Champions League Draw

Discussion in 'Chelsea' started by fernb8, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. hudson hooligan

    hudson hooligan Member+

    Columbus Crew
    United States
    Aug 6, 2008
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Care to explain? I'm not familiar enough with the Bangura deal.
     
  2. Wrath

    Wrath Member+

    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    They sound pretty contradictory to me.
     
    The Cold Sea repped this.
  3. Cletis

    Cletis Member+

    Jul 12, 2006
    Milwaukee, WI
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In both cases, UEFA confirmed they have no regulations prohibiting a loaned player from playing against his parent club (unlike the FA, which strictly prohibits this, regardless of the terms of the loan agreement) and that UEFA would not enforce such a clause. The main difference is that, in the present case, UEFA went a step further and said it would sanction a club which tried to enforce such a clause. So while one can view it as UEFA treating Chelsea differently, its not directly contradictory or necessarily inconsistent. Reading Gourlay's comments, I'm not sure what CFC's intent is. I think his comments can be read in a way that indicates defiance of UEFA, rather than acceptance.
     
  4. Wrath

    Wrath Member+

    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    With regards to sanctions, they are, maybe indirectly, influencing the decision. Hence, it is contradictory and inconsistent. In the first case, they are stepping away from it but in the 2nd, they suddenly come into the picture.
     
    Blueallthru repped this.
  5. Blueallthru

    Blueallthru Member+

    Chelsea
    United States
    May 15, 2012
    The Interwebz
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Er....UEFA said they won't overrule a contract and now they will. I don't care about the bold print. I care about the fine print. That's the opposite stance and it's bullshit.

    I want him to play. I also want UEFA to feckoff. Especially when it comes to contracts. Atleti and UEFA signed off on said contract.
     
    The Cold Sea repped this.
  6. Cletis

    Cletis Member+

    Jul 12, 2006
    Milwaukee, WI
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Did Celtic have a contractual fee payable in that case though? I don't know. I think the facts are different, and UEFA's position is not necessarily inconsistent. I'll admit here that I absolutely loathe whining by CFC fans about referees, FA and UEFA, so perhaps am biased.
     
  7. Blueallthru

    Blueallthru Member+

    Chelsea
    United States
    May 15, 2012
    The Interwebz
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    In one situation they are leaving it up to the clubs. In another they threatening a ban.

    You might not like whining, but this is the exact reason for our whining. UEFA is using a double standard in regards to THEIR rules. Not us. We put together the contract that everyone signed off on.
     
    Wrath repped this.
  8. Wrath

    Wrath Member+

    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    There is a legitimate reason to our whining and sorry to say, you are biased. You must have been really hurt after the CL game against Barca at SB because a lot of fans targeted the poor innocent ref.

    Why does it matter if there is a contractual fee involved? The basic term of the contract is the same. An on loan player can or can out play against his parent club. Just because there is a fee involved, UEFA can't come barging in by changing the rules.
     
    Blueallthru repped this.
  9. cr7torossi

    cr7torossi Member+

    May 10, 2007
    Hate to say this but I am with UEFA on this one. In general, loan agreements between clubs who play in the same competition should just be banned, even though United have benefited from them as well.
     
  10. Wrath

    Wrath Member+

    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    I agree but the rule should be consistent for all. They can't change it every 4 months.
     
    Blueallthru repped this.
  11. Blueallthru

    Blueallthru Member+

    Chelsea
    United States
    May 15, 2012
    The Interwebz
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    I don't disagree, but the contract has already been signed and agreed upon by three parties.

    The issue here is that they're making it up as they go. If there's a fecking rule than stick to it. This isn't rocket science. But UEFA do their best to make it rocket science.
     
  12. Cletis

    Cletis Member+

    Jul 12, 2006
    Milwaukee, WI
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The fee matters because it is what makes this current situation different from Elfsborg-Celtic Enforcing the fee could be considered influence by one club on another club's decision of whom to select, which UEFA rules prohibit. I don't necessarily agree, but that is UEFA's position apparently. The two contracts are not the same, at least according to the one report linked by WAGNH. In the Bangura situation, Elfsborg was not required to pay a fee if he played against Celtic. UEFA confirmed their rules (unlike the FA and some other leagues) do not prohibit a player from playing against his parent club, same as they did today. There was no reason for them to go one step further as they have today, and say they would sanction a club for violating the rule because the contract in that case never called that into question and there was never a question in that case that the player would play without a fee being payable (just going from the report I read today). So it is false to call this a double standard or say their action is inconsistent imo, unless you are looking to play the victim card once again.

    So when Gourlay says it is entirely up to ATM whether or not they play Courtois, of course that is true and he is making very clear that he does not think the contract violates the UEFA rule (which I agree with). But one can see what is not stated, and that is "it is up to Atletico whom to select, so long as they pay us the fee if they select Courtois." I don't know if that is his position, but he leaves it open.
     
