Chelsea to get compensation for Adrian Mutu

[Jase 43,479]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24587804

Juventus and Livorno have been ordered to pay some of the £14m compensation Adrian Mutu owes to ex-club Chelsea.

Mutu, 34, was sacked by Chelsea in 2004 for a positive drugs test and served a ban, before moving to Livorno and then Juventus - both free transfers.

In 2010, it was ruled the Romanian should pay Chelsea £14m for a breach of contract, but the Serie A clubs have now been told to help foot the bill.

Fifa said the clubs are "jointly responsible, together with the player".

The statement received from a Fifa spokesman on Friday read: "According to the decision of the DRC [Dispute Resolution Chamber], the clubs, Juventus and Livorno, are held jointly responsible, together with the player, Adrian Mutu, for payment of the amount of compensation that the player has been ordered to pay to the club, Chelsea.

"The concerned parties were notified of the relevant decision on 7 October 2013.

"In accordance with art. 67 par. 1 of the Fifa Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas)."

BBC Sport has learnt that the legal team of Serie A champions Juventus has already started putting together a case to present to Cas.

Former Romania international Mutu was one of new Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich's first big-money signings when he arrived from Italian side Parma for £15.8m in 2003.

After a bright start to his career at Stamford Bridge, the Blues forward suffered problems on and off the pitch.

He had difficult relationships with managers Claudio Ranieri and Jose Mourinho before he was sacked by the club for testing positive for cocaine.

Chelsea sought compensation from Mutu in order to recover a large amount of the fee they paid to sign him, a bid that Fifa, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and finally - after five years of legal disputes - the Swiss Federal Court supported. The compensation figure, based on lost earnings, was calculated on the length of time Mutu's Chelsea contract had left to run, and was the highest handed down by Fifa.

Now, Juventus and Livorno have been told to pay towards the compensation, with Chelsea holding them liable because they signed him for free.

Mutu signed for Juventus in January 2005, but could not immediately join the Italian giants because they had their full quota of non-EU players.

Instead, a deal was brokered with fellow Serie A club Livorno so that they signed the Romanian, who was available on a free transfer, until Juve could offload one of their non-EU players.

Mutu never played for Livorno and eventually made his first appearance for Juve in May of that year.

The Romanian is currently at French Ligue 1 club Ajaccio.

[Jccage 7]

Such a shame, he could of been a great. Good we're getting compensation for it though.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

Wrote this in pogba's thread hours ago

[dave30 728]

Ridiculous that he has to pay. Not like were skint.

[Tomo 21,733]

Ridiculous that he has to pay. Not like were skint.

We made a very big financial commitment to sign him and he let us down massively. Putting wages into account he probably cost us £20m overall and he re payed us by getting high.

[zolayes 14,489]

We made a very big financial commitment to sign him and he let us down massively. Putting wages into account he probably cost us £20m overall and he re payed us by getting high.

and I hope Juve dont get away with it

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

and I hope Juve dont get away with it

Its Juve I bet they will get away with it... they seem to get away with most things

[Spike 12,049]

Inter may have the nickname 'Il Biscione' but Juventus are the real snakes of Italian football. I only wish Chelsea could milk the bastards for more, bloody Juventus.

[Gabo 0]

Inter may have the nickname 'Il Biscione' but Juventus are the real snakes of Italian football. I only wish Chelsea could milk the bastards for more, bloody Juventus.

why on earth should Juve pay for it? your management decided to fire him

totally unbelievable

[hjperdeath 2,226]

why on earth should Juve pay for it? your management decided to fire him

totally unbelievable

Because Juve did not have enough space in their team to buy a non EU player from abroad. So they told Livorno to buy him, and then they bought Mutu from them. Absolute cuntish move.

[Gabo 0]

Because Juve did not have enough space in their team to buy a non EU player from abroad. So they told Livorno to buy him, and then they bought Mutu from them. Absolute cuntish move.

It's just an often used workaround in order to avoid an idiotic rule, and it actually doesn't break any rule at all.

Anyway, I guess this isn't the reason why Chelsea asked for a compensation since this particular move is not Chelsea's business.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

It's just an often used workaround in order to avoid an idiotic rule, and it actually doesn't break any rule at all.

Anyway, I guess this isn't the reason why Chelsea asked for a compensation since this particular move it's not Chelsea's business.

it is a workaround an idiotic rule and doesn't break any? What? It's a regulation when you register a team for a competition. What the actual fuck is a work-around?

He breached his terms of contract. Chelsea didn't ask him to snort cocaine, he did on his own will and that was against his own contract.

The Football Association Premier League Appeals Committee decided that the player had committed a breach of his contract without just cause which made Chelsea eligible to claim the compensation.

The case is against Mutu , not Juve or Livorno.

