It says in his contract he can play against them apparently. However this will set them back about £4million pound a game. So £8million over both legs. Might be worth it as their 2nd string keeper has played once this season
Although having read uefa's statement it appears that they say that clause is null and void... Can they legally decide to just cancel a clause in someones contract? Interesting
Although having read uefa's statement it appears that they say that clause is null and void... Can they legally decide to just cancel a clause in someones contract? Interesting
You'd hope so. While they do have huge commercial interest UEFA are also expected to uphold fair and competitive matches. I guess it comes down to whether or not you think a loan player facing their parent club is fair or not, but that's down to an individuals discretion. Personally I think having a stipulation in the contract where a loan players can't face parent clubs if fair, but charging extortionate sums to allow the player to do so is wrong.
Although having read uefa's statement it appears that they say that clause is null and void... Can they legally decide to just cancel a clause in someones contract? Interesting
You'd hope so. While they do have huge commercial interest UEFA are also expected to uphold fair and competitive matches. I guess it comes down to whether or not you think a loan player facing their parent club is fair or not, but that's down to an individuals discretion. Personally I think having a stipulation in the contract where a loan players can't face parent clubs if fair, but charging extortionate sums to allow the player to do so is wrong.
puts Courtois in a difficult position, suppose he makes an honest mistake then he will be accused of throwing the game in favour of the parent club.
Suppose he is the hero and Athletico go through, then he gets recalled by Chelsea for next season, what's Chelsea's (team and supporters) attitude to him going to be like.
Although having read uefa's statement it appears that they say that clause is null and void... Can they legally decide to just cancel a clause in someones contract? Interesting
That was my point, UEFA have said they do not need to pay as its against their rules
puts Courtois in a difficult position, suppose he makes an honest mistake then he will be accused of throwing the game in favour of the parent club.
Suppose he is the hero and Athletico go through, then he gets recalled by Chelsea for next season, what's Chelsea's (team and supporters) attitude to him going to be like.
Probably best that he sits the tie out.
How many chances do you get to play in a Champions League Semi Final? Granted he's got more of a chance than the rest of us but it's not really an opportunity you can just turn down.
Although having read uefa's statement it appears that they say that clause is null and void... Can they legally decide to just cancel a clause in someones contract? Interesting
That was my point, UEFA have said they do not need to pay as its against their rules
Just hadn't read their statement til after my first post is all
I don't think he should play for a similar reason why an owner of multiple clubs can't have more than one team in the competition - It leaves it open for accusations of cheating. WHether that happens or not - I don't understand why UEFA are so inconsistent in the way they apply their rules.
Chelsea want Diego Costa don't they? I reckon Courtois playing (and staying another year) will be part of the deal. And they'll say he can play if he signs a new contract.
puts Courtois in a difficult position, suppose he makes an honest mistake then he will be accused of throwing the game in favour of the parent club.
Suppose he is the hero and Athletico go through, then he gets recalled by Chelsea for next season, what's Chelsea's (team and supporters) attitude to him going to be like.
Probably best that he sits the tie out.
I think his team mates would respect him all the more for putting in a good performance - it's the Chelsea fans that would be a bigger problem, mainly because in the main they're idiots.
It's a tricky one this, on the one hand it'd be very tough on the player that he has to miss out on such big games. On the other though, there is a definite potential conflict of interest there. I'm not saying Courtois would throw the game, but it does leave the possibility open and who knows what pressure his parent club might potentially put on him? Imagine the reaction if Courtois makes a ricket and drops the ball into his own net and that goal takes Chelsea through.
The loan rule just isn't fit for purpose. It's supposed to be about giving young players experience, not about helping top teams win European cups on the cheap, or allowing mega rich clubs to Hoover up, talent and then send them off somewhere on loan just to make sure their competitors can't sign them.
It needs to be altered to say you cannot loan players to teams in the same competition as you, or to say they cannot play in any games in the competition in which both teams play, at least until the parent team has been eliminated. The second would effectively rule out teams loaning players from the same division but would potentially allow loan players to play in the later stages of knockout competitions as long as their parent club doesn't also have a good run in the competition.
If it's in the contract then why should he be allowed to play. Chelsea would have loaned him out and believed that he wouldn't be facing them. I think UEFA should keep their noses out of it if it is in the contract.
I personally don't have an enormous issue with the loan system apart from that I think there should be a limit to how many players you can loan out. If it was limited to, say, 5 players, teams like Chelsea and Spurs who are notorious for having about 20 players out on loan would have to make considered choices on which players to retain and which to allow to leave permanently. Players like Patrick Bamford would then be bought by a Championship side and would make his way on his own merits. Far better than all of these sides basically giving experience to a player who belongs to a side that's already got massive advantages over the rest of us.
I didnt think there was an issue here between Chelsea and Atletico...
I thought it was a case where Madrid had to play an additional £5m for the two matches if they wanted to play Courtois... Madrid have said they cant afford the money so wont be playing him - If you compare that with the Mo Bangura situation (where he played for AIK against parent club Celtic) its two completely different cases
I didnt think there was an issue here between Chelsea and Atletico...
I thought it was a case where Madrid had to play an additional £5m for the two matches if they wanted to play Courtois... Madrid have said they cant afford the money so wont be playing him - If you compare that with the Mo Bangura situation (where he played for AIK against parent club Celtic) its two completely different cases
Thats the whole point UEFA have said its against their rules for Chelsea to include that into his contract,
If it's in the contract then why should he be allowed to play. Chelsea would have loaned him out and believed that he wouldn't be facing them. I think UEFA should keep their noses out of it if it is in the contract.
But if its in the rules then Chelsea would of known this
If it's in the contract then why should he be allowed to play. Chelsea would have loaned him out and believed that he wouldn't be facing them. I think UEFA should keep their noses out of it if it is in the contract.
But if its in the rules then Chelsea would of known this
maybe not would have known, but probably should have known. If thats the rules, Chelsea need to stick to them. However, Athletico agreed the clause in the first place.
Comments
Suppose he is the hero and Athletico go through, then he gets recalled by Chelsea for next season, what's Chelsea's (team and supporters) attitude to him going to be like.
Probably best that he sits the tie out.
The loan rule just isn't fit for purpose. It's supposed to be about giving young players experience, not about helping top teams win European cups on the cheap, or allowing mega rich clubs to Hoover up, talent and then send them off somewhere on loan just to make sure their competitors can't sign them.
It needs to be altered to say you cannot loan players to teams in the same competition as you, or to say they cannot play in any games in the competition in which both teams play, at least until the parent team has been eliminated. The second would effectively rule out teams loaning players from the same division but would potentially allow loan players to play in the later stages of knockout competitions as long as their parent club doesn't also have a good run in the competition.
I thought it was a case where Madrid had to play an additional £5m for the two matches if they wanted to play Courtois... Madrid have said they cant afford the money so wont be playing him - If you compare that with the Mo Bangura situation (where he played for AIK against parent club Celtic) its two completely different cases
So he can play without Madrid having to pay