Lawyers verses lawyers. He's broken the club's rules on a number of occasions so city are trying to sack him. On Bullard's side he has the PFA plus his own lawyers, and on 50k a week he can afford good ones. The squad number issue was a red herring, just to cover the club. Basically Bullard won't play for us again, it's just if we can sack him it would be beneficial to the club. Bullard will try for a pay-off (he's got the cheek to go for that - plus a loyalty bonus).
I'd assumed the squad number was added to prevent a constructive dismissal claim ie pre empting the disciplinary process. The fact it was added after the fact might not be helpful though.... These kinds of detail can be the difference between a clean dismissal and a costly settlement. Let's hope we havent cost ourselves this time. Sad ending though...
What has he actually supposed to have done in Slovina? (Genuinely dont know as I usually avoid Bullard threads) I am sure our lawyers are as good as his, as for PFA reps, well they are just a trade union advisor. Depending on what he has done we will either sack him and worry about compensation later at a tribunral (as is what happens in the "real world"), or we will give him a final written warning, tell him he is no longer wanted by the club and offer him a free transfer (similar to Newcastle and Barton) and tell him not to attend training. Will be interesting to see which route we take. I can see us putting him on a free transfer and giving him £750K. This would pretty much cover £15k per week, that along with £30k per week (there max wage) contract, plus a "siging on fee" of £750k from QPR means he wont lose anything over two years.
Cracking NP. Or threatening to. Shagging some whore in Slovenia, coming home, then going out on the piss in London and getting taxi to the training ground. Therefore turning up pissed. Depends on who you listen to!
Throw the book at him. No smoke without fire, and the bloke just seems a complete and utter cock. I hope he is no longer anything to do with Hull City AFC after Wednesday.
Great news this. The Allams can get much better lawyers than Bullard ever will. Back in the real world Bullard would have been sacked long ago. Perry Mason could not even save Bullard now nevermind the PFA. They said that Jean-Marc Bosman would never win his case either in court. Lol. We got the Bosman. Maybe soon we shall heve the "Bullard". If JB wants to argue and contest his sacking then fine....See you in court Jimmy boy. City can have this tied up in court for yonks with Bullard on No pay and No Club. "Warnock on Skys Goals on Sunday said he had 2 more players coming in this week." Is one Jimmy Boy ? Hope so and take the deal Bullard. Ya not wanted up here anymore.
The problem with this is there is no judicial precedent. I think the closest to it would be Adrian Mutu, but that was quite an exceptional circumstance and will probably not apply with Bullard.
There may well be after this case. If half of what i have been told is true then Bullard has No Defence. It could well be as ground breaking a case as the Bosman. I bet a lot of other clubs will be taking a keen interest in it. Its been long overdue that footballers should be no different to anyone who works in the real world.
No, but they've clearly got something on him that makes his position untenable, hence the suspension, and the extended suspension. I'd hazard a guess that whatever barrister Bullard can hire, the Allams can blow him out of the water!! This doesn't need to set a precedent, it could just help us reduce the cost of settling his contract, as surely the contract must have a 'code of conduct' it's not unreasonable to expect someone being very handsomely paid by the club, and given expensive medical care at HIS request to act and behave in a responsible, sensible manner. Nobody knows what the club are proposing until a statement is released, but on the face of it, however it is positioned, it's goodbye Bullard
For Sure The Allams and Hull City want to sack Bullard without another penny being paid. Apart from whatever money is due to him. Nothing more. Normally a months money in leu of notice.
If we manage to successfully sack Bullard we "MIGHT" actually not only avoid the rest of his contract, but also get back what we have already paid him and claim additional actual and lost opportunity costs. In other words we could actually make a profit on the whole affair. This would, of course all depend of successfully proving breach of contract in the first place. In August 2003, Chelsea paid Parma €22.5m (around £15.8m) for Mutu's transfer as part of new owner Roman Abramovich's spending spree,[4][5][6] He started with four goals in three matches, including two in a 4–2 victory over London rivals Tottenham Hotspur, but Mutu scored fewer goals as the season progressed. In the 2004–05 season, Mutu had a difficult relationship with the club's new manager José Mourinho, with each accusing the other of lying about whether the player was injured for a 2006 World Cup qualifying match against the Czech Republic.[7] In September 2004, he failed a drugs test for cocaine and was sacked on 29 October 2004. He also received a seven-month ban and a £20,000 fine from the FA. The ban ended on 18 May 2005. Chelsea started to seek compensation from Mutu in early 2005.[6][8] The Football Association Premier League Appeals Committee decided that the player had committed a breach of his contract without just cause [6] which made Chelsea eligible to claim the compensation.[9] Mutu started his first appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) but the case was dismissed.[6] 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) should award an amount of compensation in favour of the club following the established breach of the Employment Contract committed by the Player without just cause.[6] However, on 26 October, the DRC decided that it did not have jurisdiction to make a decision in the dispute between the Club and the Player and that the claim by the Club was therefore not admissible.[6] 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,"[6] 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".[6] 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.[6] But Mutu failed to suspend the arbitration and his claim for unlicensed agent was found no such violation emerged. On 7 May 2008, FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered Mutu to pay €17,173,990 in compensation to his former club, Chelsea FC, for breach of contract.[10][11] It included €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.[6] Mutu lodged an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for the second time,[12] On 31 July 2009, the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed an appeal filed by Mutu regarding his fine,[10] Mutu is ordered to pay to Chelsea the amount, plus interest of 5% p.a. starting on 12 September 2008 until the effective date of payment, and the matter will be submitted to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its. In addition, Mutu had to pay the costs of the arbitration of both parties, and have to pay CHF 50,000 to Chelsea contribution towards the legal and other costs incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.[6] The fine was the highest ever levied by FIFA.[13] Mutu may be banned from football by FIFA if he does not pay the compensation,[14] although some lawyers have disputed this.[15] Mutu started his third appeal, this time to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland in October 2009,[16] but on 14 June 2010 this appeal was also dismissed with Mutu again being ordered to pay Chelsea €17m in damages.[17][18] It was reported that Mutu will appeal to the European Court of Justice.[19]
