🇧🇪 Thibaut Courtois

[AndersonBLUE 819]

Because you can arrange everything in a contract, things that are close to game fixing. It's normal that there should be some general rules.

I see, but match fixing? Chelsea foresaw this at the beginning? I doubt it

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

I see, but match fixing? Chelsea foresaw this at the beginning? I doubt it

I'm not saying this is match fixing. I'm saying UEFA should be able to overrule certain deals to make sure match fixing isn't possible. This deal is just unfortunate...

[The only place to be 11,313]

read this http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2088774.html

they don have to pay any fees , they can just play him

And we've said

"Regarding the Uefa statement, we'll evaluate it over the next 24 to 48 hours. As far as we're concerned we complied with loan rules. He can play against Chelsea - if selected."

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

I'm trying to give my two cents here as a guy who loves football:

Look, when Courtois was bought three years ago, he was nothing but a promising young keeper that was seen as a backup for Cech and a possible replacement in the far future. The fact he grew to be one of the world's best so fast, is his own achievement. Chelsea had nothing to do with it. Chelsea had the money to bet a little on this guy and it bet well.

Loaning him out proved to be an enormous success, gaining the club (at the very least) a good deal of money and a superb keeper in the years to come. He might join Chelsea next year or the year after that, but in the player's head, right now, he's an Atletico player. This is the squad he trained with, won prizes with and grew with during the past three years. Making him sit this one out will make him grow further away from the club and looking at his character, that wouldn't do anyone much good. It might be business to you, but to a (young) player, there's a lot of emotion involved as well. I don't think he's been at the Bridge much more than I have (which is never. ).

Personally, I think there should be a maximum number of players allowed in every senior squad in Europe. If you want to buy more players, you should sell some first. This will stop a lot of what's happening right now, and will make for a more honest game.

It's not normal for a club to pluck every decent player away from the smaller leagues and to have a senior squad of 60+ contracted players. This is not a dig at Chelsea btw, you're just rolling with it and doing it very well, this is criticism of football in general. 15-20 years ago, there was much more variety in cup winners, now maybe 6 clubs can still win the CL. Bayern, Real, Barca, Chelsea, Man Utd (in a good year) and City (if they learn how to play properly in Europe). Freak years like Dortmund had last year or Atletico is having currently are very rare exceptions. As a neutral supporter, I don't really like this.

How many leagues still matter? The Spanish one and the Premier League. Germany is coming, yes, and in France you have two rich oil-teams and a lot of crappy ones. The Serie A is crumbling to the ground and can only get scraps now. The Dutch league (Champions League winners until the mid nineties) might as well stop trying by now. Portugal has Porto and Benfica (both multiple cup winners), but as soon as they face real serious competition, it's finished for them too. Football is being monopolised. It wasn't like this in the previous century, and it sure as hell isn't very interesting to me anymore.

[Reddish-Blue 2,503]

I'm trying to give my two cents here as a guy who loves football:

Look, when Courtois was bought three years ago, he was nothing but a promising young keeper that was seen as a backup for Cech and a possible replacement in the far future. The fact he grew to be one of the world's best so fast, is his own achievement. Chelsea had nothing to do with it. Chelsea had the money to bet a little on this guy and it bet well.

Loaning him out proved to be an enormous success, gaining the club (at the very least) a good deal of money and a superb keeper in the years to come. He might join Chelsea next year or the year after that, but in the player's head, right now, he's an Atletico player. This is the squad he trained with, won prizes with and grew with during the past three years. Making him sit this one out will make him grow further away from the club and looking at his character, that wouldn't do anyone much good. It might be business to you, but to a (young) player, there's a lot of emotion involved as well. I don't think he's been at the Bridge much more than I have (which is never. ).

Personally, I think there should be a maximum number of players allowed in every senior squad in Europe. If you want to buy more players, you should sell some first. This will stop a lot of what's happening right now, and will make for a more honest game.

It's not normal for a club to pluck every decent player away from the smaller leagues and to have a senior squad of 60+ contracted players. This is not a dig at Chelsea btw, you're just rolling with it and doing it very well, this is criticism of football in general. 15-20 years ago, there was much more variety in cup winners, now maybe 6 clubs can still win the CL. Bayern, Real, Barca, Chelsea, Man Utd (in a good year) and City (if they learn how to play properly in Europe). Freak years like Dortmund had last year or Atletico is having currently are very rare exceptions. As a neutral supporter, I don't really like this.

How many leagues still matter? The Spanish one and the Premier League. Germany is coming, yes, and in France you have two rich oil-teams and a lot of crappy ones. The Serie A is crumbling to the ground and can only get scraps now. The Dutch league (Champions League winners until the mid nineties) might as well stop trying by now. Portugal has Porto and Benfica (both multiple cup winners), but as soon as they face real serious competition, it's finished for them too. Football is being monopolised. It wasn't like this in the previous century, and it sure as hell isn't very interesting to me anymore.

Well said

[The only place to be 11,313]

If the clause was in the contract and Atletico (and Courtois/his advisors) were happy to sign it then we should do everything in our power to enforce it.

It's no more unsporting than if we were to win the league at the end of the season from Liverpool by one point when they dropped two points against Everton in a game in which Lukaku scored twice.

[Strike 7,489]

He said he CAN play didn't he? As in if Atletico pay the fee then we can't stop them.

Would prefer if he didn't play but if he does then we'll just adjust.

sorry. yes, he said can play if selected.

[Abakan 14]

This clause has been signed under the influence of emotion because of the Supercup result that was a huge disappointment for Chelsea. Chelsea saw one of their players winning a trophy against them. Very rude for the club to watch this. Making that clause was probably a way to palliate the deception. And now it's a matter of ego because of one fear : the same scenario.

