comment by Stuck With The Name Biggish (U7916)
posted 19 minutes ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clubs do it all the time, it is the loan system and without his loan from Chelsea you could argue that AM may not be where they are now anyway.

There is nothing wrong with the clause, it makes perfect sense but I would also prefer it to be a Uefa rule that regulates this sort of thing than a clause like we will use.

Courtouis should not be allowed to play against his parent club at all. It's unethical. Imagine if Atletico paid 6m and then Courtois played badly (inadvertently) to the point that it looked fishy - it would look horrendous.

There is nothing wrong with the clause, it makes perfect sense but I would also prefer it to be a Uefa rule that regulates this sort of thing than a clause like we will use.
------------------------------------
Yes, that is my feeling too

I saw another example of this earlier in the last round.

How is it possible that Nuri Sahin was playing for Dortmund against his parent club? I don't remember it even being mentioned. That is not allowed in the PL so why in the CL?

Different governing bodies .....

It is possible for the FA fo have different regulations than UEFA

money or not...no way is he playing against us

First of all - we need to be drawn against Atletico for this to even be relevant. But, if we are drawn against them - it is one more negotiating chip in our pocket when we discuss both Courtois and Costa with them.
They want Courtois to play, and they also want to keep him in the future. Chelsea wants Courtois to sign a new long-term contact, and we want to buy Costa.
It gives the club lots to discuss. I hope we find a way to re-sign Courtois to a long-term contract - even if we do then let him go back to Atletico on loan.
And if we can negotiate a reasonable fee for Costa too - all the better.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Spazzle. Have a Chelsea night off

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I sense your red cherub cheeks everyday being a Spuud fan

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Spuudie Phone Taps

Are you gonna be sad watching another Spuudie failed manager sacked ?

it is one more negotiating chip in our pocket when we discuss both Courtois and Costa with them.
They want Courtois to play, and they also want to keep him in the future.

i was thinking exactly the same. We should just let them play him without demanding a fee and use that to get some flexibilty with their owner in negotiating a fee for Costa( Cavani has certainly gone Down in many peoples thinking) If there is a problem with loan limitations, why not get a contract with Athletico to sell courtois Cheap to them with an air tight gaurantee that when we want him they have to sell him back to us for the same Price, that would help with ffp as well as thered be no need for extortionate fees paid by anybody.

Spanish TV asked Simeone about this and he had a very wry smile on his face when he said "Everything can be arranged." Might be reading into it too much, but it seemed as if he somehow knew they had it covered.

So he knows we are not meeting one another

Yeah, maybe 'arranged' was a reference to the draw.

On a more serious note though, aren't Chelsea looking to extend Courtois' contract?

Ban him from playing a CL semi or final and you can pretty much wave goodbye to your future no.1

Ban him from playing a CL semi or final and you can pretty much wave goodbye to your future no.1
_________________________________________

But we are not banning him, its up to AM if they want to cough up the fee

White Wall, Chelsea and Atletico agreed the clause and you have every right to exercise it, but good luck explaining your position to Courtois if he can't play.

Of course you can argue your case, but do you think the player and his agent will understand that you're only looking after your own interests, or will they just look at their own and see they're being severely damaged? I would imagine the latter.

€6M for two matches for a cash-strapped club like Atleti more or less amounts to saying he can't play. He could of course be bluffing, but their chairman's already said as much.

What I'm saying is that considering the current situation, I'd imagine the last thing you'd want is to upset Courtois to the point that he might well refuse to extend his contract.

Courtois and his agent haver agreed to the clause.

The clubs cant just slip it in when no one is looking.

They was happy with it in Aug, if he spits his dummy out over it now and refuses to sign an extension then he isnt a player we should have at our club anyway.

Let his agent pay it

WW, I think you're missing my point. Chelsea are fully entitled to exercising the clause, and nobody really should be complaining about something they'd previously agreed to. Logic and reason are totally on your side, but human emotions come into this in a big way and while exercising a cold, legal clause at this point in time would make total sense for your short term interests, it could prove a bad move for the long term.

On the other hand, you can of course argue that a bird in the hand...

If its true we are negotiating a new contract with him at the moment, he should use it as a bargaining chip.

Hopefully we will avoid them and all this is for nothing.

If there was a choice of beat them in a semi cause their back up keeper plays bad and Courtios never plays for us and he plays and then signs a new contract after they beat us what option would we prefer?

I say sod him I want to win the throphy.