UEFA Champions League 2013/14

[j0rd]

Real vs Athletico final for me

[David]

had a giggle at this although somewhat exaggerated if you ask me

Show Hide

would rather see a chelsea/real final than a madrid battle, already watched that 4 times this season

[Matthew]

there seems to be a few issues arising about Courtois, supposedly there's a clause in his contract which means that if Atletico want to play Courtois against Chelsea, they'd need to pay chelsea around £5m.

UEFA have stepped in and said that chelsea may not enforce this rule.

IDK what's happening. Surely as its a legally binding contract between Atletico and Chelsea, there's nothing UEFA can do? A similar issue arose not so long ago with someone playing against Celtic, and UEFA that time said that they wouldn't intervene in the clubs business. But, of course, Chelsea is english so UEFA step in |-)

[David]

uefa are talking ******** about rule violations, they said so themselves

chelsea should let him play regardless of any agreement that can force otherwise, they surely don't want to deprive him of the chance of playing in semi finals if they really want to keep him for future seasons - it's sure to piss him off.

[Matthew]

uefa are talking ******** about rule violations, they said so themselves

chelsea should let him play regardless of any agreement that can force otherwise, they surely don't want to deprive him of the chance of playing in semi finals if they really want to keep him for future seasons - it's sure to piss him off.

what I can see happening is chelsea allowing courtois to play (not that its chelsea's decision anyway, its Atletico's) but in return Atletico knocking £5m off the price for Diego Costa in the summer, so moving it down to £27m.

Chelsea and Atletico have very good relations so I can't see chelsea wanting to upset Atletico or vice-versa. Its likely that Courtois will remain on loan in Madrid for a 4th year as well anyway.

[Spuds]

what I can see happening is chelsea allowing courtois to play (not that its chelsea's decision anyway, its Atletico's) but in return Atletico knocking £5m off the price for Diego Costa in the summer, so moving it down to £27m.

Chelsea and Atletico have very good relations so I can't see chelsea wanting to upset Atletico or vice-versa. Its likely that Courtois will remain on loan in Madrid for a 4th year as well anyway.

What I found interesting from the statement issued by UEFA is the exact wording within the statement. Essentially UEFA have stated that any contract which attempts to exert influence is null and void. Chelsea have stated that he is free to play, it is now down to Atletico as to whether or not they play him.

If Atletico decide to play him, it will be interesting to see how Chelsea react. UEFA after all is a governing body, and not a court of law.

[Matthew]

What I found interesting from the statement issued by UEFA is the exact wording within the statement. Essentially UEFA have stated that any contract which attempts to exert influence is null and void. Chelsea have stated that he is free to play, it is now down to Atletico as to whether or not they play him.

If Atletico decide to play him, it will be interesting to see how Chelsea react. UEFA after all is a governing body, and not a court of law.

Exactly. It isn't UEFA's to meddle in- the loan agreement had clauses in which are legal (I believe?) and Atletico signed a legally binding contract which says that to play Courtois against chelsea they must pay.

The wording as well is strange,

"Both the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations contain clear provisions which strictly forbid any club to exert, or attempt to exert, any influence whatsoever over the players that another club may (or may not) field in a match."

Chelsea aren't influencing anything- they have said that Courtois can play. It is Atletico which must decide whether or not they wish to pay, as per the contract which they signed. I assume all contracts have to be checked before they can be submitted, and if this is the case, why was it passed if UEFA are so adamant that it isn't allowed?

"Any agreement between the two clubs that this player wouldn't play against Celtic should Elfsborg 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."

That is what UEFA said last year.

[Spuds]

Exactly. It isn't UEFA's to meddle in- the loan agreement had clauses in which are legal (I believe?) and Atletico signed a legally binding contract which says that to play Courtois against chelsea they must pay.

The wording as well is strange,

Chelsea aren't influencing anything- they have said that Courtois can play. It is Atletico which must decide whether or not they wish to pay, as per the contract which they signed. I assume all contracts have to be checked before they can be submitted, and if this is the case, why was it passed if UEFA are so adamant that it isn't allowed?

That is what UEFA said last year.

The difference between the Atletico/Chelsea deal compared to the Celtic deal is the money. It'll be interesting to see how Chelsea conclude their evaluation of UEFA's rulings which they're combing over this weekend (according to Ron Gourlay).

Regardless, I think it's fair to assume that he won't be on loan at Atletico next season; this was a private contract which they've made public via the media and UEFA; Chelsea are seemingly somewhat sour in the mouth about this.

[David]

who are people going for to win tomorrow?

[j0rd]

Atletico!!