Dimitri Payet

My first thought was that they should sue. If the Bosman ruling was to limit player obligations to the contract only then surely the club is due compensation for unreasonable breach of contract. Possibly aiming to recoup the value that Payout... I mean Payet would earn during the course of his contract because that's the most viable valuation.

It shouldn't dissuade new players who are not going to go on strike from signing for them.

 

It is time that football clubs got together and put into a pool/fund to take on a player for a landmark ruling.
Clubs may be greedy too, but this sort of behavior also effects every other club outside of the EPL. They should take up the moral responsibility (and the fact they have all the money) to sort this once and for all. The aim should be, if a player refuses to play, he is morally and legally responsible for his action and liable to not be paid, return loyalty payments and the club should be able to cancel his contract and claim back a percentage of his transfer fee relevant to the contract period left.
This football culture of greed is beyond acceptable. I can understand players who are homesick, needing a transfer etc. etc., but everything has gone too far.
Tony Pullis got pulled up for his behavior and leaving. It's time to take on the players now. It makes it nigh on impossible for fans to have any 'love' for their players as we used to do in the past (i.e. Stan Bowles etc.).

 

As a guy in his early 30's who has done a few jobs, and never earned mega bucks, this just pisses me off. If I didn't go to work, or refused to do my job well, I would a) not be paid and b) stand very little chance of getting a reference that would do anything other than inhibit my chances of getting another job. As much as the clubs need power to hold players to their contracts...the bigger clubs need to have some courage in refusing to sign players who seek a move in this way. If a big club came out and said they WERE looking at Payet, but given his obviously poor attitude they are now no longer interested, it would surely make players think twice about trying to force a move this way.

 

Seeing as slavan did exactly the same when he a w.ham player find it all a bit hypocritical. There no loyalty in any employment.

 

Anyone remember the Adrian Mutu case? Chelsea sued for damages and won, Mutu have to pay back the transfer fee, £14,5m. The case is still not finished though, 13 years after it began. That is a long time, will make clubs think twice before going to that step.
Here's a good run through of that case and the legal issues you have to go through:


TERMINATING WITHOUT JUST CAUSE: WHEN IS A NEW CLUB JOINTLY LIABLE FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFA REGS? THE LATEST MUTU DECISION

please log in to view this image

Published 13 May 2015 | Authored by: John Shea

The latest decision1 by the Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS") in the lengthy case involving former Chelsea player, Adrian Mutu (the “Mutu Award”), has given helpful guidance when, in cases involving unlawful breaches of contract or contract terminations by the player, the player’s new club is jointly liable under the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (“RSTP”) to pay the former club compensation.2

The Mutu case involved the club terminating the player’s contract following the player’s unlawful breach, but the decision also relates to the more common cases of when it is the player who unlawfully terminates his contract.


HISTORY OF ADRIAN MUTU’S CASES

FACTS
Chelsea lawfully terminated Mutu's employment contract in October 2004 for a repudiatory breach after the player tested positive for cocaine.3 Mutu was banned by the English Football Association for seven months in November 2004,4 which was extended by FIFA's Disciplinary Committee to have worldwide effect.

Despite being banned, Mutu moved to sign a five-year contract with Juventus in January 2005. Juventus, though, were unable to register him directly, as they had already signed their permitted annual number of non-EU players from abroad. There was at the time, however, no restriction imposed on the number of non-EU players signed from other Italian clubs and so Livorno, a club who had a close relationship with Juventus and who relied upon loan signings from larger Italian clubs, agreed to register Mutu first and then transfer him to Juventus two days later in order to circumvent the quota restrictions. Mutu eventually made his debut for Juventus in May 2005, once his worldwide ban came to an end.

In addition to terminating his contract for a repudiatory breach, Chelsea claimed damages from Mutu for the losses that they incurred flowing from his £15.8m transfer fee from Parma.

The procedural history has been as protracted as the case which has, in some form, come before the CAS on three previous occasions.

PREVIOUS CASES BEFORE THE CAS AND DRC

The Football Association Premier League Appeals Committee (FAPLAC) initially found that Mutu’s actions amounted to a breach of his contract without just cause that entitled Chelsea to treat the contract as at an end. As a result, the FAPLAC also confirmed that Chelsea were entitled to seek compensation against Mutu5 from FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (“DRC”) in accordance with Article 21 of the 2001 version of the RSTP, which provided for compensation to be payable by the player in the event that there is a unilateral breach of contract without just cause.

