Announcer first says that the tie would be reversed so that both Madrid teams wouldn't be home the same week, but then he says he got it wrong, so we will be in Madrid first, London second I guess
Just thought I'd share some of the stats and facts from the ESPN Boot Room: The 2 matches against Atletico will be on either side of a weekend clash at Anfield Real Madrid are facing their 3rd straight German opposition in the Champions League Knockout Rounds Real vs Bayern is a rematch of the 2012 semifinal which saw Bayern advance on penalties Previous Chelsea-Atletico meetings in the Champions League were in the 2009-10 group stage including a 4-0 Chelsea win in London and a 2-2 draw in Madrid 15 - Chelsea are unbeaten in their last 15 clashes with Spanish sides in the Champions League (W6 D9). Arriba. 3 - Jose Mourinho won three of his four meetings with Diego Simeone's Atletico Madrid in all competitions when at Real Madrid (L1). History.
I have now read some people who suggest Atletico might still not play him so that they do not damage their good relationship with Chelsea. Probably in the hope of getting another loan deal for him next season.
I hope Chelsea issues a statement giving the go ahead. As I said earlier, it will only sour our relationship with Courtois. AM was probably my least favored side because of the way they pressure. But oh well. Going to be fun. I have already applied for a leave for the return leg.
Semi-final draw Real Madrid CF (ESP) v FC Bayern München (GER, holders): 23 & 29 April Club Atlético de Madrid (ESP) v Chelsea FC (ENG): 22 & 30 April
I hope someone is looking into if this rule has ever been enforced by uefa before or if clubs stuck to the contract and not fielded a loaned player. But on the other hand, who's to say the loaned player wasn't fielded cause of injury/form. Ahhhh play the kid and there's no excuses. A true showing if he can hang
"The integrity of sporting competition is a fundamental principle for UEFA ..." try not to laugh out loud reading that statement ...
The positive from playing AM is that they are also competing in La Liga and cannot afford to rest players. Also, the off-field drama with Bayern and Madrid would have been horrible.
good news, thanks FA!: Chelsea FC @chelseafc 25m Our home fixture with Sunderland will now be played on Saturday 19 April, kick-off 5.30pm. It will remain live on Sky Sports. #CFC
Yes and here it is: http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation....-courtois-changes-course-from-previous-stance
I want him to play, too. I also want UEFA to shut its fat ******** hole and let the teams sort it out.
Interesting question. I've read that UEFA came to the exact opposite conclusion in almost the same situation regarding Mo Bangura on loan from Celtic to IF Elfsborg. Here was UEFA's statement back then:
From someone on reddit: I don't get the last point at all. We can sue in court to enforce our rights under the contract, but if we do so... UEFA can then ban us from next year's competition? That doesn't make any sense to me.
I read that but it still does not make complete sense "As far as we are concerned we will comply with loan rules." If we comply with loan rules, he won't play if AM don't pay the money.
Gourlay's comments are vague - read carefully, he is only saying Courtois is not prohibited from playing and that it is up to ATM whether or not to play him, which of course is true, assuming they are willing to pay the contract fee. The hubbub over UEFA's stance on this as compared to the Banguara situation has also been somewhat distorted by the headlines imo. Their statements on the two situations are not directly contradictory as many have stated.
I think one has to take anything posted on reddit with a massive grain of salt. That said, I think the point he is making could be accurate: 1. CFC can of course pursue a breach of contract action against ATM in an appropriate court if they feel the contract terms were violated (meaning, if Courtois plays, a fee is therefore payable from ATM to CFC under the contract.) 2. However, CFC is subject to UEFA's regulatory powers in running its competitions, as are all clubs, and they are free to sanction CFC if they feel its actions violate their rules prohibiting one club from influencing the player decisions made by another club. just my take. In the end, I doubt either team will want to involve lawyers, and expect / hope this will be resolved in a reasonable fashion without resorting to courts or creating an unsightly public mess.