🇧🇪 Thibaut Courtois

[We Hate Scouse 10,326]

Is that even legal? Would UEFA object to that?

If it's a clause in his contract then I guess so.

Similar to having a clause about having to pay for amount of games played etc. I guess.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

UEFA has no rule about on-loan players facing parent clubs. It's up to the player's contract.

This is a similar situation to the one in Monte Carlo when Courtois played against Chelsea. Atletico chose to pay that fee and they will surely do the same if Chelsea will face Atletico in the Semi-final or the Final. I mean, they've payed that fee for the SuperCup, wich is just a glorified friendly IMO, they would be nuts not to pay that fee now. It's not like the fee is £3m, maybe it's something like 20% of Courtois' salary or things like that.

He will play for sure.

[gabrimur 69]

On Spanish radio, Enrique Cerezo (Atlético de Madrid President) confirms that there is a clause by which the Atletico would have to pay a significant amount if they want to play Courtois.

Could be 9 million €

[Yeboii 1,844]

On Spanish radio, Enrique Cerezo (Atlético de Madrid President) confirms that there is a clause by which the Atletico would have to pay a significant amount if they want to play Courtois.

Could be 9 million €

It would be worth it for them

[Vybz Kartel 1,613]

No need to get the contact details we all know uefa will not give us Atletico

[gabrimur 69]

It would be worth it for them

He says is a amount that Atlético can't pay

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

On Spanish radio, Enrique Cerezo (Atlético de Madrid President) confirms that there is a clause by which the Atletico would have to pay a significant amount if they want to play Courtois.

Could be 9 million €

Didn't expect that.

Basically it's the same amount Chelsea paid to sign Courtois from Genk.

[gabrimur 69]

The clause was signed after the Supercup Europe that Courtois played.

[LAM09 7,053]

The clause was signed after the Supercup Europe that Courtois played.

Good move by us then, as we don't want a repeat of the Supercup result if we draw them.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

So no Thibaut against us if we draw them or face them in the final. Good for us, bad for him..

[haranr 485]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2601068/Thibaut-Courtois-eligible-play-against-Chelsea-Atletico-Madrid-Champions-League-semi-finals.html

[Barbara 15,149]

UEFA has no rule about on-loan players facing parent clubs. It's up to the player's contract.

This is a similar situation to the one in Monte Carlo when Courtois played against Chelsea. Atletico chose to pay that fee and they will surely do the same if Chelsea will face Atletico in the Semi-final or the Final. I mean, they've payed that fee for the SuperCup, wich is just a glorified friendly IMO, they would be nuts not to pay that fee now. It's not like the fee is £3m, maybe it's something like 20% of Courtois' salary or things like that.

He will play for sure.

On Spanish radio, Enrique Cerezo (Atlético de Madrid President) confirms that there is a clause by which the Atletico would have to pay a significant amount if they want to play Courtois.

Could be 9 million €

that's what I was about to say (not the amount itself because I had no idea of it until you posted). If it's true we've included such a clause in his loan contract it's obviously we'd ask for an exorbitant amount of money for one match. That's probably the amount PER MATCH, as each match is a different case.

So Chelsea board proves yet again to be very smart. Either Atlético pays the ridiculous amount of money if they're desperate or they play with a keeper that hasn't been playing at all for them at the final stages of the most important competition for them. We're brilliant, really.

[The Chels 2,502]

As much as it'd benefit us, anyone else think they'd feel really bad if we were to take Courtois and Costa off Atletico next year? They're the plucky underdogs that virtually every neutral wants to see do well; they're so similar to us in many respects too - strong defensively, a high-pressing and counter-attacking style, a passionate manager, etc. but without the financial backing, which I guess is why they're so much more popular with the neutral! If we don't win the CL I'd love Atletico to.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

Yep, I was expecting SOME money, but not that much tbh

Well done Chelsea, last thing I'd want is Courtois to knock us out with some huge saves at the Bridge.

[gabrimur 69]

that's what I was about to say (not the amount itself because I had no idea of it until you posted). If it's true we've included such a clause in his loan contract it's obviously we'd ask for an exorbitant amount of money for one match. That's probably the amount PER MATCH, as each match is a different case.

So Chelsea board proves yet again to be very smart. Either Atlético pays the ridiculous amount of money if they're desperate or they play with a keeper that hasn't been playing at all for them at the final stages of the most important competition for them. We're brilliant, really.

Ridiculous amount of money ... 9M € are almost 7.5M pounds, is a lot of money for Atlético de Madrid, is very difficult that they pay.

The other goalkeeper is Aranzubia, he has only played 84 minutes in La Liga (versus Almería, was expelled, red card) and 90' in Champions League (versus Oporto) and he saves a penalty and left a clean sheet.

Is good goalkeeper but discontinuity can play a nasty trick.

[The Chels 2,502]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2601068/Thibaut-Courtois-eligible-play-against-Chelsea-Atletico-Madrid-Champions-League-semi-finals.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2601145/Thibaut-Courtois-not-play-against-Chelsea-Atletico-Madrid.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

LOL the Daily Mail deleted the initial link; they've been saying for ages that Courtois is eligible to play against us (without a fee) - making things up as they go along!

[sdrcfc 461]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2601145/Thibaut-Courtois-not-play-against-Chelsea-Atletico-Madrid.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Henrique 9,133]

Tell me, if Atletico has such an amazing defensive system, why are there so many clips of him making insane saves? Was this amazing backline on holidays? Did they suffer sudden strokes? Courtois is a big part of that defense, that's why they're so anxious to keep him.

Atlético (its not Atletico) really have an amazing defensive system. Curtois just happen to part of the defensive system.

When we had an amazing defensive system under Mourinho, Cech used to made insane saves.

Curtois is really good GK, but we already have Cech. For Chelsea the best thing to do is to cash in.

[The Chels 2,502]

Atlético (its not Atletico) really have an amazing defensive system. Curtois just happen to part of the defensive system.

When we had an amazing defensive system under Mourinho, Cech used to made insane saves.

Curtois is really good GK, but we already have Cech. For Chelsea the best thing to do is to cash in.

Pedantic much?

[Baba 10]

that's what I was about to say (not the amount itself because I had no idea of it until you posted). If it's true we've included such a clause in his loan contract it's obviously we'd ask for an exorbitant amount of money for one match. That's probably the amount PER MATCH, as each match is a different case.

So Chelsea board proves yet again to be very smart. Either Atlético pays the ridiculous amount of money if they're desperate or they play with a keeper that hasn't been playing at all for them at the final stages of the most important competition for them. We're brilliant, really.

You know what would be really brilliant? Playing with your best players, instead of loaning them out.