Thibaut Courtois

[didierforever 7,349]

I would say that, yes.

Anderlecht loans players out all the time, and they play against us several times a year.

with all due respect, we are talking about CL (semis or maybe a final).

moreover, simply cant get my head around the "unsportsman" argument.

these are professional players who have a contract and would play and pay accordingly.

it like saying, it was "unsportsman" of liverpool to sell torres to chelsea for 50mil, or that it was unsportsman of spurs to sell bale to RM for a whoping 100mil.

plus its not like chelsea is stopping ATM from playing courtois. if they want, they can play him. sell costa for a lesser value or cut some deal. this is just a good piece of business from our board, to call it "unsportsman" is absolutely unfair to them.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

Yeah, the footballing world would hate us even more than they already do if we were to hold Atletico to this payment. Imagine if both of us made it to the final and we made them pay up or force them to sit him. We'd be seen as " the biggest cunts in football" and it would probably destroy any chance of us getting Costa. Not to mention piss Courtois off for ruining what may be a once in a lifetime chance.

I'd just let him play. José always talks about wanting to play against the best sides and how it will be a nice test for us, so let's just allow them to use him if we draw them.

This below is the best solution

Let him play, knock the amount off a deal for Costa.

[bushman 2,043]

As I already said yesterday. A preliminary contract signed with Costa with lowered price & let Courtois enjoy playing in his biggest games of his career. He may even sign an extension with Chelsea, willingly for several years. All parties are happy, we are happy & Chelsea wins the CL. lol.

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

with all due respect, we are talking about CL (semis or maybe a final).

moreover, simply cant get my head around the "unsportsman" argument.

these are professional players who have a contract and would play and pay accordingly.

it like saying, it was "unsportsman" of liverpool to sell torres to chelsea for 50mil, or that it was unsportsman of spurs to sell bale to RM for a whoping 100mil.

plus its not like chelsea is stopping ATM from playing courtois. if they want, they can play him. sell costa for a lesser value or cut some deal. this is just a good piece of business from our board, to call it "unsportsman" is absolutely unfair to them.

The standards for sportsmanship are the same in the CL as in a friendly for 12 year olds. You're either are or aren't. If you loan out a player, he's not your player for the rest of that year. The guy trained with this team for 3 years and worked his ass off to get to this game. You're going to tell him he should miss what might be the biggest game of his career (what if it's the final for example). That's not a nice thing to do.

Let me put it this way. If Chelsea really wants to become one of the few great historical teams that is universally respected (or feared), it should stop doing all this crap. For a team with the quality you possess, you act awfully scared of a lot of other teams.'Oh no, they will have a good keeper! What now!' A confident team would want to play against the best possible opponent, not weaken them before the game starts.

Do you want to win like a man or like a pussy?

PS: I just read that Chelsea will drop the clause, only if he signs a longer contract. Is that also good business, or is that, I don't know... perhaps blackmail?

[didierforever 7,349]

The standards for sportsmanship are the same in the CL as in a friendly for 12 year olds. You're either are or aren't. If you loan out a player, he's not your player for the rest of that year. The guy trained with this team for 3 years and worked his ass off to get to this game. You're going to tell him he should miss what might be the biggest game of his career (what if it's the final for example). That's not a nice thing to do.

HE IS OUR PLAYER. he has a contract for US. why cant he play in the final? who is forcing him not to play? have we kidnapped his family and held him to ransom? if ATM board dint have the hindsight, that is not OUR problem. and please dude NICE???!!!!! really??? should we start paying more to other clubs for transfer fees of players, just to be NICE!!! should we start selling our players for free to be NICE??!!! like i said before, do you believe that pool selling to torres for 50mil, was that "unsportman" too???