Now 2 years later things have changed. Thibaut Courtois won individual trophies and a Cup. Playing Champions League semi-finals is a unique chance for him. At only 21 ! How many 21 yo GK played a semi-final of Champions League ? When you think at Thibaut as an investment, you must make it fructify. Also, he will play under very high pressure : he cannot afford to make a mistake or suspicions will arise. It's also a very good opportunity for Chelsea to watch him live. And by Chelsea, I mean from the President to the supporters.

Concerning the "legal" aspect of this clause :

1) This is an UEFA competition. Their rules.

2) This is not a national competition. It's very common to see those clauses (for example in Belgium) in national championships because the loaned player is playing the same competition of his owner every week-end with the same objective : the title. See the Lukaku situation : he has the opportunity to score against competitors of Chelsea every week-end. But not against his club. Chelsea is an English club, so is Everton. They play an English competition. Chelsea is an English club, Atlético a Spanish one and they face against each others in an European competition. It would be non-sense. Imagine a player loaned to a Chinese club that you could face in World Clubs Cup. Are you going to sign a clause for this potential situation ? Atlético - Chelsea was unlikely to happen. Chelsea - Everton was already confirmed as the 2 clubs play the same division.

3) Such a clause should be signed and valid only for one season. Each season is different and we cannot compare the situation now and 2 years ago.

Thibaut is only a goalkeeper. It's not like we were talking about Messi. Our strikers must be able to score against whoever the goalkeeper is : Neuer, Buffon, Courtois...

[Pizy 18,903]

If I was Courtois and I was told I couldn't play in the CL semi's one way or another, I'd be pissed and probably wouldn't agree to that extension we want him sign. I'd be livid.

Are we going to risk that? I think we'll just let him play with no issues.

[robsblubot 3,595]

^^ I couldn't disagree more @Abakan.

Mistakes aren't avoided by sheer will... What if he has a stinker?! Against Chelsea, his parent club, of all clubs?! Then suspicion would definitely arise and rightfully so, because of the obvious conflict of interests he'd be facing.

Do people understand that going to the CL final or not involves a huge amount of money and prestige? What if your own player prevents your team and HIS OWN future teammates from attaining that prestige? And the money attached to it... WOuld he come in the summer all smiles and say, "hey sorry about the millions I took away from you all..."

This is a clear case where avoiding the appearance of any foul play, which can be as damaging as the foul play itself, is a win win situation for all.

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

It's no more unsporting than if we were to win the league at the end of the season from Liverpool by one point when they dropped two points against Everton in a game in which Lukaku scored twice.

Well I don't agree with that either. Wenger is a dick but he made a point today. Either you loan a player for a year and the other team can use him as they please, or you don't loan him at all. All these ifs and whens are annoying. You shouldn't be afraid to play against a player you deemed unnecessary in the first place. ;-)

[Abakan 14]

^^ I couldn't disagree more @Abakan.

Mistakes aren't avoided by sheer will... What if he has a stinker?! Against Chelsea, his parent club, of all clubs?! Then suspicion would definitely arise and rightfully so, because of the obvious conflict of interests he'd be facing.

Do people understand that going to the CL final or not involves a huge amount of money and prestige? What if your own player prevents your team and HIS OWN future teammates from attaining that prestige? And the money attached to it... WOuld he come in the summer all smiles and say, "hey sorry about the millions I took away from you all..."

This is a clear case where avoiding the appearance of any foul play, which can be as damaging as the foul play itself, is a win win situation for all.

If a Chelsea striker makes his job, he will score against Courtois.If they cannot do it, they failed.

Now if Courtois was a striker and scores against Chelsea, this is a completely different situation. Is he going to celebrate it ? Did he dive to get a penalty ? Will he injure a Chelsea player ?

Talking about a goalkeeper and a field player is completely different. Preventing a goal and scoring a goal are emotionally two different things.

Now the fact is that people are probably scared to count on Chelsea "strikers" to score against a goalkeeper of Thibaut level. The truth is probably here.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Now the fact is that people are probably scared to count on Chelsea "strikers" to score against a goalkeeper of Thibaut level. The truth is probably here.

Damn right it is. Courtois is a great keeper and I'd rather have less great players playing against us. I'll also be hoping Gerrard picks up a booking on Sunday so he's suspended for the game against us.

[communicate 2,703]

Tbh i want him to play, it does not make sense for a team to go to UCL semi-final and his player cannot play because of contract reason.

Just let him play

[Pizy 18,903]

Damn right it is. Courtois is a great keeper and I'd rather have less great players playing against us. I'll also be hoping Gerrard picks up a booking on Sunday so he's suspended for the game against us.

Don't think the FA will allow Gerrard to pick up a yellow. We can forget about that, mate. Expecting a dubious Liverpool penalty against both ourselves and City too.

[ZOS 580]

if they won't pay, he shouldn't play ... its not Chelsea not wanting him to play, its Atleti not wanting to pay. What would anyone blame Chelsea for? asking Atletico to honor the contract?

[nadavTKL 1,787]

Di Marzio:

"According to some indiscretions however the clubs had already agreed on what to do regardless of UEFA’s ruling. Should Courtois play against them, Chelsea would no longer want to renew the player’s loan to Atletico for next season".

That from six hours ago btw, so maybe someone posted it already.

[Styles 9,790]

Fuck sake, this Courtois nonsense is going to dominate the news for the next 3 weeks isn't it?

[Hamilton 2,120]

So if we deny a loan deal next year, let's hope we guarantee a first spot next year over here, otherwise he wants to go probably..

[silviupastean 135]

this

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/4/11/5604036/uefas-statement-on-courtois-changes-course-from-previous-stance