Official Premier League 2010/11 thread

[R.W.]

And people are talking about it in the transfer thread I see. Never mind then.

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

Chelsea have confirmed that both Joe Cole and Michael Ballack will be leaving the club when their contracts expire at the end of the month.

I'm going to be absolutley gutted if we don't get Cole. His linking up with Rooney is brilliant. We've talked about bringing in somebody else into the attack and he'd be ideal. I'm praying we don't let this chance slip. If we do, I'm expecting him to go to Spurs.

Edited June 9, 2010 by JohnnyPerfect

[new_era]

1. Chelsea

2. Man City

3. Man United

4. Liverpool

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

5. Tottenham

6. Arsenal

7. Aston Villa

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

8. Everton

9. Sunderland

10. Fulham

11. Birmingham

12. West Ham

13. Bolton

14. Blackburn

15. Wolves

16. Stoke

17. West Brom

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

18. Newcastle

19. Wigan

20. Blackpool

Carling Cup: Man City

FA Cup: Chelsea

[Farmer Reil]

Only Chelsea could let Joe Cole and Michael Ballack go for free and not consider it a massive waste of money. ¬_¬ Less so in Ballack's case obviously, but Joe Cole? :/

[stokeriño]

To get any money for Joe, Chelsea would have had to sign him to a new contract first. That was unlikely to happen for two reasons.

First, Joe wants to play all the time. This season he was (justifiably) kept out of the team by Kalou for much of the time. Indeed, he hasn't had the best consistency since he had what was arguably his best season circa 2005/06. Chelsea couldn't guarantee him that this would change.

Second, one of Chelsea's current key objectives is to reduce the wage bill. Joe was already being paid a lot of money for a player who wasn't a guaranteed starter, and supposedly he wanted an increase as well.

Losing Ballack and Joe has reduced the wage bill by about £200k per week (not including the usual appearance/goal/etc. bonuses). That's pretty good going.

[Crybaby Bunting]

It'd be wonderful if he just skipped all the top four clubs and went straight back to West Ham.

I mean, he's not going to command high wages at Arsenal, Liverpool or United... and I get the feeling he'd have the same Chelsea problem at City.

So why not go back to his childhood club where he'll get a filthily huge wage (money they were going to spend on Henry/Nistelroij) and become a local hero.

[Lineker]

Gold and Sullivan are hardly the most appealing feature of joining West Ham right now!

[Crybaby Bunting]

No idea where it should go but Mutu has lost his final appeal against that settlement thing with Chelsea

So the guy is going to have to pay £14m back to Chelsea.

As much as the guy was an idiot... personally bankrupting him just makes Chelsea look like a bunch of dicks :/

[stokeriño]

It's breach of contract. Not enforcing it would kind of just encourage others to breach theirs.

[Crybaby Bunting]

But there's loads of variables which make this entire saga completely ridiculous.

1) Mutu was SACKED from Chelsea and thus picked up on a free transfer at Fiorentina. The argument here is that Chelsea should have either sold him off because he was still technically their property or just sacked him and ended the saga right there. Adriano was released by Inter because he didn't feel as though he was still interested in football... do you think they'll sue him because he is now getting back to form and didn't retire like he said?

2) Mutu is expected to pay the transfer fee that was arranged between the two clubs. I could understand the idea of buying out the rest of his contract... but this is just stupid to suggest that he should pay the transfer fee, especially in one block as if he actually has that much money. Mutu had no say in how much he'd sign for.

3) Because it's a football related incident Mutu cannot just go to the regular court of law... he has to go through the European football courts in order to campaign against this original penalty. If he was allowed to go to a regular court the case would probably be thrown out or agreed that he'll have to pay a CCG... not a lump sum of £14m.

It sort of seems like Chelsea sacked him to prove that they had the money to be able to do something like that and weren't going to just keep him because he was expensive (ala Robiniho) only for the scenario to backfire and want money back once he became a successful footballer at Fiorentina.

Chelsea cannot be respected as a football club whilst Mutu has a bill that large... Chelsea apparently turned down his peace offering of giving a couple of million to charity because he clearly couldn't pay off the whole of the 14m in his lifetime.

Lets not forget that Mutu has been battling severe depression for the past 12 months (there was a point last season where he just couldn't physically play football), giving a mentally unstable man a bill that he'll never be able to afford isn't exactly smart.

Edited June 14, 2010 by The General

[METALMAN]

3) Because it's a football related incident Mutu cannot just go to the regular court of law... he has to go through the European football courts in order to campaign against this original penalty. If he was allowed to go to a regular court the case would probably be thrown out or agreed that he'll have to pay a CCG... not a lump sum of £14m.

Surely that can't be right?

Aren't football courts just a court with limited jurisdiction in one area, much like childrens' panels or employment tribunals? Using the example of employment tribunals, should someone be displeased with a decision they made, they may appeal to the main court system. The nature of the regular court of law is that it takes precedence over these "quasi-courts" and as such may overturn any decision made by them. I don't see why that would be any different in football courts than in employment tribunals. In the eyes of the law, a footballer is just another job.

See Bosman ruling for a particularly well known example.

I mean I can't say I know this for certain but I don't see why football would be treated different from any other occupation.

[Crybaby Bunting]

If he DOES have the power to go to a regular court of law then he's really being an idiot about the entire situation.

He initially complained to FIFA... then UEFA... then visited a few more football related panels... and ended up where he is today.

[METALMAN]

most likely he's just being an idiot then

[brenchill]

The fact that he failed another drugs test earlier this year and is currently serving another ban does him no favours. However, ordering him to pay £14m out of his own pocket is ridiculous.

[Crybaby Bunting]

I was sure that the second failing was actually some sort of dieting pill... but the uninformed turned the failed drugs test into cocaine because they figured it was about right.

And with Paddy Kenny getting a similar ban for a similar ridiculous outcome it means that you can get a 9 month ban for Cocaine and a 12 month ban for something minor.

Football eh?

[R.W.]

The uninformed also include people who don't realise Mutu took his case to the Federal Supreme Court in Switzerland, a non-sports court, who are the ones who have agreed with Chelsea, CAS, FIFA et al in that Mutu breached his contract without just cause, and is thus liable to pay compensation.

This is what Chelsea were claiming for:

...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”

This is what Chelsea were awarded:

...€ 16,500,000 for unamortised portion of the transfer fee paid to Parma, €307,340 for unamortised portion of the sign-on fee (received by Mutu), and €366,650 for unamortised portion of the fee to the Agent, but already not to take into account for the determination of the damages the amounts already paid by the Club to the Player (being the consideration for the services rendered) or the remaining value of the Employment Contract (valued for €10,858,500). Mutu have to pay within 30 days after informed the decision in August 2008.

[Crybaby Bunting]

I was following the case pretty closely a while ago yet didn't realise that he'd actually taken it to a non-sports court since. Ah well my bad.

Upon reading that I've just realised that Chelsea were claiming for £40m+

What the fuck?

[Dan]

[Baddar]

Soooo, Utd-Newcastle, Chelsea-WBA, Liverpool-Arsenal, Spurs-Man City to open the season.Excited already...

[Crybaby Bunting]

I thought their system meant that you couldn't have big matches on the first day because it messes up the Super Sunday stuff they do...

Unless of course they don't believe that Liverpool is good