Still better value than Rooney
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11945/9258072/champions-league-atletico-madrids-thibaut-courtois-wont-face-chelsea-in-semi-finals
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I'd prefer to play them with Courtois..
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 13 minutes ago
That is a ridiculously unfair clause............and bordering on the genius.
-------------------------------------------------------
Emenalo is an evil genius.
A journo was on the radio today says a deal could be struck where we allow him to play in return for a reduced fee for Costa.
Seems to make sense all round in the long term, but he pulls out a couple of world class performances and we are knocked out not sure I would see it that way.
Dont think so.
Which makes it virtually guaranteed that they will sell Costa to us, which is quite stupid at this point of time. They would rather test the market and see if they can get a higher bid.
If he has a buy out clause they cant wait for higher bids, you only have to pay the reported £32M.
This is excellent news, their defence is very mean and this will significantly weaken them. You can just imagine he having the game of his life against us too had he played.
Hmmmmmmmm
Don't you think this "pay to play" thing is sailing close to the wind in terms of the ethics of the competition?
It does not sit comfortably with me and it shouldn't with UEFA.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
UEFA do need to introduce a rule though either guaranteeing the right of loanees to play against their parent clubs or denying them the right.
-----------------------------------------------------------
agreed, it has to be a black and whire ruling
Though Chelsea may end up as beneficiaries, if Courtois makes a mistake whilst doing his best that gives Chelsea the tie, it will just look awful all round.
UEFA love Chelsea and will help us as much as possible
comment by GUNNERBEGOOD (U10646)
posted 32 minutes ago
Though Chelsea may end up as beneficiaries, if Courtois makes a mistake whilst doing his best that gives Chelsea the tie, it will just look awful all round.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I am in favour of the rule that bans loan players from tplaying agst their parent club. There will always be conspiracy theories in play when something happens
We are in a lose-lose situation if you look at it that way Biggish.
If we don't allow him to play, the media will start with their evil Chelsea not allowing essential members of the other team not to play against them (see Lukaku, Courtois, etc).
The money thing is fine, the contract says if he is that essential you have to pay otherwise play a backup.
comment by Tucking Fypo (U9627)
posted 2 minutes ago
We are in a lose-lose situation if you look at it that way Biggish.
If we don't allow him to play, the media will start with their evil Chelsea not allowing essential members of the other team not to play against them (see Lukaku, Courtois, etc).
The money thing is fine, the contract says if he is that essential you have to pay otherwise play a backup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if the rule is made by the sports governing body, as it is with the FA
The money thing is fine, the contract says if he is that essential you have to pay otherwise play a backup.
---------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is fine because it means in effect that AM are paying their opponent a fee to affect the outcome of a match...............for me that is a version of match fixing
Its a contract which all three parties agreed to.
Either Atletico won't play him or they'll pay the fee. They can't just refuse to adhere to a contract and if they do I should imagine they'll be taken to court for a lot of money. They'd be very stupid to allow that to happen.
I am not talking about the the contract between the two clubs, I am questioning that for the game of football, it does not feel right that a club has to pay an opponent in order to strengthen its own team..........it can't be right and teams that have previously playes AM would be rightly upset
In the leagues they can't play against their parent club, why alone in Europe? There are no rules to counter it, hence a clause.
6m for two matches will make him the most valuable player on the pitch
Sign in if you want to comment
Courtois Update
Page 1 of 3
posted on 10/4/14
Good news.
posted on 10/4/14
quite right, !
posted on 10/4/14
Still better value than Rooney
posted on 10/4/14
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11945/9258072/champions-league-atletico-madrids-thibaut-courtois-wont-face-chelsea-in-semi-finals
posted on 10/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/4/14
I'd prefer to play them with Courtois..
posted on 10/4/14
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 13 minutes ago
That is a ridiculously unfair clause............and bordering on the genius.
-------------------------------------------------------
Emenalo is an evil genius.
posted on 10/4/14
A journo was on the radio today says a deal could be struck where we allow him to play in return for a reduced fee for Costa.
Seems to make sense all round in the long term, but he pulls out a couple of world class performances and we are knocked out not sure I would see it that way.
posted on 10/4/14
Dont think so.
Which makes it virtually guaranteed that they will sell Costa to us, which is quite stupid at this point of time. They would rather test the market and see if they can get a higher bid.
posted on 10/4/14
If he has a buy out clause they cant wait for higher bids, you only have to pay the reported £32M.
posted on 10/4/14
This is excellent news, their defence is very mean and this will significantly weaken them. You can just imagine he having the game of his life against us too had he played.
posted on 10/4/14
Wonderful clause
posted on 10/4/14
Hmmmmmmmm
Don't you think this "pay to play" thing is sailing close to the wind in terms of the ethics of the competition?
It does not sit comfortably with me and it shouldn't with UEFA.
posted on 10/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/4/14
UEFA do need to introduce a rule though either guaranteeing the right of loanees to play against their parent clubs or denying them the right.
-----------------------------------------------------------
agreed, it has to be a black and whire ruling
posted on 10/4/14
Though Chelsea may end up as beneficiaries, if Courtois makes a mistake whilst doing his best that gives Chelsea the tie, it will just look awful all round.
posted on 10/4/14
UEFA love Chelsea and will help us as much as possible
posted on 10/4/14
comment by GUNNERBEGOOD (U10646)
posted 32 minutes ago
Though Chelsea may end up as beneficiaries, if Courtois makes a mistake whilst doing his best that gives Chelsea the tie, it will just look awful all round.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I am in favour of the rule that bans loan players from tplaying agst their parent club. There will always be conspiracy theories in play when something happens
posted on 10/4/14
We are in a lose-lose situation if you look at it that way Biggish.
If we don't allow him to play, the media will start with their evil Chelsea not allowing essential members of the other team not to play against them (see Lukaku, Courtois, etc).
The money thing is fine, the contract says if he is that essential you have to pay otherwise play a backup.
posted on 10/4/14
comment by Tucking Fypo (U9627)
posted 2 minutes ago
We are in a lose-lose situation if you look at it that way Biggish.
If we don't allow him to play, the media will start with their evil Chelsea not allowing essential members of the other team not to play against them (see Lukaku, Courtois, etc).
The money thing is fine, the contract says if he is that essential you have to pay otherwise play a backup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if the rule is made by the sports governing body, as it is with the FA
posted on 10/4/14
The money thing is fine, the contract says if he is that essential you have to pay otherwise play a backup.
---------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is fine because it means in effect that AM are paying their opponent a fee to affect the outcome of a match...............for me that is a version of match fixing
posted on 10/4/14
Its a contract which all three parties agreed to.
Either Atletico won't play him or they'll pay the fee. They can't just refuse to adhere to a contract and if they do I should imagine they'll be taken to court for a lot of money. They'd be very stupid to allow that to happen.
posted on 10/4/14
I am not talking about the the contract between the two clubs, I am questioning that for the game of football, it does not feel right that a club has to pay an opponent in order to strengthen its own team..........it can't be right and teams that have previously playes AM would be rightly upset
posted on 10/4/14
In the leagues they can't play against their parent club, why alone in Europe? There are no rules to counter it, hence a clause.
posted on 10/4/14
6m for two matches will make him the most valuable player on the pitch
Page 1 of 3