|
On April 11 2014 21:05 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 21:01 Maenander wrote:On April 11 2014 20:47 zeo wrote:
Maybe we can get Matic to play in the semi's using the new 'it would only be fair' clause I don't think you get it. This is not about an "it would only be fair" clause. Chelsea agreed to comply with UEFA's regulations when they signed up for the Champions League. And this clause violates these regulations. Legally Chelsea might be in the right, and could enforce the contract clause. But it does not matter. You do not want to be on the wrong side of UEFA. If you want to participate in future UEFA competitions, you better abide to their rules. I guess Chelsea will let it slide, at least if they know what's good for them. That's not the point, a year ago it was "Any agreement between the two clubs that this player wouldn’t play against club A should club B be drawn against them is purely between the clubs. UEFA would not have any involvement or consideration of this agreement, it would be neither endorsed or enforceable by UEFA." Now whenever it has something to do with Chelsea UEFA make shit up as they go along, and we all know who always gets the short end of the stick.
This is not about Chelsea. It's a semifinal of the Champions League. UEFA don't want to see key players sidelined in high profile games because of ridiculous clauses. They wanted to make a statement to avoid any such situations in the future, and they found a reason for that in their rules 
|
On April 11 2014 21:11 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 21:05 zeo wrote:On April 11 2014 21:01 Maenander wrote:On April 11 2014 20:47 zeo wrote:
Maybe we can get Matic to play in the semi's using the new 'it would only be fair' clause I don't think you get it. This is not about an "it would only be fair" clause. Chelsea agreed to comply with UEFA's regulations when they signed up for the Champions League. And this clause violates these regulations. Legally Chelsea might be in the right, and could enforce the contract clause. But it does not matter. You do not want to be on the wrong side of UEFA. If you want to participate in future UEFA competitions, you better abide to their rules. I guess Chelsea will let it slide, at least if they know what's good for them. That's not the point, a year ago it was "Any agreement between the two clubs that this player wouldn’t play against club A should club B be drawn against them is purely between the clubs. UEFA would not have any involvement or consideration of this agreement, it would be neither endorsed or enforceable by UEFA." Now whenever it has something to do with Chelsea UEFA make shit up as they go along, and we all know who always gets the short end of the stick. This is not about Chelsea. It's a semifinal of the Champions League. UEFA don't want to see key players sidelined in high profile games because of ridiculous clauses. They wanted to make a statement to avoid any such situations in the future, and if they find a reason for that in their rules, all the better
But this clause in Courtois's load deal has been there for three seasons. Three season UEFA could have said something, and now when its a lol-liga side that might lose in a semi-final imaginary rules pop out of nowhere. They could have left it to the clubs to decide, Chelsea could have been the good guy and dropped the fee. Maybe we could have gotten dibbs on Costa, but UEFA always has to be a cunt.
In the end Chelsea gave Atletico a player who for three seasons has been doing wonders for them... for free. Instead of letting them all sit down like adults and work out a deal, UEFA acts like a bitch.
|
Holy crap UEFA actually did something good for the sport? :D Nice.
|
I just read through the UEFA regulations, and in my non-expert opinion they are quite clear on the subject:
Article 3 "Integrity of the competition"
No club may
iii)
be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management,
administration and/or sporting performance of any other club
participating in a UEFA club competition, or
iv)
have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or
sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club
competition
I guess a clause that states "you have to pay 6 million if you want to field this player against us in the CL"
means you have power "in the management, administration and/or sporting performance" of another club
|
Oh dear, Bayern and first leg in the Bernabeu without Ronaldo probably.
well, gg wp.
|
On April 11 2014 21:38 Salteador Neo wrote:
Holy crap UEFA actually did something good for the sport? :D Nice.
It just means more money to them, that's why, xD.
|
On April 11 2014 21:42 Maenander wrote:I just read through the UEFA regulations, and in my non-expert opinion they are quite clear on the subject: Article 3 "Integrity of the competition" No club may Show nested quote +iii)
be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management,
administration and/or sporting performance of any other club
participating in a UEFA club competition, or
iv)
have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or
sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club
competition
UEFA ratified the agreed contract between Chelsea and AM. They literally read it and said there was nothing wrong with it. In what universe is fulfilling a contract suddenly ‘exerting pressure’ on another club. "Hey, I just bought a great player for 20 million euro", "What, three years have passed and I haven't paid them a cent. UEFA! UEFA! They are pressuring meeee, I don't have to paaay"
|
Chelsea would have probably waved away the clause due to media pressure (although with Mourinho you never know), but yeah if they agreed the contract than they really shouldn't meddle with things. Chelsea would probably never have loaned Courtois to Atletico without the clause.
On April 11 2014 21:51 sc4k wrote:
I am pleased we drew Atletico in terms of the other teams probably being more dangerous.
In terms of the Courtois thing...I thought it was standard in loan deals for the loanee to not play against the parent club. I don't see why people are so surprised/annoyed by it. It's pretty obvious tbh; massive conflict of interest for the player. It's not having power over another club if it is written into the contract. It's just the club having to abide by the terms of the contract.
Yeah, in Football Manager I always check this clause as well.
|
I am pleased we drew Atletico in terms of the other teams probably being more dangerous.
