Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: CHAMPIONS LEAGUE 2013-14
Atletico Madrid without Courtois then.
Fans should collect and donate the 6 millions so he can play then :)
It makes no sense. Such clauses were in action since many, many years and now what? FIFA says that if they want, they can say that such close doesn't work? :)
Chelsea has confirmed that Courtois is allowed to play in the semifinals.
curtois can play that uefa said! :) UEFACOURTOIS hahaah like real madrid fans :D
UEFA in this case :P
There are also several clauses or actions that FIFA have declared void even if they are perfectly legal. And sometimes ordinary justice have ruled FIFA clauses void (like FIFA's sanctions on teams recurring to ordinary justice :P)
There are also several clauses or actions that FIFA have declared void even if they are perfectly legal. And sometimes ordinary justice have ruled FIFA clauses void (like FIFA's sanctions on teams recurring to ordinary justice :P)
Funny thing, they announced it like half an hour before the draw...
it`s no nonsense to me...such clauses are not in the spirit of fair-play, so chelsea should let him play
if they are so scared of a single player, they don`t deserve the place in the final...
if they are so scared of a single player, they don`t deserve the place in the final...
lol what does it have to do with fair play?
Courtois is player of CHELSEA, not Atletico.
Courtois is player of CHELSEA, not Atletico.
Courtois is player of CHELSEA, not Atletico.
That's exactly what conflicts with fair play :P
I mean, you OWN your oppinent's players. How can it be a fair competition?
If we want to keep player loans and fair play at the same time, we need to regulate it somewhat. Taken to the limit, it's absurd to play a tournament where I won all teh players and I choose all the lineups...
That's exactly what conflicts with fair play :P
I mean, you OWN your oppinent's players. How can it be a fair competition?
If we want to keep player loans and fair play at the same time, we need to regulate it somewhat. Taken to the limit, it's absurd to play a tournament where I won all teh players and I choose all the lineups...
I mean, you OWN your oppinent's players. How can it be a fair competition?
so the fact that he plays in a team that doesn't own him is unfair...:)
so the fact that he plays in a team that doesn't own him is unfair...:)
Might be. So maybe we ban loans, or maybe we do something to ensure that loans don't interfere with fair play.
I mean, it's certainly not the only thing that's wrong with football ("Intermediaries"? Players "owned" by who knows who, instead of the clubs they play for? Actually, players being owned??? Etc... :P), but...
I mean, it's certainly not the only thing that's wrong with football ("Intermediaries"? Players "owned" by who knows who, instead of the clubs they play for? Actually, players being owned??? Etc... :P), but...
But I really don't see why in this case you see a breach of fair play.
Before the season Atletico 'received' Courtois for a season. The rules were AGREED by both sides - you can use him in all games, except for Chelsea [plus probably they pay 100%/50% of his wage].
I would see unfair play if Chelsea had no such contract and now suddencly decided to terminate the loan and bring Courtois to London.
But this? It's all fair, according to what both sides agreed.
Before the season Atletico 'received' Courtois for a season. The rules were AGREED by both sides - you can use him in all games, except for Chelsea [plus probably they pay 100%/50% of his wage].
I would see unfair play if Chelsea had no such contract and now suddencly decided to terminate the loan and bring Courtois to London.
But this? It's all fair, according to what both sides agreed.
Of course it's not fair. Atlético is 2 teams: 1 when they play anyone else, another onw when they play Chelsea. That can't be. Would Atlético be in semifinals without Courtois? Who knows, maybe not. It's not "ilegal", it's not about whether contractually there's something wrong. I can also sign a contract saying that I'll give you 1.000.000 pounds adn you'll score 3 own goals. It's a perfectly understandable contract, voluntarily signed by the two parties, etc. Still, the competition would be completely contaminated by this.
Similarly, this "not against me" clauses can be written in formally perfect contracts, but they do distort fair competition, so it's natural for UEFA to overrule them. We are not discussing ordinary justice, only internal competition rules. Notice that UEFA is not saying the clause is void - as it's beyond its jurisdiction. They are jsut saying that if any institution brings this distortionary behavior to their competitions, they'll take (sport) sanctions against these teams, within the context of UEFA tournaments.
Similarly, this "not against me" clauses can be written in formally perfect contracts, but they do distort fair competition, so it's natural for UEFA to overrule them. We are not discussing ordinary justice, only internal competition rules. Notice that UEFA is not saying the clause is void - as it's beyond its jurisdiction. They are jsut saying that if any institution brings this distortionary behavior to their competitions, they'll take (sport) sanctions against these teams, within the context of UEFA tournaments.