£10m for Mutu? (1 Viewer)

Jul 19, 2003
3,286
#1
Chelsea claim Mutu costs
Friday 14 January, 2005
Juventus could still be forced to pay a fee to Chelsea following the capture of Adrian Mutu on Wednesday.

The Romanian international arrived in Turin on a free transfer after the London club sacked him earlier this season for failing a drugs test.

Chelsea are allegedly asking for around £10m in compensation for the player they bought at a cost of £15.8m in August 2003.

Juventus, who will officially unveil Mutu to the media next week, may offer out of favour defender Igor Tudor as part of any agreement.

The striker, who is suspended until mid May, was in Turin this morning to undergo a medical.

Meanwhile, Inter’s Francesco Coco is today being linked with a move to Glasgow Rangers.

The international defender has struggled this season after recovering from a problematic back operation.

A number of Premiership sides have expressed interest in the 27-year-old, but Coco’s advisor told the Daily Record that Rangers may strike a deal.

"Francesco would have no problems going to Scotland because I know Rangers are one of the top clubs in Europe, with a great support," said Claudio Vigorelli.

"I have a meeting with Inter officials next week because they are still trying to decide if they want to keep Francesco or if he is to be sold."

Elsewhere, Inter full-back Giovanni Pasquale has joined Siena on loan. The 25-year-old could make his club debut against Atalanta on Sunday.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can Chelsea claim any rights for money in this deal? They terminated his contract FFS!! Anyone here more familiar with law or transfer rules that can tell us whether they stand a chance?
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,575
#5
++ [ originally posted by nosubstitute959 ] ++
I wonder why ch4 even mentions the possibility of Juve offering Tudor. But I do doubt it like you. You're a law graduate, aren't you?
Nope. Electronic engineering undergrad. Tudor might have been mentioned because Chelsea have just four centre halves, which is just a bit too small compaired to their 179 midfielders, 17 goalkeepers, etc.
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,091
#8
++ [ originally posted by simpson-juvefan ] ++
IMO Moggi would not buy him, when we have to pay for him!
I think it's too late. It's not a transfer fee as such, and since we've already signed a contract with him, if compensation is imposed upon us, there's little we can do about it but cough up the bling
 

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,030
#9
No, they have no case. If they wanted to make money out of him they should have sold him. Having terminated his contract he was made a free agent, and as such he has no more obligations towards Chelsea nor do they have a right to as compensation for him. He is not under contract with them, and I really doubt they will get a penny out of us.
 

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,030
#10
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

I think it's too late. It's not a transfer fee as such, and since we've already signed a contract with him, if compensation is imposed upon us, there's little we can do about it but cough up the bling
I dont believe they have a case. When they terminated his contract they relseased him of all obligations towards them, he is free to sign for whoever he wants.
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,091
#11
I don't believe they have a case either, but simpson-juvefan was suggesting that Moggi would not choose to buy Mutu if he knew beforehand that a 'transfer fee' would have to be paid.

I highly doubt they'll get anything form us either
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#12
I can't see them getting a penny. Its their own fault for being so bloody self righteous and politically correct. Morons :rolleyes:
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,857
#14
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was some clause in his personal settlement with Chelsea saying he is liable for damages. Juve having signed him could have incurred those damages I suppose. Someone mentione Uefa and that's where I think this case is going.
 

#10

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2002
6,814
#15
i wouldnt rule out a blatter intervention....but imo they dont have any rights...they sacked him, they coula stuck by their investment and supported him more....not jus kick him out.
 

Primo

Juventus FC - Philippines
Dec 20, 2002
1,436
#16
Is there any legal process in which we could be forced to pay?

It's not our bloody fault that they terminated Mutu's contract and rid themselves of their obligations to the player and vice-versa.

Why do they value him now that Mutu's signed with someone else!?
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
101,819
#17
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was some clause in his personal settlement with Chelsea saying he is liable for damages. Juve having signed him could have incurred those damages I suppose. Someone mentione Uefa and that's where I think this case is going.
Who makes clauses in their contract to protect the club from contract terminations? That seems like cheating the system...

Chelsea would be stupid to waste time with a court case anyway. All Roman needs to do is sell a few shares on the stock market and he will be compensated for Mutu.
 

Daddi

In Conte we trust!
Oct 27, 2004
7,890
#19
I doubt that we will pay a cent. THey fired him. Its as simple as that. Now just cuz he actually joined a team that may cause them trouble in the CL they want money...Hahahha Moggi will fvck Abramovic up!
 

peckface

approaching curve
Oct 3, 2004
2,357
#20
I bet they found some kind of hidden clause to take advantage of or something just to make him pay, typical Mourinho style. ;)
They didn't really seem to found of him just reavealing and sacking him like that.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)