Adrian Mutu (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Daddi
- Start date
Chelsea remain confident of winning £8million in compensation from Juventus after sacked striker Adrian Mutu appeared before yesterday's FA Premier League hearing in London.
Mutu: Escape route to Juve (NealSimpson/Empics)
Mutu was sacked earlier this season by Chelsea after testing positive for cocaine but Juventus snapped him up on a free transfer - sparking the club's move for compensation.
The Barclays Premiership giants are seeking to make legal history by suing the Romanian for damages and are understood to have filed their claim with the FA Premier League, who will listen to both sides before deciding whether to pass it on to FIFA to decide whether Chelsea are entitled to any cash.
Mutu's solicitor John Hewison said: 'The hearing of Chelsea's claim against Adrian is now complete. And, until a decision is given, no further comment will be given about it. Adrian would just like to say the last six months out of football have been difficult for him.
'He has been training very hard and he is now looking forward to playing first-team football again.'
Chelsea are seeking compensation from the player based on his transfer value, and sporting sanctions against him under article 42 of FIFA's regulations for the status and transfer of players.
Mutu, 26, was sacked by Chelsea last October after failing a random drug test ordered by Blues manager Jose Mourinho.
The striker was subsequently banned for seven months but has agreed to play for Juventus when the suspension is lifted on May 16.
Chelsea are claiming that Mutu broke his contract because of persistent misconduct and if the FAPL decide Chelsea have a case, they will hand the matter over to FIFA to determine the level of compensation and the nature of any further sanctions on the player.
Chelsea paid £15.8million for the striker from Parma in 2003 when Roman Abramovich first arrived at Stamford Bridge.
While Mutu is the target of Chelsea's claim, any compensation would be paid by Juventus - who announced they had signed the player during the January transfer window.
Meanwhile, Chelsea will spend the weekend deciding on the composition of the team which will attend next Thursday's disciplinary hearing at UEFA HQ in Switzerland.
The club will, it is understood, be asking for a personal hearing but they have not yet come to a decision on whether chief executive Peter Kenyon, manager Jose Mourinho, his assistant Steve Clarke or security officer Les Miles will attend the meeting.
Chelsea have until next Tuesday to submit their written evidence to UEFA and ask for a personal hearing.
The club are almost certain to submit some form of legal representation at the meeting to underline their grievance that the disciplinary action has been prejudiced by public comments made by UEFA's director of communications, William Gaillard.
Kenyon robustly rejects claims that Chelsea lied to UEFA over allegations that Barcelona coach Frank Rijkaard had a dressing room meeting with Swedish referee Anders Frisk during their Champions League clash at the Nou camp last month.
Kenyon also insists that the Barclays Premiership leaders now had 'grave concerns' about the prospect of receiving fair treatment at next week's disciplinary hearing because of Gaillard's 'inflammatory' comments.
UEFA charged Mourinho, Clarke and Miles with bringing the game into disrepute for making 'false declarations' in a report that alleged Rijkaard visited Frisk's dressing room at half-time.
UEFA also deferred two other disciplinary cases until the same meeting - namely Chelsea's non-appearance at the post-match press conference and their late arrival on to the pitch for the start of the second-half in Spain.
Chelsea will be fined for those two offences but the club are still smarting from the public caning they received from Gaillard ahead of the more serious charges brought against the club by European football's governing body.
From Soccernet.com
Mutu: Escape route to Juve (NealSimpson/Empics)
Mutu was sacked earlier this season by Chelsea after testing positive for cocaine but Juventus snapped him up on a free transfer - sparking the club's move for compensation.
The Barclays Premiership giants are seeking to make legal history by suing the Romanian for damages and are understood to have filed their claim with the FA Premier League, who will listen to both sides before deciding whether to pass it on to FIFA to decide whether Chelsea are entitled to any cash.
Mutu's solicitor John Hewison said: 'The hearing of Chelsea's claim against Adrian is now complete. And, until a decision is given, no further comment will be given about it. Adrian would just like to say the last six months out of football have been difficult for him.
'He has been training very hard and he is now looking forward to playing first-team football again.'
Chelsea are seeking compensation from the player based on his transfer value, and sporting sanctions against him under article 42 of FIFA's regulations for the status and transfer of players.
Mutu, 26, was sacked by Chelsea last October after failing a random drug test ordered by Blues manager Jose Mourinho.
The striker was subsequently banned for seven months but has agreed to play for Juventus when the suspension is lifted on May 16.
Chelsea are claiming that Mutu broke his contract because of persistent misconduct and if the FAPL decide Chelsea have a case, they will hand the matter over to FIFA to determine the level of compensation and the nature of any further sanctions on the player.
Chelsea paid £15.8million for the striker from Parma in 2003 when Roman Abramovich first arrived at Stamford Bridge.
While Mutu is the target of Chelsea's claim, any compensation would be paid by Juventus - who announced they had signed the player during the January transfer window.