Let me put it this way. If Chelsea really wants to become one of the few great historical teams that is universally respected (or feared), it should stop doing all this crap. For a team with the quality you possess, you act awfully scared of a lot of other teams.'Oh no, they will have a good keeper! What now!' A confident team would want to play against the best possible opponent, not weaken them before the game starts.

this is very true dude. we should not act scared!!! you know what, lets give ATM or any team that we face, a chance to sign any player from any team of the world for the match against us. i mean, the most important thing is to show that "we are not SCARED". again, who the hell is stopping courtois from playing against us??? we are not!!!!! we have to a clause in his contract in which he can play and give the performance of his lifetime, only if ATM pay a certain sum for the use of OUR player against US.

Do you want to win like a man or like a pussy?

PS: I just read that Chelsea will drop the clause, only if he signs a longer contract. Is that also good business, or is that, I don't know... perhaps blackmail?

i want to win it like a man but with intelligence and brains.

ps - blackmail???? seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!! whats next?? extortion, kidnap, jihad!!!! i am sorry but i dont agree on anything with you. maybe we simply have a very different outlook on the whole issue.

but just to get our facts right, courtois signing a new deal has been in the news for a couple of weeks now. dont get influenced by the media so easily.

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

You're obviously not seeing the issue here, so let's just call it quits and have a different opinion.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Actually, I'm not seeing the "issue" here either. He's our player, we loaned him out to them and added a clause about him playing against us to protect the club's best interest. I can understand why he would feel disappointed not playing but he is first and foremost our player.

And if you're going to take that narrow view to sportsmanship then it isn't "sportsmanlike" that Atletico have played and reached the semifinals when one of their key players is not a player they own but one that they have borrowed from another team

[Reddish-Blue 2,348]

The standards for sportsmanship are the same in the CL as in a friendly for 12 year olds. You're either are or aren't. If you loan out a player, he's not your player for the rest of that year. The guy trained with this team for 3 years and worked his ass off to get to this game. You're going to tell him he should miss what might be the biggest game of his career (what if it's the final for example). That's not a nice thing to do.

Let me put it this way. If Chelsea really wants to become one of the few great historical teams that is universally respected (or feared), it should stop doing all this crap. For a team with the quality you possess, you act awfully scared of a lot of other teams.'Oh no, they will have a good keeper! What now!' A confident team would want to play against the best possible opponent, not weaken them before the game starts.

Do you want to win like a man or like a pussy?

PS: I just read that Chelsea will drop the clause, only if he signs a longer contract. Is that also good business, or is that, I don't know... perhaps blackmail?

I don't see the big issue about Courtois playing against Chelsea. He gets to experience a UCL Semi-final and we get to test ourselves against a solid defence which happens to include Courtois!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

UEFA have nullified the clause in the contract so he can play after all: http://www.uefa.org/about-uefa/administration/news/newsid=2088774.html

[Jase 43,479]

http://www.uefa.org/about-uefa/administration/news/newsid=2088774.html

UEFA's statement on the Courtois situation. He can play against us according to them.

[Namika 922]

Atletico should respect that clause and not play him against us or pay us if we meet.

[Thendo 1,088]

Uefa folding because of the media pressure much?

[Strike 7,222]

Clubs mutually agreed clause. Why should UEFA interfere?

[Sovieticus 743]

Clubs mutually agreed clause. Why should UEFA interfere?

Because they can

[Strike 7,222]

Because they can

read that UEFA said last year they can have no interference on contracts regarding Celtic player on loan at Elfsborg

[DH1988 1,276]

because its us and Uefa hates us.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

UEFA on a similar case about a Celtic player last summer:

"Any agreement between the two clubs that this player wouldn’t play against Celtic should Elfsborg be drawn against them is purely between the clubs.

"UEFA would not have any involvement or consideration of this agreement, it would be neither endorsed or enforceable by UEFA."

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/233438-mo-bangura-could-feature-against-celtic-for-loan-club-if-elfsborg/

And people say it's all conspiracy theories when we say that UEFA hate us.

[Special Juan 27,431]

UEFAlona