Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
For the positive cocaine test. ****ing hell that's gotta hurt no matter who you are.
"My commitment to Liverpool is 100 per cent. I would die for that Liverpool shirt. I think the club loves me and I feel the same, no matter what the situation." - Pepe Reina, Nov '09.
'Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.'
OK he was a **** but I really don't see how he owes them £12m because of it
It was Chelsea's decision to fire him. Any money they lost because of it is surely their own fault. A normal person in a normal job wouldn't be expected to compensate their employer if they got sacked, whatever the reason.
OK he was a **** but I really don't see how he owes them £12m because of it
£16m they paid for him.He breached the terms of him contract.
-----------------------------------------------
'Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.'
£16m they paid for him.He breached the terms of him contract.
Chelsea didn't suffer damage to the tune of £12m because Mutu snorted coke. They were just rich and illiberal enough to be prepared to write off an asset to make a point. Now they're having their cake and eating it.
Chelsea didn't suffer damage to the tune of £12m because Mutu snorted coke. They were just rich and illiberal enough to be prepared to write off an asset to make a point. Now they're having their cake and eating it.
They terminated his contract because he breached the terms of it, therefore they are entitled to claim a) a portion of the money they paid for him and b) the wages they paid him whilst he was breaching his contract. Whilst they are unlikely to get the transfer fee (or the proportion of it which roughly equates to 3 years out of the 4 year contract they offered him) they will probably be able to claim back the wages they paid to him. He will be liable for those. He was paid those wages on the understanding that he did not snort lines of coke, which will have been a contractual stipulation.
Its not completely unreasonable of them. His behaviour and his breach of the rules cost them 3 years of a 4 year contract which became unviable.
Comment