According to reports I have seen that would be the case if it was performance enhancing drugs, not recreational ones.
From what I could find in the FA rule book t'other day, we'd have to have another player test positive for something before we could be sanctioned.
Don't worry once it got in the court room and watched the DVDs of jake playing the judge would throw it out!
He may award us points. Saying our position is commendable given we have carried Livermore almost all season.
Steve Bruce has insisted Hull City owner Assem Allam will “do the right thing” when the club consider whether or not to take long-term action against Jake Livermore. Livermore was last week suspended by the Football Association and Hull after testing positive for cocaine, ruling him out of the club’s final two games of the season. Hull lost the first of those without Livermore against Tottenham Hotspur and now need a final-day miracle against Bruce’s former club Manchester United to stand any chance of staying up. Players who test positive on match days for illegal ‘social’ drugs can face up to a two-year ban under FA rules and Hull may be within their rights to effectively sack Livermore. That would be a big decision, given midfielder Livermore, who has one England cap, joined Hull for £8million last summer and still has two years remaining on his contract. In terms of whether or not Livermore could have his contract cancelled, Bruce said: “I haven’t had the conversation. But I am sure, knowing the owner the way I that I do, he would want to do the right thing. I think that’s vitally important. “Whatever that right thing is, people have their own opinions and when I have the conversation with the club then I’ll certainly have my own thoughts. “But at this moment in time I think the authorities had better do their job and do the right thing, and see where it ends up.” Bruce has been a manager for 17 years, but claims nothing could have prepared him for having to tell Livermore that he had failed a drugs test. “The FA consulted us on Tuesday evening,” said Bruce. “They informed the company secretary, who phoned me. I spoke to Jake on Wednesday morning to inform him when he arrived for training. “We go on all sorts of courses and coaching seminars and all sorts to be a football manger, but certain things you haven't got any experience of dealing with and as head of the club, apart from the chairman of course, I'm within my rights to express my huge disappointment and frustration and anger at the whole situation. “I am not going to deny it has been one of the most difficult 24-48 hours that I have had to deal with and I have been doing it now for 17 years. I couldn’t quite believe it. I’m still in a state of shock with it now. “It's certainly a situation where nobody wants to confront it and Jake knows he's let everybody down and he's let himself down, so I'm not going to be the judge and jury. I think that would be wrong of me, but I'm obviously disappointed and the consequences will be laid out in the next few weeks or so.” Bruce suggested there are reasons behind Livermore’s failed drug test, but refused to offer any excuses for the 25-year-old. “I'm sure there's mitigating circumstances for the reason why, I’m sure there will be a lot that comes out,” said Bruce. “Obviously society - and I get called a dinosaur very often - society has changed, there's no question about that. It's out there and temptation, unfortunately, becomes great. However, he's a professional footballer with the world at his feet. “You can't fail a drugs test now and get away with it, not with the world doping authority the way it is. It is highly professional. They have been to our club 15 or 16 times. It's so high profile now the Premier League and rightly so that we're talking about a player that took a social drug, it's just ridiculous. “They are professional footballers and there hasn't been a case for what, 10 years, and if they've been to our club 15 times then they've been to every other Premier League club 15 times and week in week out, there's nothing. It's well run, there are certain things we could probably improve on. "Could we embark in doing it ourselves every week? That might be a way forward, but I don't think legally you would have a cat in hell’s chance of doing that.” There would never be a good time for a club to find out one of their players had failed a drugs test, but Livermore’s suspension has added to Hull’s problems. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ruce-hoping-Hull-will-do-the-right-thing.html Sounds like he's a gonner. Hope the club do the right think in sacking and sueing him for everything he's cost us. What an absolute bellend.
The club's idea of "the right thing" will be whatever is likely to leave City least worst off financially.
City have 2 choices. Sack him immediately. Save his wages but write off the transfer fee. Keep him. Public apology and all that. Pay him knack all while suspended. Get him back playing as soon as the ban allows and try and nurture the footballer back that we all know is in there. If it's a 2 year ban this option isn't as attractive. I don't know the Allams but I do know they're a tight-knit family. If Livermore's personal problems are related to the drug use then they might just surprise us and choose the latter.