In terms of the Courtois thing...I thought it was standard in loan deals for the loanee to not play against the parent club. I don't see why people are so surprised/annoyed by it. It's pretty obvious tbh; massive conflict of interest for the player. It's not having power over another club if it is written into the contract. It's just the club having to abide by the terms of the contract.
|
On April 11 2014 21:51 Ysellian wrote:Chelsea would have probably waved away the clause due to media pressure (although with Mourinho you never know), but yeah if they agreed the contract than they really shouldn't meddle with things. Chelsea would probably never have loaned Courtois to Atletico without the clause. Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 21:51 sc4k wrote:
I am pleased we drew Atletico in terms of the other teams probably being more dangerous.
In terms of the Courtois thing...I thought it was standard in loan deals for the loanee to not play against the parent club. I don't see why people are so surprised/annoyed by it. It's pretty obvious tbh; massive conflict of interest for the player. It's not having power over another club if it is written into the contract. It's just the club having to abide by the terms of the contract. Yeah, in Football Manager I always check this clause as well.
It was also practically a done deal that Courtois would be going back to AM next season, now its just complicated and also all this media attention and everyone following his every move will take its toll of the kid. Ahhh, fuck it, can't be bothered talking about this anymore. Don't care if the kid plays, I just hate UEFA 
|
|
|
On April 11 2014 21:51 Ysellian wrote:
Chelsea would probably never have loaned Courtois to Atletico without the clause.
Very unlikely. The chances that Atletico would meet Chelsea in an important game were pretty small at that point.
|
At least chelsea now can act like they wouldve dropped the clause anyway
|
On April 11 2014 22:09 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 21:51 Ysellian wrote:
Chelsea would probably never have loaned Courtois to Atletico without the clause.
Very unlikely. The chances that Atletico would meet Chelsea in an important game were pretty small at that point.
Which is why the clause was there, right? Come on Chelsea knew full well of the risks and that is why they put the clause, or else they would have sent him to another club.
Btw Atletico could have played Chelsea in the groupstages as well. You don't just loan a player of Courtois's caliber to any champions league team.
|
On April 11 2014 22:31 Ysellian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 22:09 Maenander wrote:On April 11 2014 21:51 Ysellian wrote:
Chelsea would probably never have loaned Courtois to Atletico without the clause.
Very unlikely. The chances that Atletico would meet Chelsea in an important game were pretty small at that point. Which is why the clause was there, right? Come on Chelsea knew full well of the risks and that is why they put the clause, or else they would have sent him to another club.
There was no harm in putting the clause in. I doubt it was essential.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
This season it would of been. Mourinho came back to Chelsea with the viewing of every loan player we had starting with us in pre season. He then shaved off the ones he did not want, Marko Marin - Lukaku - Piazon etcetc. Courtois he rang and spoke to personally and said i want you back at Chelsea and he said well i want to be No1 choice as it is world cup year and i want to play to show i am no1 for Belgium. Mourinho reluctantly agreed to his wishes and we signed Schwarzer instead for one year. As he is coming back to us next season where he will finally replace Cech probably or maybe play half of the games each.
Mourinho would of seen how impressive Atletico were and probably mentioned this clause or maybe even the Chelsea hierachy did it on their own accord from the 2012 Super Cup where Atletico thrashed us 4-1 and Courtois (with little to do) still made 1-2 very good saves.
Who knows, but we know the clause is there. Just sad that UEFA wait until this happens to deny it, at the start of the competition do it and no one gives a fuck, doing it now causes bit more of a shit storm (kinda).
It is not Chelsea's fault that Atletico's accountants the last several years have been shocking for example. They have sold probably the best 3 strikers in European football over the last amount of years. Torres to Liverpool £30mill? Aguero to City 30million? Falcao to Monaco £50mill, Costa is going to go for 30-40 mill. £150million in striker sales alone since 2011. In that time they were in the Champions League (playing vs Chelsea ironically xD) and winning the Europa League.
Wow didn't know big Jimmy Hasslebaink had such a good record of goals for Atletico either ;o
|
If I were Atletico Madrid's chairman, i'd give intimidation to Chelsea "If you dont let us play Courtois for freely, you can see Diego Costa in your dreams. It will be fun to watch you guys with no striker in the next season." Then i would sell Diego Costa to Arsenal or Yanited lolol.
|
Benfica and Juventus are clearly the better teams in this europa league..
Funny that both these teams have 2 wins and 5 losses in the CL finals, both being the "biggest" finals losers
I'm hoping my Benfica can squeeze thru Juventus and grab the title after losing to a Chelsea team that didn't deserve it.. 
|
On April 12 2014 00:31 shell wrote:Benfica and Juventus are clearly the better teams in this europa league.. Funny that both these teams have 2 wins and 5 losses in the CL finals, both being the "biggest" finals losers I'm hoping my Benfica can squeeze thru Juventus and grab the title after losing to a Chelsea team that didn't deserve it..
Juventus and better are 2 words not compliant with one another.
|
In other news, Benfica 4-0 Real Madrid in the semi-final of the UEFA Youth League. Schalke 0-1 Barcelona in the other. Barcelona - Benfica in the final.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
