping a player to the authorities to try and get him caught for something in his private life rather than having the balls to deal with it themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I’d be pretty pissed off if Latics were shopping a player to the authorities to try and get him caught for something in his private life rather than having the balls to deal with it themselves. Something in said private life thats illegal?! He'd have got caught at some point anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Something in said private life thats illegal?! He'd have got caught at some point anyway. Now you are just being absurd. I’ll venture that there aren’t many of us who haven’t broken the law and or down something we really shouldn’t have done in work at some point in our lives, maybe our bosses should hire detectives to follow us all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 This whole affair shows the difference in class between Chelsea and (dare I say it) clubs like Manchester United. Admittedly it's a few years ago now, but when Lee Sharpe went completely off the rails, United protected him, looked after him and gave him the chance to redeem himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 It's the principle and the precident that'd been set. Football is a different industry but surely the employment laws must be the same? I agree the law should be the same, and think the whole 'brand damage' thing is bollocks. On the other hand, the employment law is different, surely? I don't know of any other industry where someone can't be sacked for not doing their job well, ie, performance-related sacking.... but instead have to have compensation paid to them, or their contracts paid up, to get them off the books! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I agree the law should be the same, and think the whole 'brand damage' thing is bollocks. On the other hand, the employment law is different, surely? I don't know of any other industry where someone can't be sacked for not doing their job well, ie, performance-related sacking.... but instead have to have compensation paid to them, or their contracts paid up, to get them off the books! +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Mutu was stupid but he won't be the first footballer to come to London and have trouble with ye olde nostril nike, nor will he be the last. Almost every weekend you can read about some celeb doing coke, or the coke scene or even how people who don't do coke are worried that they are seen as boring. Coke is awash in London to the same sort of scale that E is awash in dance clubs. Its interesting he got caught though as Coke is very very easily removed from the system so unless you are an habitual user a cheeky line will be out of your system 12 hours later, unlike say weed or E which stay longer. Why did Chelsea sack him though? It can't have been brand image as otheriwse John Terry, Frank Lampard, Joe Cole and Eidur Gudjohnsen would have been sacked for their post 9/11 flight cancellation drinking session including abuse of any passing Yank (which was around the same time). Ashley Cole would have been sacked for coming out pissed at a night club and getting done for D&D, nevermind all his alleged infidelities not to mention the way their players have behaved off and on the pitch in other instances. No Chelsea sacked him because they had forked out £17million for a player who wasn't that good (would still get into a lot of Premiership teams now though) and he wasn't going to play for them for 7 months, so they had no option but to get someone else in (but what would have happened if Mutu did his cruciate in his third game)? Argument could be made that Mutu could have sued Chelsea for wrongful dismissal (but that really depends on his contract), and he might be able to throw in disability discrimination (considering drug addiction is a recognised illness). This strikes me as Abrahmovic being greedy- although he isn't going to see all that much of his money. As someone said what about Bosnich (although there wasn't a fee involved), to be honest its football a good player but with issues off the field isn't going to be worth as much as someone not quite as good as them but without the off field issues. What did United do when Ferdinand got banned for longer- did they fire him and try and claim back a big proportion of his £30 million transfer fee- no they stuck by him and he has shown his worth since. To be honest this decision is possibly the best one in terms of football fans as there is no way Chelsea are getting anything like that sort of cash, Mutu will have to pay them back somewhat and maybe just maybe those Premiership footballers who spend far too much of their over-inflated salary pulling women who are nothing more than prostitutes, getting very drunk on over priced fizzy wine, and starting fights etc. might think again about their lifestyle but then again they might have to have the team's brain cell to that first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.