Mutu appealed that decision to CAS who dismissed the appeal in December 2005 and confirmed that Mutu had breached his contract with Chelsea without just cause (CAS 2005/A/876 Mutu v Chelsea Football Club).6 Despite Mutu claiming that he was not liable for compensation because it was Chelsea who terminated his contract, CAS concluded that there is no distinction between a player terminating his contract and a player unlawfully breaching his contract through serious misconduct. In this case, it was Mutu’s unlawful breach of contract that gave rise to the claim for compensation irrespective of the fact that it was Chelsea who terminated the contract as a result of that breach.7

Following that decision, Chelsea applied to the DRC for a compensation award against Mutu who initially decided that it did not have jurisdiction to make a compensation award.8 However, CAS annulled that decision in May 2007 (CAS 2006/A/1192 Chelsea Football Club Limited v Adrian Mutu).9 The case was referred back to the DRC and in May 2008 the DRC ordered Mutu to compensate Chelsea in the sum of £14.5m. Mutu subsequently appealed the decision to CAS, and in July 2009 the CAS panel upheld the DRC's May 2008 decision (CAS 2008/A/1644 Adrian Mutu v Chelsea Football Club Limited).10

A further appeal by Mutu to the Swiss Federal Tribunal was rejected in 2010, and he is currently pursuing a complaint against Switzerland before the European Court of Human Rights.11 Mutu’s appeal in those proceedings effectively challenges the CAS arbitration system at a fundamental level and a decision should be forthcoming soon, but that topic should be the subject of a separate commentary.
http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/john...-under-the-fifa-regs-the-latest-mutu-decision

 

As fans we all expect loyalty because that whats fans have.we all seem to think that players have the same feeling but its all about money,and if put in same position would you turn down the $ they are offering? I doubt it..football will implode sooner or later,and maybe thats not a bad thing.time wil tell

 

Can anybody tell me the diffeerence between now & when West Ham "unsettled" Payet at Marseille?

At least Payet is consistent in showing no club loyalty!

Will West Ham & their fans consider Hogan is being unloyal to Brentford if they force through his transfer?

How many times have clubs forced players to leave against their wishes by relegating them to train with the reserves etc? I would like Karl Henry to leave Queens Park Rangers, but what has he done to deserve his current treatment? Has he refused to play? Or like many of us, has he just told his boss that he has made a mistake? The latter does not justify any action being taken against the employee providing he carries out his instructions.

I have no symphathy with any club regarding player loyalty. The moment they start showing it to players/managers is the moment they can start expecting it in return!

What I don't understand though, is why clubs should make "loyalty" payments! Call them what they are - a retention payment!

 

West Ham have accepted a £25m bid from Marseilles today so I guess, as always, money talks.

 

Of course it does, plus the fact that no club wants a rotten apple in the ranks.

 

Quite. Ronald Koeman as manager of Southampton is a great, recent example of a manager bemoaning the lack of player loyalty, then ****ing off himself the minute he gets a more attractive offer on Merseyside.

I imagine it somewhat difficult to show loyalty to a manager these days and players aren't the men of the people they once were. It makes me wince a little when you hear people describe certain players as belonging to their club "through and through", particularly when they're not born and bred in the area; such a rare thing these days.

 

It's crazy to think human beings aren't allowed to express their true feelings in public any more for the risk of being lambasted on TwatterInstagramopwebforurmspheres that so many have to hide behind publicists, lawyers and fake handles and identities. Oh the horror!

So Payet sulked into the corner. Did anybody actually ask him directly how he was feeling? No, of course the club is not going to reveal that part, they'll use a prepared statement to make themselves sound clever and put it all on the player. May be he had a clash with too many of the players, coaches and management in prejudiced, racist ways that he couldn't bring it all up at once because of the global xenophobic political atmospheres. I'm just guessing, but it could be anything. I mean he does have a family, a beautiful wife and kids and he's not from here. The Hammers are calling it as Payet's plan to sulk and do nothing to put the club in a bind - and the club obliged! So there has to be something more that none of them can really mention. Shuffled away behind closed doors. I don't know, I'm just trying to read between the cash notes being thrown around.