Champions League Thread

[duren batu 15]

@Barbara

I agree. I just hope if we win this match, there would be no match fixing issue because curtouis is our player on loan.

[Rmpr 8,977]

I love the whole pointless debate about UEFA or ethics or whatever people are having here!

At the end of te day, we will just allow him to play and end of story...

Chelsea is capable of beating Atletico even if Courtois!!!

[AswinR 96]

heard atletico has debt of about 400 mils...dont know if this is true...but in that case reachin semis wont help them much...

and as for costa, koke and courtois..... if they win the league it could swing both ways ...out for a new challenge or why leave an already big club!!

btw the next biggest thing would be torres returning to where it all began for him .... hes really a big deal over there...

hope he can score there atleast :|

[AndersonBLUE 819]

Don't forget Cole will be in for this game, Ivan is suspended

[cosmicway 1,333]

This thread is from 2012. We lost 1-4 (the European super cup).

We wait for the new thread.

Atletico were the easiest opponent on paper among the three - but I always expected them to lick Barcelona as they did.

It's a team I watched several times this season. Impressive most times but some fail performences too.

They are certainly not Barcelona of the best of days but better than PSG by a margin.

Like in 2012 I believe if we get through and it is Real it's going to be easy and less so if it is Bayern.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

What a massive advantage would be if Gabi, Koke and Juanfran will get booked in Madrid.

Jose will have a plan for those three for sure.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

People want to be so 'politically correct' here that they fail to notice they're supporting something unethical.

If we created a clause it should be reinforced - if not by us because UEFA decided to be nosy about it, then Atletico should honor their own signature.

To the hell if he deserves, to the hell if UEFA forces us, to the hell all things involved. If they agreed to that the right thing to do is that.

Even if there wasn't such a clause, it's still an opening for conflict of interest for everyone involved (being an auditor for processes for many years, I'd never approve the lack of a rule prohibiting that). That's why I support the rule in the football associations. This opens space for shady business/interests and even if it's pristine clean, it could still raise suspicions. What are Chelsea interests? And Atletico's? And Thibaut's?

Not having that rule in UEFA regulation is already bad as it is. Anyway, I don't think loaned players should ever play against their parent club to avoid all that sort of issues, but the case we have a contract that clearly (or supposedly) has a clause about it, it should be respected, if not by legal reinforcement, it's the honorable thing to do.

Now it becomes a bargain chip to renew his loan contract or to easy things up to Costa signing or to leave a slit for UEFA investigate the match and decide to make whatever shady decision to harm us they want (it's in their hands to allege whatever stupidity they want to put at stake the integrity of all involved).

He shouldn't play because it's the ETHICAL thing to do. The one that doesn't leave doubt for any questions and that should be UEFA's rule, not Chelsea or Atletico's decision. Too many interests in conflict. It's stupid not to have that rule in the first place.

Regarding the talk about the contract and the agreement and people should honor their agreements, I have absolutely no problem with that. I to totally agree. Why have an agreements if you can't put them in effect? Having said that, him playing should not be a problem. If they pay the fee that BOTH CHELSEA AND ATLETICO agreed on, then surely he should play. Them agreeing on a fee for it, is saying that it is ETHICAL according to their standards. It is ok for both clubs to have him play at a price . You see ethical is a very flexible thing here.

I hardly see any conflict of interest. I don't see Atletico playing him against us if they don't trust him therefore he has to be trusted. I don't see a kid rising to be one of the top goalkeepers in the world giving up a match for the sake of his parent team that he MIGHT start playing with next season. I don't think a player who progresses will not want to win and play hard to earn a trophy and add it to his credentials. I don't think Chelsea will be harmed either. After all they will get to see their player, rise and gain more experience and be mentally tested, therefore IF he comes back next year he will be more ready.

With all respect, but people who think that Courtois playing against us means that we can't go through (and I don't mean you here but I thought I should point it out while I am at it ), should re-evaluate their thoughts. When we had the PSG firs leg game, I clearly remember people saying that PSG are not tested, they just play for money, If they wanted to test themselves they should go play in the EPL, and you know what I agree. We had arguments about Chelsea playing against top teams and proving themselves while PSG only played against Monaco. Again I agree. But now the same people are afraid to play against a team who has a good goal keeper. So much for testing and challenging themselves day in and out . I find that strange and doesn't make sense. PSG is not good enough because they are not being tested and at the same time Chelsea should play against a weakened side to win the trophy!!! People should not change their opinion whenever it serves them best. I don't know if that is ETHICAL or HONORING their words.( Again not you )

Again about the contract, I absolutely concur. But if UEFA is the bad guy and decides he should play, or if Atletico pay the money and TRUST him to play, or if Chelsea didn't mind him playing and find it ethical/acceptable, we shouldn't worry much about it from the prospective of the match. Chelsea afraid to play against Atletico because of ONE guy is quiet degrading. Whether he plays, Costa plays, Messi, or whomever plays we shouldn't worry. We should believe more in our team that hasn't let us down, believe in the manager that we keep praising and admire his tactics. It is like we all of a sudden forgot the PSG games and how those MEN rose to the occasion.

[robdog 2,084]

I love the whole pointless debate about UEFA or ethics or whatever people are having here!

CFC never disallowed Courtois to play. CFC should receive the fee that the two teams agreed upon in the legal binding contract that both sides signed.

[Namika 922]

We have to score at the Vicente Calderon if we want to go through.

