As far as I'm aware the cl has never been accused of match fixing. If a club are confident the player will put in his all they should be able to play him. I can't see courteous thinking "I'll pass up my own chance at the cl so my parent club I've never played for and might never play for can get another cl win".
By the way I just noticed that you're talking about Mo Bangura here. In that case there turned out there was no agreement between the clubs that he could not play against them. Unsurprising as him not playing would have been to Celtic's detriment.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/09/sport/football/campbell-match-fixing-england-football/ "In February, European crime agency Europol announced it had probed 680 suspicious matches across the globe including two European Champions League matches and in September authorities in Singapore made 14 arrests in an attempt to crackdown on football match fixing." It would be quite easy to fix matches when the price is right.
I can't see the fear of courteous trying to match fix for chelsea as a good reason to block him playing. As I said I don't see how it would benefit him. It'd have to be a really huge amount of money to convince him and are you suggesting Chelsea would pay him to throw the game? Otherwise who are you saying is going to get him to fix the match?
You are very much misinterpreting this and you have only quoted part of Uefas statement. Chelsea and AM signed a contract that says if they play him against us they have to pay a fee. AM have said they don't have the money to pay the fee. Uefa have said we don't care whether they pay the fee he is allowed to play. They also said it is between Chelsea and AM to sort that out as its not there concern and that any claim by Chelsea to have him barred from playing will be ignored. Its straightforward enough. The only issue is whether we persue AM for the money which UEFA have said they won't get involved in. Gourlay has said this too. We never said he couldn't play if they didn't pay because we never could have. Saying they have to pay if he does play is different but you apparently can't see that.
Not much we can do about that, the Clause is there and Atletico signed up to it some time ago. I believe they can play him if they want, but they will then owe us the pre agreed fee. I don't believe the fee has to be paid BEFORE he plays, it is just Legally owed IF he plays. At least that's how I think it works, so it could be a credit towards Costa.
How am I misinterpreting it? It's your severe lack of understanding which is the issue here. Nowhere have they said that it is between Chelsea and Atletico Madrid to sort it out. That was in their statement regarding Celtic and Elfsborg. They have made their position crystal clear this time which is that Chelsea can have zero choice over the playing of Courtois, which includes us requiring a fee if he is played against us. If they do not play him due to not wanting or being able to pay the fee, that is us having an obvious influence over the fielding of one of their players. That is one way UEFA could possibly attempt to punish us. If they do play him, refuse to pay us and we take legal action against them for a breach of contract, that is us again exerting influence over their player selection and another instance where UEFA could seek to sanction us based on what they have said. Just ask yourself why UEFA felt it necessary to release such a statement if Atletico Madrid requiring to pay us a fee wasn't an issue. And if you still think they haven't contradicted themselves also ask yourself why it differed so much to what they previously said when that was for a rumoured complete ineligibility for a particular player's participation.
It's an issue of contract law. It'll go down to the particulars, including the wording and intention, of the contract between Chelsea and Atletico, and anything in regard to UEFA rules on loanees. There is no point discussing it unless we can see the contract. EDIT: Basically Atletico can only get in trouble if they breach their contract. The consequences of doing so can be damages and/or repudiation - based on whether the term breached is a condition, a warranty or an innominate term. This is true for any contract in any walk of life. They clearly haven't acted in breach as Chelsea have confirmed Courtois can play.
You think people don't try to fix matches? It happens all the time. I'm not saying that it would happen here but you can't rule out the possibility.
I'm not denying match fixing goes on, I just don't see the merit in this situation for courteous (lol spell checker) to do so.
Well the Athletico president has said that they won't play Courtois without reaching an agreement with Chelsea first, because he is a "gentleman". http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/299863.html Nice to know some people still have principles.
If Chelsea had them they'd let him play to make it a proper spectacle rather than hoping to play against a second choice keeper in the semi final of the biggest football competition in the world.
Chelsea have already said he can play. They just need to pay the sum which is due contractually and what they agreed when we loaned them a world class keeper we could have had sat on our bench instead.
If they can't afford the fee it should be wavered or allowed to be paid in instalments. It'd be a travesty to make this athletics (****ing spell checker lol) team play without there first choice keeper in the semi final of the biggest football competition in the world.
Well that's the risk you take when you loan players. They knew full well it was a possibility when they signed the contract and agreed to the clause. Don't blame Chelsea.
I'm not blaming anyone tbh, I just think it's a stupid situation that shouldn't be allowed. Makes a mockery of the competition.
Some could equally say it was a mockery that AM could play all season with a keeper they couldn't afford to buy. The rights and wrongs of the loan market are very much open to debate. I know it's in our interest but if they can't pay the fee he shouldn't play. That's the contract. If they can't pay it up front but want to take the sum off a deal for Costa, I'm sure Chelsea would agree.
Giving us what amounts to a credit on Costa would seem the logical and best solution for all concerned. I hope Courtois does play and equally, we do buy Costa. Would be great for Courtois and our fans to see him at the Bridge.
Its an odd situation. Atletico can play Courtois without paying Chelsea. UEFA will allow this due to their rule stating that clubs cannot have influence over who the other team can and cannot put in their team. If Atletico do so, Chelsea can probably take them on for a breach of contract. UEFA would not accept punishments against Atletico, but the CAS in Switzerland may find other punishments for Atletico. Usually monetary or other, UEFA simply won't punish them in their own competition. Hopefully Chelsea let Courtois play for free as that sort of clause brings the game into disrepute and makes a mockery out of continental competition. Sure you agreed on it but its immoral and unsportsmanlike to demand payment for such things. Just let the lad play and face a true test.
UEFA said the clauses are void and any attempt to enforce them (such as going to CAS) would have Chelsea punished and probably expelled from the competition.