In this situation maybe the rules ought to allow for a club to sack a player and still get a transfer fee from any club willing to buy him.
We'd get very little if anything but it would act as a deterrent to others. The best chance of recouping any money is to keep him but that has it's pitfalls as well.
Chelsea successfully sued (actually probably technically the wrong term) Mutu...whether he has paid though is another thing? (shameless copying and pasting alert!) Chelsea started to seek compensation from Mutu in early 2005.[10][12] The Football Association Premier League Appeals Committee decided that the player had committed a breach of his contract without just cause[10] which made Chelsea eligible to claim the compensation.[13] Mutu started his first appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) but the case was dismissed.[10] On 11 May 2006, Chelsea applied to FIFA for an award of compensation against Mutu. In particular, the club requested that the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) award compensation to the club following Mutu's breaching the employment contract without just cause.[10] However, on 26 October, the DRC decided that it did not have jurisdiction to make a decision in the dispute and that the claim by the club was therefore not admissible.[10] On 22 December, Chelsea lodged a new appeal before the CAS seeking the annulment of the DRC’s decision. On 21 May 2007, a CAS panel upheld the club’s appeal, set aside the DRC’s decision, and referred the matter back to the DRC, “which does have jurisdiction to determine and impose the appropriate sporting sanction and/or order for compensation, if any, arising out of the dispute” between the Club and the Player,"[10] 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".[10] On 14 September, Mutu submitted to the DRC a brief requesting the rejection of Chelsea's plea, and asking FIFA to open an investigation against the club for having used and/or dealt with unlicensed agents.[10] But Mutu failed to suspend the arbitration and his claim for use of unlicensed agents was found not to be supported. On 7 May 2008, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered Mutu to pay €17,173,990 in compensation to his former club, Chelsea FC, for breach of contract.[14][15] This included €16,500,000 for the unamortised portion of the transfer fee paid to Parma, €307,340 for the unamortised portion of the sign-on fee (received by Mutu), and €366,650 for the unamortised portion of the fee to the Agent, but was not to take into account the determination of the damages for the amounts already paid by the club to the player (consideration for services rendered) or the remaining value of the employment contract (valued at €10,858,500). Mutu had to pay within 30 days after being informed of the decision in August 2008.[10] Mutu lodged an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport for the second time,[16] but on 31 July 2009, that court dismissed his appeal,[14] and Mutu was ordered to pay Chelsea the amount plus interest of 5% p.a. starting on 12 September 2008 until the effective date of payment; the matter was be submitted to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its determination. In addition, Mutu had to pay the costs of arbitration for both parties, including CHF 50,000 to Chelsea.[10] The fine was the highest ever levied by FIFA.[17] Mutu may be banned from football by FIFA if he does not pay,[18] although some lawyers have disputed this.[19] Mutu started his third appeal, this time to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, in October 2009,[20] but on 14 June 2010 this appeal was also dismissed with Mutu again being ordered to pay Chelsea €17m in damages.[21][22] Mutu then submitted an appeal to European Court of Human Rights. In 2013, FIFA DRC decided in a new ruling that Livorno and Juventus were also jointly liable to pay compensation; both clubs immediately appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.[23] On 21 January 2015 The Court of Arbitration for Sport annulled the FIFA DRC ruling; Mutu remained the sole party to pay the compensation.[24]
What will be more interesting is, after he's severed his ban (if he gets one) will be the clubs that come in for him, and lets not kid ourself there will be clubs willing to sign him,what will be city's take on it, throw the £8 million away, hang on to his registration ,demand a fee it .
If he gets a two year ban, he'll be out of contract by the end of it anyway and we can't sack him and hold on to his registration, it's one or the other.
Why can't it be enforced? Surely if a court has ruled he owes them that money then they could send the bailiffs round and even take money from his future wages? Livermore drives around a £200k car ffs.
