Ridiculous verdict.
Why?
Chelsea chose to sack him. They could've sold him when his ban was up. He breached his contract and they chose to terminate it but it seems to be a dangerous precedent to somehow make him responsible for the transfer fee as well?! Plus, how is he supposed to get on with his career with that ridiculous amount of debt hanging over him? Give the guy a break for God's sake.
That's how I see it too. Chelsea have dealt with this in a "can we nail him?" mentality and released the legal hounds to chew his ass. Rather than being reasonable and working out a compromise of some sort. It's not his fault that they paid £16m or whatever for him.
It's Fiorentina who sold Chelsea the dodgy merchandise, possibly without full disclosure of his leisurely habits. Why not sue them? Of course it's easier to sue a footballer. Roman's lawyers must be proud of themselves.
If I buy a Whirlpool washing machine from Appliance Town Midwest and it breaks right away should I sue the washing machine? If the customer had bought the dead parrot, should he have sued it for not waking up?
I know it's the law and all that, but it's just a matter of who you hire to bend it in your favour. Exxon got verdict for Valdes after 25 years of cun
tishness and winners define right and wrong after wars.
There may have been a drugs clause in his contract, but as I said: ridiculous.