what do you all think? Initially Atleti said they cannot afford that fee to include him against us. But now UEFA goes against us (surprise, surprise) and says - that clause is void. How is this possible? We have loan system and all the time have the clause which ban players to play go against parent clubs. Why is this banned by UEFA - is that because of appearance fee? Is this something new? Why cannot we just insert a ban clause? Kid will be immense against us.
I know this is a different tournament but it happened in the premier league when Lua-Lua went on loan to Portsmouth and scored against Newcastle.
If there is a clause in his contract saying he can't play (i don't know if there is) then i don't really see how Uefa can just decide to go against it? However if it was my decision i'd want him to play, the guy deserves it. If you were to ask him would he want to play he'd most definitely say yes.
How about Lukaku - he would kill to score against us! But he is banned to play against us. Why so different for Courtois, because the competition is different?
Once more EUFA move the goalposts at the last minute - doesn't bother me one way or the other but my understanding is that Athletico signed up to that clause; given EUFA's eleventh hour tripwire, wouldn't that open the way for clubs in the EPL to challenge the no play clause?
It's not us that have a clause which bans players playing against us, it's the Premier League (though it can be waived if the parent club have previously granted permission in the contract). We don't insert such clauses. For Courtois we put a clause in his contract for where any match he plays against us we must receive a fee, possibly due to the fact that Atletico Madrid are in the Champions League and we could have ended up potentially facing them. Only earlier this season UEFA had said that any such agreements between clubs are down to them, that they have no involvement or consideration in them and they cannot enforce any such agreements. Now they have completely backtracked and said that any such agreements are strictly forbidden and that they can hand out sanctions to clubs if they try to enforce any such agreement.
If Athletico didn't want this they shouldn't have signed any agreements/contracts, to me it should be legally binding, they have a choice play and pay, or don't, irrelevant of circumstances. They knew this might happen but still agreed to this. If I had a contract with someone I couldn't just say well I can't afford to pay you, but I still want my own way. I think the clubs have to decide this between them, and UEFA need to but out. I have to add I'm not sure what I want to happen, it would be awesome to have him play and be able to beat him (although he will be giving 150% because it is us) but to be wiped out because of our own player is a difficult one.
Look at it this way! Courtois is a Blue! By helping us in their goal with a few clumsy attempts at saves he could guarantee his club a place in the final!
In both cases UEFA are saying that the club has the right to play their loanee player against their parent club. The player in question last time DID play. They are also saying that whatever the private terms and conditions of a loan contract between two clubs is between the two clubs not UEFA. So in summary all they are saying is that AM has the right to play Courtois whenever they want and if that involves paying Chelsea a fee, then that is their business. If they don't they don't have to. Whether Chelsea can take action for breaching the contract is another thing. But UEFA have not changed their stance which is that loanees can play regardless of any restrictions the parent club tries to impose.
When Courtois last played against us, there was nothing said about him having such a clause in his contract. His loan was renewed for the 2013/14 season so it is possible that that is when we included it. UEFA in their latest statement have said that it is strictly forbidden for a club to exert any influence whatsoever over the players they may or may not field in a match. Us requiring a fee for whenever Courtois plays against us would be us having influence over his inclusion. In their previous statement they said that any such agreements are down to the club and that they, UEFA, have no involvement or consideration in them. And they are currently threatening sanctions toward any club who does try to have any such influence over fielded players. So if we, through an independent panel, try to get Atletico Madrid to pay us the fee if they refuse to then UEFA could, by their own word, punish us. That would mean it is not down to just the clubs who made the agreement and they directly get involved. A complete contradiction to what they had previously stated, just this season.
Last time the loan deal didn't need to include the clause because we were in different competitions. Uefa have not contradicted themselves at all. They have taken the exact same stance. He has always been able to play for them as Chelsea confirmed. Us asking for money is the issue not whether he can or cannot play. As Uefa said that is for us to sort out but we can't force them not to play him.
People seem to be assuming that the clause says that he can only play if they pay us money rather than if he does play you owe us money. Different things and this is just AM trying to save on the money. Uefa have said this is for us to sort out with them but we can not stop him from playing and never could.
He's one of athletics key players and reason for getting as far as they have in the competition. We are down to four teams now to find who's the best in Europe, yet one of those teams could have to play without a key player because the parent club of the player is also in that last 4. It isn't a proper test of the two teams if by default one team has to lose a key part if there team, not through injury or suspension. It'll dampen the tie if he has to sit out.
Yes as I already said in my original post we may have included that clause in his contract because in this season, unlike the last two, we were both in the Champions League and could potentially face one another. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble comprehending what UEFA have said, because their statements are in direct conflict. Firstly: "Any agreement between the two clubs that this player wouldnât play against Celtic should Elfsborg be drawn against them is purely between the clubs" "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." They've gone from saying that any agreement that a player would not play is purely between the clubs, to saying that it is strictly forbidden for any club to exert any influence over who another club may or not field. Secondly: "UEFA would not have any involvement or consideration of this agreement" "...any attempt to enforce such a provision would be a clear violation of both the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations and would therefore be sanctioned accordingly." They have gone from saying that they would not have any involvement in the agreement to threatening action against anyone who tried to enforce it, hence becoming a part of the whole thing. The issue has never been that he is not allowed to play against, it's that if he does play then we are to receive a set fee for it. Had this not been a problem for UEFA then they would not have released the statement that they did. Hope this clears a rather simple thing up for you.
Atletico made the agreement knowing that this could happen. If he plays and makes a few clangers then people will question the player and that would make more of a joke out of the competition. I don't feel that a player owned by a club should be able to play against them as it's all to easy (especially for a goalkeeper) to throw the game.
That's up to the club he is at to judge his mindset. But having barriers to him playing ruins the game for me. Regardless of what there prior agreement was between the clubs.