Have a look at the case ( Adrian Mutu vs Chelsea Football Club) at the Court of Arbitration of Sports. You can find it here - http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/3459/5048/0/Award%201644%20FINAL.pdf

Go through this, FIFA regulations from 2001 - http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/status_transfer_sept2001_en_27.pdf

Chelsea asked the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber that they should be awarded an amount of compensation in favour of the club following the established breach of the Employment Contract committed by the Player without just cause

On 6 August 2007, on the basis of the Second CAS Award, Chelsea filed with the DRC a "Re-amended application for an award of compensation", seeking damages, to be determined on the basis of various factors, "including the wasted costs of acquiring the Player (£ 13,814,000), the cost of replacing the Player (£22,661,641), the unearned portion of signing bonus (£ 44,000) and other benefits received by the Player from the Club (£ 3,128,566.03) as well as from his new club, Juventus (unknown), the substantial legal costs that the Club has been forced to incur (£ 391,049.03) and the unquantifiable but undeniable cost in playing terms and in terms of the Club’s commercial brand values", but "at least equivalent to the replacement cost of £ 22,661,641". On 14 September, Mutu submitted to the DRC a brief stating the "Position of Player Mutu regarding Chelsea's petition for an award of compensation", requesting its rejection, and asking FIFA to open an investigation against the Club for having used and/or dealt with unlicensed agents But Mutu failed to suspend the arbitration and his claim for unlicensed agent was found no such violation emerged.

The problem is with Mutu having breached his contract. So the money needs to be paid by him. Problem is Juve and Livorno seem to have dealt with unlicensed agents and also caused some kind loss to Chelsea . I think FIFA reopened the investigation and they found out that Juve and Livorno were both at fault for dealing with Mutu, and they'll have to end up paying instead of Mutu. Fine rises by 2,500 every day . Will rise more as Juve and Livorno have appealed to European justice.

[Gabo 0]

it is a workaround an idiotic rule and doesn't break any? What? It's a regulation when you register a team for a competition. What the actual fuck is a work-around?

He breached his terms of contract. Chelsea didn't ask him to snort cocaine, he did on his own will and that was against his own contract.

In Serie A we have this idiotic rule which doesn't allow a club to hire more than two non-EU players per season, unless they come from another italian club (in this case they are considered as EU players).

The commonly used workaround involves another italian club which functions as a "bridge"; this club will be obviously compensated in some way (such as transfer fee, loan of other players, etc.).

As you can see, this doesn't actually break any rule.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

In Serie A we have this idiotic rule which doesn't allow a club to hire more than two non-EU players per season, unless they come from another italian club (in this case they are considered as EU players).

The commonly used workaround involves another italian club which functions as a "bridge"; this club will be obviously compensated in some way (such as transfer fee, loan of other players, etc.).

As you can see, this doesn't actually break any rule.

There are similar rules in the EPL and La Liga as well. Does it happen there as well? It's a regulation. You aren't adhering to it. Instead you try to find loop holes and get past it. That's the kindest way you could possibly put it. and that still can be termed cheating.

[Gabo 0]

There are similar rules in the EPL and La Liga as well. Does it happen there as well? It's a regulation. You aren't adhering to it. Instead you try to find loop holes and get past it. That's the kindest way you could possibly put it. and that still can be termed cheating.

I'm not well up on english and spanish regulations but, for instance, as far as I know in Spain they have to set a break clause for each player in order not to bind them to the clubs... well, often this clauses are set to 100M+ values, don't you think this is a workaround?

And I keep saying, unless this behaviour is properly regulated, that it doesn't break any rule.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

I'm not well up on english and spanish regulations but, for instance, as far as I know in Spain they have to set a break clause for each player in order not to bind them to the clubs... well, often this clauses are set to 100M+ values, don't you think this is a workaround?

And I keep saying, unless this behaviour is properly regulated, that it doesn't break any rule.

That's a contract or transfer clause. You can adjust it to the limit you want. The player also has to put pen to paper to agree to it and only then can the clause be valid. In no way is it similar to the registration of a player in a team.

It does break a rule, and looks like FIFA and DRC think the same.

[Gabo 0]

That's a contract or transfer clause. You can adjust it to the limit you want. The player also has to put pen to paper to agree to it and only then can the clause be valid. In no way is it similar to the registration of a player in a team.

It does break a rule, and looks like FIFA and DRC think the same.

FIFA and DRC are not dealing with the Livorno->Juventus transfer, which is a behaviour formerly put into effect by other clubs.

And even if they investigate on this particular workaround and consider it illegal, I can't see how it can be related to Chelsea's compensation.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

FIFA and DRC are not dealing with the Livorno->Juventus transfer, which is a behaviour formerly put into effect by other clubs.

And even if they investigate on this particular workaround and consider it illegal, I can't see how it can be related to Chelsea's compensation.

Don't think you've read my second reply..

It isn't a work around . Exploitation of a loophole would be a nice way to put it again. As said before they approached Livorno to buy Mutu and in doing so dealt with illegal agents . If an enquiry is launched , as it looks like it had , Juve and Livorno will have to pay the compensation on behalf of Mutu.