  13. Cletis

    Cletis Member+

    Jul 12, 2006
    Milwaukee, WI
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There's a reason the FA prohibit it outright, regardless of what the loan agreements say. The reason is that taking the decision out of the clubs' hands eliminates backroom handshake agreements and the public perception of them, and in the end protects the clubs and the player. Obviously UEFA feels differently, as to many other leagues around the world, as does apparently Arsene Wenger when he has to play against Lukaku. Daniel Geey did a good piece on this aspect of loan agreements recently, here: http://www.danielgeey.com/the-troub...nflicting-uk-and-south-american-perspectives/

    In the Courtois situation, it puts Chelsea in a lose-lose imo - they look bad if they enforce the clause and require the fee. At the same time, if they waive the fee they are giving up a negotiated term that was part of the agreement that both sides knowingly made. Without that clause, maybe the loan fee for Courtois would have been higher?
     
  14. The Cold Sea

    The Cold Sea Señor Mejor

    Feb 17, 2005
    The District
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Then they need to cancel the loan ASAP and send Courtois back to Chelsea.
     
  15. Wrath

    Wrath Member+

    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    #240 Wrath, Apr 11, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2014
    I still do not get how one is different from another. If Bangura does not play, Celtic should be sanctioned because the only reason he did not play was because Celtic was his parent club. Uefa did not indicate any sanction at that time. What if Bangura had not played? What would have been the reason that Celtic gave at that time? Would they have been questioned? Bangura could have been homesick, injured, or partying. Did Uefa care? Did Uefa go over Celtic's contract to assure themselves that there is no mention of influence? I do not get that from the article. Their statement basically says "We don't care. It is between you guys".

    Now, the same way, if Courtois does not play, there should be no fine. Uefa is suddenly interested in what happens in this scenario. Whatever AM and Chelsea decided in a LEGAL contract stays between them. Courtois did not play not because of the clause or for a 100 other reasons which are between the clubs.

    If UEFA did not think of interfering in the first case, they should not interfere in the 2nd. I don't care what they think as influence. Monetary influence is not the only kind of influence.

    We will agree to disagree I guess.
     
  16. JediSoccer

    JediSoccer Member

    Jul 13, 2010
    Spokane, Washington
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    I feel this is the best draw we could've gotten. Atletico is a newbie to the UCL, especially this deep. Bayern and Real would've been tougher for us, I feel. Btw, that's one juicy semi. Can't wait.

    Let's do this! Go Blues!
     
  17. cr7torossi

    cr7torossi Member+

    May 10, 2007
    It is the weakest team out of the 3, but the hardest one to set up against for Chelsea.
     
    Blueallthru and Cletis repped this.
  18. FaceLess

    FaceLess Red Card

    Mar 19, 2014
    Club:
    --other--
    What is boards expectation of Costa? Both games, 1 or none
     
  19. schafer

    schafer Member+

    Mar 12, 2004
    I agree with @cr7torossi, I think this will be an incredibly intense and hard-fought tie. Every CL semifinal is to some extent, but Atletico have to (and will be) absolutely keyed in over 180 minutes in a way that Bayern and Madrid don't necessarily have to be.

    I'm concerned but also excited, and hopefully this Courtois business doesn't overshadow the tie. It's at least interesting to face a relatively new opponent at this stage of the competition. Think we have a slight advantage in the sense that Jose will likely have no issues resting players for the CL, whereas Atletico obviously can't really risk slipping up domestically.
     
    Blueallthru repped this.
  20. eriol

    eriol Member

    Dec 15, 2005
    NOT Pacific Grove, CA anymore
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    i would've preferred if we drew real instead of atletico, but i don't mind the draw. playing at the bridge second leg is big for us, perhaps bigger than it would be for the other sides. that factor alone makes me think we'll advance.
     
  21. Blueallthru

    Blueallthru Member+

    Chelsea
    United States
    May 15, 2012
    The Interwebz
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    @Cletis

    Celtic did influence. Neil Lennon told the kid it was in his best interest not to play. It led to a tunnel bust up among other things. We're allowing him to play, for a few.
     
  22. Blueallthru

    Blueallthru Member+

    Chelsea
    United States
    May 15, 2012
    The Interwebz
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Is he guaranteed to play?
     
    FaceLess repped this.
  23. ArmanSLR

    ArmanSLR Member+

    Dec 12, 2009
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    I expect him to play at least one, but for a player to get rushed back and play, and then pull out of the match early isn't a good sign at all.

    However, with the world cup looming I think we will see a lot of players 'protect' them self and not risk things that they might have had their not been the biggest tournament of their lives coming up.
     
    FaceLess repped this.
  24. Holofernes the pedant

    Sep 20, 2012
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    It seems slightly strange to have a large drama about whether a Chelsea player should play against Chelsea in a CL semi-final. Surely any half-decent player would at least be able to do nothing if it helps their team. Even Suarez did nothing against Chelsea, and he isn't even employed by you.
     
  25. sydneymuganzi

    sydneymuganzi Member

    Jul 19, 2004
    San Diego
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I thought it was really sneaky of Athletico to (through the press) leak details of a private agreement. In some way
    they incited UEFA to come up with a position. Chelsea did not say anything about the clause to the press, Athletico did. You'd think after having our goalie for three years they would at least treat us better. This will definitely bring an end
    to the Cortuois loan deal.
     

Share This Page