Meanwhile, Chelsea will spend the weekend deciding on the composition of the team which will attend next Thursday's disciplinary hearing at UEFA HQ in Switzerland.
The club will, it is understood, be asking for a personal hearing but they have not yet come to a decision on whether chief executive Peter Kenyon, manager Jose Mourinho, his assistant Steve Clarke or security officer Les Miles will attend the meeting.
Chelsea have until next Tuesday to submit their written evidence to UEFA and ask for a personal hearing.
The club are almost certain to submit some form of legal representation at the meeting to underline their grievance that the disciplinary action has been prejudiced by public comments made by UEFA's director of communications, William Gaillard.
Kenyon robustly rejects claims that Chelsea lied to UEFA over allegations that Barcelona coach Frank Rijkaard had a dressing room meeting with Swedish referee Anders Frisk during their Champions League clash at the Nou camp last month.
Kenyon also insists that the Barclays Premiership leaders now had 'grave concerns' about the prospect of receiving fair treatment at next week's disciplinary hearing because of Gaillard's 'inflammatory' comments.
UEFA charged Mourinho, Clarke and Miles with bringing the game into disrepute for making 'false declarations' in a report that alleged Rijkaard visited Frisk's dressing room at half-time.
UEFA also deferred two other disciplinary cases until the same meeting - namely Chelsea's non-appearance at the post-match press conference and their late arrival on to the pitch for the start of the second-half in Spain.
Chelsea will be fined for those two offences but the club are still smarting from the public caning they received from Gaillard ahead of the more serious charges brought against the club by European football's governing body.
From Soccernet.com
These Chelski fellows are really doing a great job of turning themselves into a really hated club.
Now, what is the rational behind demanding compensation from Mutu?
Let's draw an analogy from any normal work environment, of which the club IS a footballer's work place.
I work for Olu & Sons, and one day I am found doing something that doesn't conform with my employer's codes. My employer has one of 2 choices, either he disciplines me to the full letter of company law, for example he could stop my wages for up to a year if that was a part of the contract we signed, OR he could fire me, that means letting me go without any of the benefits I should have received as an employee.
Now, sacking me means letting me go totally, all ties between us are cut. No financial ties except in the case of financial improprietry (which I might add that Mutu isn't guilty of). If it is a case of an offense that is tantamount to public misconduct, such as taking drugs (which is a private affair), I am to be sued by the AG in Nigeria (equivalent of the DA in the US, or the Crown in the UK). Now, in the case of a footballer who was playing in the English Premiership, (Mutu and Mark Bosnich as examples), the body that is meant to charge him is the FA, who have done so and slapped him a ban that was endorsed by no less authorities in the game than FIFA and UEFA. The man's career is on hold for 7 months.
So what the f**k is Chelski's problem?
You fired the player, and then turn round and say he should pay you for it? Give me a break.
It is even annoying that the FA are giving them a listening ear at all. If I were on that board, I'd have thrown the case out donkey years ago citing gross stupidity as my reasons.
If Chelsea are allowed to get away with this, it will set a dangerous precedent in football where a club can very easily set up a player whom they feel isn't performing at the price they bought him, sack such a player, and worse still, demand compensation from him?!?
Chelsea are no longer welcome in the world of civilised football.
Now, what is the rational behind demanding compensation from Mutu?
Let's draw an analogy from any normal work environment, of which the club IS a footballer's work place.
I work for Olu & Sons, and one day I am found doing something that doesn't conform with my employer's codes. My employer has one of 2 choices, either he disciplines me to the full letter of company law, for example he could stop my wages for up to a year if that was a part of the contract we signed, OR he could fire me, that means letting me go without any of the benefits I should have received as an employee.
Now, sacking me means letting me go totally, all ties between us are cut. No financial ties except in the case of financial improprietry (which I might add that Mutu isn't guilty of). If it is a case of an offense that is tantamount to public misconduct, such as taking drugs (which is a private affair), I am to be sued by the AG in Nigeria (equivalent of the DA in the US, or the Crown in the UK). Now, in the case of a footballer who was playing in the English Premiership, (Mutu and Mark Bosnich as examples), the body that is meant to charge him is the FA, who have done so and slapped him a ban that was endorsed by no less authorities in the game than FIFA and UEFA. The man's career is on hold for 7 months.
So what the f**k is Chelski's problem?
You fired the player, and then turn round and say he should pay you for it? Give me a break.
It is even annoying that the FA are giving them a listening ear at all. If I were on that board, I'd have thrown the case out donkey years ago citing gross stupidity as my reasons.
If Chelsea are allowed to get away with this, it will set a dangerous precedent in football where a club can very easily set up a player whom they feel isn't performing at the price they bought him, sack such a player, and worse still, demand compensation from him?!?
Chelsea are no longer welcome in the world of civilised football.
