Subject: CHAMPIONS LEAGUE 2013-14

Of course it's not fair. Atlético is 2 teams: 1 when they play anyone else, another onw when they play Chelsea. That can't be. Would Atlético be in semifinals without Courtois? Who knows, maybe not. It's not "ilegal", it's not about whether contractually there's something wrong. I can also sign a contract saying that I'll give you 1.000.000 pounds adn you'll score 3 own goals. It's a perfectly understandable contract, voluntarily signed by the two parties, etc. Still, the competition would be completely contaminated by this.
Similarly, this "not against me" clauses can be written in formally perfect contracts, but they do distort fair competition, so it's natural for UEFA to overrule them. We are not discussing ordinary justice, only internal competition rules. Notice that UEFA is not saying the clause is void - as it's beyond its jurisdiction. They are jsut saying that if any institution brings this distortionary behavior to their competitions, they'll take (sport) sanctions against these teams, within the context of UEFA tournaments.

FIFA is full of shit, let's start with that.

There was already such case this season in CL eliminations when Celtic played Elfsborg. What then? FIFA didn't give a damn about it, the player missed the game.

Same in PL, where Lukaku missed the games against Chelsea.

FIFA doesn't like it? Great. So make a law that such clauses are void since next season / or that one can't include such clause in the contract.

Of course it's not fair. Atlético is 2 teams: 1 when they play anyone else, another onw when they play Chelsea.

Well...on the other hand Atletico got a great GK for free. Their opponents didn't get such a great gk for free, so they were in worse situation when playing Atletico. Not fair play!

It's not for free. They are paying him. I don't see why a player should have any bond with anyone but the club he plays for and pays his salary.

And, btw: I don't know why you insist with FIFA. It's UEFA, as in UEFA Champions League. PL may have said nothing about this happening inside PL. UEFA has a different view about its competitions (btw, so Chelsea is paying its way both through CL and PL? I guess you start to see my point... :P).
So, just like Atlético and Chelsea and Courtois are free to sign whatever they want, Chelsea and Atlético and UEFA are also free to sign whatever they want. For example, that they'll follow UEFA rules in UEFA competitions...


Well...on the other hand Atletico got a great GK for free

I don't see how this solves the unfairness they are creating towards the 32 CL participants.
(edited)

"There was already such case this season in CL eliminations when Celtic played Elfsborg. What then? FIFA didn't give a damn about it, the player missed the game."

Are you talking about Celtic player Mo Bangura who was on loan at Elfsborg? He played in both games against Celtic. There was no clause in his contract to stop it.

From what I've read there was such a clause...I might be wrong though:)

@Don Enzo
I don't see how this solves the unfairness they are creating towards the 32 CL participants.

I mentioned this as a completely different issue :).

It's not for free. They are paying him. I don't see why a player should have any bond with anyone but the club he plays for and pays his salary.

They pay him, yes, but one of the grounds for the loan was that they won't use him against Chelsea.

So, just like Atlético and Chelsea and Courtois are free to sign whatever they want, Chelsea and Atlético and UEFA are also free to sign whatever they want. For example, that they'll follow UEFA rules in UEFA competitions...

now show me the point in UEFA rules that says that Courtois can't be fordbidden to play due to previous agreements between teams:)

now show me the point in UEFA rules that says that Courtois can't be fordbidden to play due to previous agreements between teams:)

I've posted the link in the previous page already - they talk about "clear provisions", which I won't look for, but feel free to do so :P

so the fact that he plays in a team that doesn't own him is unfair...:)

it`s not like that...in the moment that you agree to loan a player, you must give him and the new team the right to play him whenever he/they want...let`s say a team loans 5 players to a certain team and they meet nin the final...would you consider fair not to allow them to play, so you can increase your chances of a win? i don`t...

and uefa did a righ thing to interfere...the belgian will play no matter what stupid clauses he has...

chelsea must proove they deserve to qualify no matter who will play in the box...if they are afraid of one single player, their place does not belong in the final

"...in the moment that you agree to loan a player, you must give him and the new team the right to play him whenever he/they want..."

no you don't have to. you loan him = you make the rules.

the loaning team doesn't accept the rules? ok, then don't loan that player.

and if a team has 5 main players on loan, then it doesn't deserve to win anything, because it is a b-team, not a real team

do you think that only atletico had something to win from this loaning thing? chelsea had more to gain than the spanish side, even if they pay half the wage...being a substitute on the bench doesn`t help you much when you are 20 and need games...atletico helped the belgian to worth 30 millions on the market, so chelsea should be greateful and not put these stupid clauses...

but i`m happy that they are allowed to play him eventually :)

and i`m staying at my ideas...it would have been against the fair-play to forbid a player to play, just because you are afraid of him playing well against you
if courtouis would have been a weak keper, do you think chelsea would put it this way? i don`t think so...just because the belgian was the best player against barcelona they got chicken scared and reminded that he has such clause on his loaning contract

go home Bayern, you're drunk

lalalalallalala

Oh, Sergio Ramos... :(

haha, Robben gets irritated and it's not even simulation from Pepe :D

Everybody apart from Real Madrid fans are getting irritated. :P

oh the enjoyment.

could have been 10/10 if Ronaldo would have scored that half-volley.


imma think second half gonna be boring tho.