Jump to content

Mutu


RiG

Recommended Posts

Clickoris

Not sure about this one. Chelsea didn't have to sack him and yet they want to gain some money back for him. What are your thoughts?

439488[/snapback]

Im not Chelsea's biggest fan shall we say however i do feel they are justified in purseuing this one. They shelled £16m for one average season from him probably cost them about £1m a goal maybe more.

I know Abramovich has feckin endless pockets, but any business would look for a better return on an investment like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did treat him like shit, though. Don't you think that if it had been either Lampard or Terry then they would have done their best to sort out some drug rehabilitation and not just leave it all to the PFA? The fact of the matter was that Mutu was surplus to requirements and they were relieved to get shot. It will set a dangerous precedent if a club can get away with sacking a player and then claim compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did treat him like shit, though.  Don't you think that if it had been either Lampard or Terry then they would have done their best to sort out some drug rehabilitation and not just leave it all to the PFA?

439557[/snapback]

No, I don't. Chelsea's policy is to sack any player testing positive for drugs. Mutu knew that. I've no sympathy for any player who tests positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Agree with Debbie. Mutu was treated properly in my mind.

However i dont think the club should get any compensation either. It will set a dangerous precedent.

edited to change wording so Debbie and My Fiancees wont want to track me down and kill me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did treat him like shit, though.  Don't you think that if it had been either Lampard or Terry then they would have done their best to sort out some drug rehabilitation and not just leave it all to the PFA?  The fact of the matter was that Mutu was surplus to requirements and they were relieved to get shot.  It will set a dangerous precedent if a club can get away with sacking a player and then claim compensation.

439557[/snapback]

Correct. The hypocrisy is laughable. Players can go out on the lash and get blootered and get arrested and nothing is done, yet they daredo a line of coke and they get sacked. Chelsea were winging it when they sacked Mutu, and I hope the guy scores a barrowload against them in the Champions league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pompey

Mutu breached his contract.

If Chelsea didn't pay Mutu for six weeks, that would be a breach on their part, and we would all be backing Mutu in a fight for compensation.

He breached his contract, Chelsea have every right to some compensation. I also believe that they should have been allowed to hold his registration.

Incidentally, was Bosnich 1st team goalie when he was sacked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mutu breached his contract.

If Chelsea didn't pay Mutu for six weeks, that would be a breach on their part, and we would all be backing Mutu in a fight for compensation.

He breached his contract, Chelsea have every right to some compensation. I also believe that they should have been allowed to hold his registration.

Incidentally, was Bosnich 1st team goalie when he was sacked?

439733[/snapback]

Exactly, i know if i fail a drugs test i get the sack, (part of my contract) so why should footballers be different, as it was part of his contract?

However i dont think Chelsea can get any money for him, i know my work wouldnt expect anything back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mutu breached his contract.

Incidentally, was Bosnich 1st team goalie when he was sacked?

439733[/snapback]

Im pretty sure by this time he had not played for Chelsea in around a year, as he was playing 2nd fiddle to Cudicni.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the start of a new conspiract theory?

Chelsea dope their players up so they can sack them when they arent needed?

:lol:

440065[/snapback]

More like, Chelsea find out one of their players is taking cocaine and it just so happens he's surplus to reqirements in any case, so instead of offering him a chance of rehabilitation (as Arsenal did with Tony Adams and his alcoholism), they sack him and get him off the wage bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt matter who it is. He broke the rules of his Contract. Chelsea are quite right to sack him.

I presume Adams contract didnt have a clause/statement about alcoholism.

440211[/snapback]

I agree that it was a sackable offence. I just think Chelsea could have done a bit more to help the poor bloke.

Arsenal stood by Tony Adams even though he was done for drink driving and spent some time in the slammer. That was the right decision.

So, on this one, I don't think we disagree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other point is that Adams was in the old days, when football wasnt as proffessional. He is Arsenal through and through, whereas Mutu seemed to me to waste chelseas time. He had bucket loads of talent but like most foriegners didnt seem to care. (i might be wrong btw).

Maybe chelsea could have helped him out, but i dont think many places of work do when they sack you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pompey

What are Chelsea meant to do??? If Mutu was caught while playing, CHelsea would have been fucked!

Fair play to Chelsea, they've had the guts to sack one of their own players out of principle.

How many clubs would do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no employee should be allowed to sack someone for doing something illegal?

Have a look at your contract, it will say what they are allowed and not allowed to do. You sign the contract (if not by actual signing it but by working there) the employer, rightly in my mind, can sack you. Its your tough shit to be stupid enough to take the drugs risking getting sacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pompey
No employer should be able to sack an employee for taking drugs outwith work.  It's a matter of time before this is tested in the European Courts and the plaintiff will be successful.

440716[/snapback]

The effect remained when he went into work, or it wouldn't have shown up. No matter how big the effect, there was a residual thing.

It's like turning up at work pissed - you'd expect to be sacked. Doesn't matter if you actually did it at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...