UEFA and the Courtois saga

Now UEFA has reared its ugly head with a ruling that is all too baffling. No we are not afraid of what protection Courtois might offer Atletico Madrid. No we do not want to deny the tournament one of its rising stars. No we do not intend to bring the game to disrepute, but a contract is a contract and is legal especially when it wasn’t signed under duress. I do not have the full law mumbo jumbo crammed but I don’t believe a ruling body can just decide whatever it likes and void a written clause.

UEFA if I believe is all too aware of transfers and negotiations and must have been privy to Courtois’ contract or rather Atletico Madrid’s agreement with Chelsea. To wait till this moment to make a ruling on it is bad faith (maybe Platini didn’t think Chelsea would get this far). A statement from UEFA said: ‘The integrity of sporting competition is a fundamental principle for UEFA. 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.

‘It follows that any provision in a private contract between clubs which might function in such a way as to influence who a club fields in a match is null, void and unenforceable so far as UEFA is concerned.

‘Furthermore, 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.’

Now that’s just a load of balderdash. Atletico would have to cough out that money. I believe it just might be part of the cash we use to broker a deal for Costa. UEFA wants to set a precedent that could do more harm than good for football deals. I want Courtois to play more than anything and I would gladly remove the clause but we have to do what’s best for business and Chelsea. He plays and they pay in whatever form Chelsea deem fit.

  1. hetty says

    All behind the scene agreements like this and the ones Barca did will become public soon enough and their legality will be determined. I now see what my dear Arsene was talking about. You want to give players to clubs to help beat your competitors but such players can’t play against you. Hope it doesn’t come back to bite you in the ……

    1. patrickallstar says

      Obviouslly only an arsenal fan withoout a direction like Wenger would make such comments as yours. Arsenal have 23 players loaned all the world. One of them almost had a hand in sending Man Utd out in the round of 16 for Olympiakos. Did we see conspiracy theories no. But your Voyeur manager has been out thought and outfoxed by a smart manager like Martinez and you hide behind the loan system excuse. That’s pathetic

      1. Lightning says

        We actually have a good batch of players loaned out at this period of time. Lukaku and Courtois are the best performing right now. Arsenal are used to loaning out there players who flop on loan and flop at the club. This guy supports a club that spent 42 million pounds on the best #10 in the world, only for him to end up too inconsistent to drive the team forward, but pins the blame on players who can’t any game time at their parent clubs, so they go out to play for other clubs for a season. Real are doing fine with Oezil, Chelsea are doing fine without Lukaku, Everton have some great players on their own right, but Wenger blames the Winter Trasfer Window or Loan System when something goes wrong. That’s something Mourinho or Fergie or Benitez would do. Isn’t Mourinho the Anti-Christ to you people? Something is wrong at your club when Classy Wenger and “Classy” fans start resorting to “Unclassy Mou” press tactics. At this rate, Mata will end up with better stats then Oezil, and he didn’t even play for half a season. Go back to blaming Giroud, Owners who actually like to spend their money, better managers, and better squads.

        Also, Atleti have been renting Coutois free of charge for 3 seasons. So a small fee (football-wise) so he can play against his parent club is bringing refute to the game, but in the Premier League, the loanee can’t face his parent club regardless isn’t shameful? How can UEFA have no problem whatsoever allowing the FA to ban players from playing against their parent clubs, but as soon as it reaches where it is now, it’s an outrage? They must be doing everything they can to divert attention from voting on bad World Cup choices.

  2. Dreams •π… says

    wellcome home courtois….

  3. Omamuzo says

    Let’s even for one moment leave out the arguments about the legality of such a clause in the contract. How in the world is that clause not morally offensive? Clearly not in the spirit of sportsmanship. I hail UEFA. For once Platini has impressed me!

    1. patrickallstar says

      Omams is that you. It is easy to such when it doesn’t affect you but nothwithstanding they’ll pay one way or the other. As u can see from my article they should have rung the bell right from the beginning. As we all know the unpredictability of footy is no longer a suprise. To cry wolf now smacks of unprofessionalism from UEFA and ATM

  4. Mason Cole says

    Regardless whether or not this clause is ‘fair’ the deal had to be approved by UEFA to go through, they can’t bail now. Furthermore, the clause isn’t preventing Courtois playing, he can play, just for a fee, which is fair enough

    1. patrickallstar says

      U just hit the nail on the head. It’s really simple. Pay up and he plays

      1. blue says

        How on earth will a team pay at least 7 million euro for a player to play only two games with nobody guaranteeing that u going to win they can buy a talented youngster with that money , this clause actually doesn’t make sense,
        it wouldn’t be nice to see ur player knocking u out of d CL and i wouldn’t like that but this clause no team on earth will pay that money

  5. Fik says

    It is a stupid decision ordering players to play against a parent club. Is it started by Chelsea? Is it a new ugly rulling that both CFC & Atiletico Madird officials not knowing this? The ugly heads simple order in z favor of z club they support and be silent z harms are done to others. They silent a stupid and harsh refeering knocked out CFC while playing against Barcelona in Stamford bridge. Fans not forgotten that bad day blue play against refeer not againt club. Such stupid heads silent z harm done to clubs and now fast to announce such ugly decision…

  6. Gbasha.bitto says

    Omo ball na ball na who pass go win

    1. patrickallstar says

      Na so my broda

  7. donvic says

    An agreement is an agreement..uefa has no rite to breach d agreement..cfc will fight uefa rulin@court of arbitration for sport for dis unjus rulin

    1. patrickallstar says

      Platini wants to distract us with bogus rulings. Let’s beat Atletico and show em who’s better

  8. Zyte says

    @ patrickallstars,u are right.josd get down 2 tactics discover a way 2 beat this beast of a team atletico.our players must improv physicaly & tacticaly.no room 4 uefa & their distractions.

  9. Matt says

    Shame on UEFA. Atletico Madrid had signed an agreement that favors them long time ago and are harvesting the reward in LaLiga and in Champions league. Now when it is the one and only time it is not in their favor, the went to UEFA. The most important thing people are forgetting and UEFA is making a dangerous precedent is let clubs to respect agreement when it favors them not the other time. The universal truth of all games is YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THE RULE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. This will be dangerous and UEFA should let clubs respect their contracts. If this is unfair and bad for the “integrity of sporting competition…” as UEFA stated, make a law that prohibit and nullify any such agreement from this time on and place a punishment on any club. To be fare to Chelsea, they did not prevent him from playing, it is just up to Atletico to do the cost benefit analysis and choose whatever is best for them. Pay and play, or use the other keeper and save the money. Anyways, the money they will receive from La Liga and UEFA for getting where they are should pay the fee for keeper.

    1. patrickallstar says

      You’ve taken the words and even made them sound better. ATM know what such action would cost them in future so they’re being careful

Comments are closed.