Chelsea Win Right To Sue (2 Viewers)

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,576
#41
... it is important to show that contracts are still worthwhile in football and players can't just walk out without repurcusion.
Why? Would you let your employer tie you to the company that way? Where you can't leave if you get offered more money or a raise elsewhere? Where you can't walk out if you're being bullied or overworked? Why the hell are footballers expected to be slaves to their jobs?
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Lion

King of Tuz
Jan 24, 2007
31,784
#42
There is a difference. When a player signs a contract he is offered a crap load of money for his signature and thus is expected to honour the contract unless the club and him comes to a mutual agreement that allows to move on elsewhere, like what happens in the transfer market. Being "overworked" is part of the job. It's the reason they earn high wages and get the fame. They either can live with it or not, besides I hardly consider a profession where you get +2 months off in the summer with your wages paid every year to be overworked.

Being bullied can happen but that's why most players move on. There is a reason you can submit a trasnfer request you know. It's very rare that you hear that a player who is not happy at a club is forced to stay is entire contract/career at one club.
 

AngelaL

Jinx Minx
Aug 25, 2006
10,215
#43
Why? Would you let your employer tie you to the company that way? Where you can't leave if you get offered more money or a raise elsewhere? Where you can't walk out if you're being bullied or overworked? Why the hell are footballers expected to be slaves to their jobs?
I know that footballers seem to get a raw deal, as far as contractual conditions, but they did sign the contract and it is both their responsibility, and that of their agent's, to read the contract before signing it.
In the UK, if you are an employee, you cannot just walk out of your job - you have to give notice, (the length of notice you have to give is in your contract) and if you don't, you can be disqualified from claiming benefits for up to six months. If you walk out without giving notice, to go to another job, it can affect you, for reference purposes. Employers talk to each other, and if you behave like this, you will get a reputation, that will put employers off you. Most new employers allow you to work your notice to your old employer before joining.

Footballer's sign these contracts and they have a responsibility to keep to them. If they don't, then they have to pay the price. As for being bullied, I don't think there is much of that. Footballers have big egos and the vast majority of them are not prone to bullying. They are confident and are able to take "knocks". They have to be to play football.

However, I agree that their conditions should be clearer and fair. I would not like to attempt such a task as it would have to be done on an international scale, as well as European and on an individual country basis.

I am glad that the agent is being investigated by FIFA. Players rely on agents so heavily, that they can end up in a legal mess due to their agent's mismanagement of their affairs.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,188
#45
For the last time: Mutu didn't walk out, Mutu was sacked. What Chelsea are doing now goes against labour law, not to mention that it seems as if they never heard about the Bosman-arrest either.
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,576
#46
In fairness to some of the posters above Seven, the conversation has wandered into the more general territory of contracts in football. The fact that Mutu was sacked has been highlighted fairly well.

Maybe it's worth splitting the thread... I'll wait to see if there's any continued interest in either debate first.
 
OP
Red

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #48
    Mutu has been ordered to pay £9m compensation to Chelsea for breach of contract.

    Shouldn't affect Juve in any way though, so feel free to close this thread.
     
    OP
    Red

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #52
    Mutu takes drugs (thus breaching his Chelsea contract)

    Chelsea choose to sack Mutu because of this.

    Juve (via Livorno) sign Mutu.


    Juve never had anything to do with Chelsea and Juve didn't do anything wrong, so I fail to see what basis Chelsea have for suing Juve.

    It was perfectly reasonable for Chelsea to sue Mutu and demand compensation from him for him having breached his contract.
     

    JCK

    Biased
    JCK
    May 11, 2004
    123,473
    #53
    Mutu takes drugs (thus breaching his Chelsea contract)

    Chelsea choose to sack Mutu because of this.

    Juve (via Livorno) sign Mutu.


    Juve never had anything to do with Chelsea and Juve didn't do anything wrong, so I fail to see what basis Chelsea have for suing Juve.

    It was perfectly reasonable for Chelsea to sue Mutu and demand compensation from him for him having breached his contract.
    Can we take Drogba from them for free if we win the lawsuit? :drool:
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    111,511
    #55
    Mutu takes drugs (thus breaching his Chelsea contract)

    Chelsea choose to sack Mutu because of this.

    Juve (via Livorno) sign Mutu.


    Juve never had anything to do with Chelsea and Juve didn't do anything wrong, so I fail to see what basis Chelsea have for suing Juve.

    It was perfectly reasonable for Chelsea to sue Mutu and demand compensation from him for him having breached his contract.
    I don't even see the basis of suing Mutu, let alone Juventus. I've never heard of a company firing an employee for testing positive for drugs then suing the person to recoup some of his wages.
     
    OP
    Red

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #56
    Can we take Drogba from them for free if we win the lawsuit? :drool:
    Juve win case -> Chelsea ordered to pay legal costs -> Chelsea fail to pay costs -> Juve seize Chelsea property (Drogba) as payment of debt. :D

    I don't even see the basis of suing Mutu, let alone Juventus. I've never heard of a company firing an employee for testing positive for drugs then suing the person to recoup some of his wages.
    I think it was the cost of the transfer fee they paid they sued him for.

    If you look at his breach of contract as having devalued Chelsea's asset by ~£15m, it makes sense they could sue.

    Would be rather harder for most companies to show such a clear loss as a result of an employee taking drugs.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)