Thibaut Courtois

[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 17,861]

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 3,254]

^^ 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 17,861]

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 2,118]

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

[Viper22 2,418]

this

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

That's very interesting. Are any of us really surprised that UEFA change their minds and have 0 consistency though? Guarantee that if this was against Barca there's no way they'd do the same thing.

Having said that, wouldn't it be nice to let Thibaut play? For him if nothing else, he'll want to play, especially at the Bridge, to prove himself to any Chelsea fans that doubt him.

[kellzfresh 7,226]

We are not on the wrong side if we enforce the clause we agreed on, but I want courtois to play if we sort out some type of deal for costa.

8 million dollars (4mil per match) is a lot of money to start being honourable about during FFP times (don't know why people are acting like we're the bad guys here, athletico knew what they were doing when they agreed for this).

I'm sure athletico will listen to offer to reduce possible deals for costa, that's what will benefit us in all this.

[Amblève. 4,995]

this

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

Well, well, well... this makes this whole clause issue interesting. This would also explain why our board insisted on putting such a clause in the contract. Does anyone know where one can find all UEFA statutes?

[Jack Uzzi 54]

Does Chelsea really want to loan him another season to Atletico? Not sure what benefit they have in that. Unless they really want to sign Costa in which case it is leverage. Then they now have a second leverage by allowing Courtois to play or not.

Interesting, interesting ...

Agree however that these clauses should not be allowed by law. You loan a player = the player must not be disallowed to play against the team loaning him.

[different level 1,056]

LOL at UEFA, breaking their own regulations just for the chance of screwing us If Atletico have the nerve to play our player against us, we should deny them a loan deal next year and they'll never see their precious keeper again.

And while I'm at it we should use Courtois' rising popularity, which should have a great effect on his price tag and cash in this summer. No more loans.