Hazard must be there (hopefully), it will be one of the biggest game of his career. If he wants to win the ballon d'or one day like he says every day he must deliver in these kind of games.

[Barbara 15,149]

I love the whole pointless debate about UEFA or ethics or whatever people are having here!

At the end of te day, we will just allow him to play and end of story...

Chelsea is capable of beating Atletico even if Courtois!!!

but that isn't even the point (being capable of beating them). We don't want to be investigated because of something stupid just because someone may want to demoralize or bring instability towards us and we all know they'll do with the smallest breach the tie may bring (unless we lose).

But I get what you and others mean (about being capable of beating them with him). I'm still against it and whether he plays or not, I see us in the final. As I said I think we have a slight edge (Mourinho, experience, players who've been there, doing it before in recent years) while the teams are sort of equivalent technically.

I think with La Liga still being so tight, with their lack of experience in this level, we're more (even if little) comfortable than them. It means little or nothing to some, but it made the difference against PSG imo and I can see it making a difference against Atleti too.

[duo11bluecl 207]

Just got home noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo we got the best team in the competition would have wanted the other 2 but ah well, hope we can manage a draw in 1st leg and just edge it in the 2nd.

[haranr 485]

Don't forget Cole will be in for this game, Ivan is suspended

That is not a problem.

[haranr 485]

Just got home noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo we got the best team in the competition would have wanted the other 2 but ah well, hope we can manage a draw in 1st leg and just edge it in the 2nd.

Best draw we could have wished for. We actually are equal to this team.

[superfrank8 23]

Cant lose at the Calderon by more than one goal. 2-1 will do, 1-1 will be good, 0-1 or 1-2 would be ideal. Dont want Courtois to play, Aranzubia has played for what, one or two games? Got to take advantage of that, hate that Uefa are sticking their noses into matters that are none of their concern. Atletico should honour the contract and just pretend Uefa didnt say anything.

[Barbara 15,149]

Regarding the talk about the contract and the agreement and people should honor their agreements, I have absolutely no problem with that. I to totally agree. Why have an agreements if you can't put them in effect? Having said that, him playing should not be a problem. If they pay the fee that BOTH CHELSEA AND ATLETICO agreed on, then surely he should play. Them agreeing on a fee for it, is saying that it is ETHICAL according to their standards. It is ok for both clubs to have him play at a price . You see ethical is a very flexible thing here.

I hardly see any conflict of interest. I don't see Atletico playing him against us if they don't trust him therefore he has to be trusted. I don't see a kid rising to be one of the top goalkeepers in the world giving up a match for the sake of his parent team that he MIGHT start playing with next season. I don't think a player who progresses will not want to win and play hard to earn a trophy and add it to his credentials. I don't think Chelsea will be harmed either. After all they will get to see their player, rise and gain more experience and be mentally tested, therefore IF he comes back next year he will be more ready.

With all respect, but people who think that Courtois playing against us means that we can't go through (and I don't mean you here but I thought I should point it out while I am at it ), should re-evaluate their thoughts. When we had the PSG firs leg game, I clearly remember people saying that PSG are not tested, they just play for money, If they wanted to test themselves they should go play in the EPL, and you know what I agree. We had arguments about Chelsea playing against top teams and proving themselves while PSG only played against Monaco. Again I agree. But now the same people are afraid to play against a team who has a good goal keeper. So much for testing and challenging themselves day in and out . I find that strange and doesn't make sense. PSG is not good enough because they are not being tested and at the same time Chelsea should play against a weakened side to win the trophy!!! People should not change their opinion whenever it serves them best. I don't know if that is ETHICAL or HONORING their words.( Again not you )

Again about the contract, I absolutely concur. But if UEFA is the bad guy and decides he should play, or if Atletico pay the money and TRUST him to play, or if Chelsea didn't mind him playing and find it ethical/acceptable, we shouldn't worry much about it from the prospective of the match. Chelsea afraid to play against Atletico because of ONE guy is quiet degrading. Whether he plays, Costa plays, Messi, or whomever plays we shouldn't worry. We should believe more in our team that hasn't let us down, believe in the manager that we keep praising and admire his tactics. It is like we all of a sudden forgot the PSG games and how those MEN rose to the occasion.

well, I can tell you from an auditor POV and that's how it works: Julius Cesar's wife not only should be the most faithful woman in the world but LOOK like the most faithful woman in the world. That's the basic principle in audits, ethics and laws. The regulation in place should assure that nobody can have the chance to take advantage of breaches. It doesn't mean people involved will. I'm not questioning ours, Atletico's or Thibaut's integrity. I'm questioning how this opens breaches for questions from people who are there to make those questions. The moment a situation provides a conflict of interest it doesn't matter at all if people take advantage of that or not, it shouldn't exist. That's the basic principle.

All three involved could act in absolutely integrity and honesty, but one mistake, one unpredictable or unexpected situation could lead others to question those things and it's unnecessary. And I don't think we're above of using this situation regarding a potential Costa negotiation, a potential new loan involving Courtois (and maybe even other players). Atletico may also have interests that aren't above their work ethic. In a comrade agreement between the parts one side could make concessions now about things for the future - which while isn't illegal and maybe not even unethical, it shouldn't exist. Chelsea shouldn't have any advantages allowing him to play the same way Atletico shouldn't have any by preventing him from playing. Thibaut can feel like making a decision himself to avoid those situations as well. Anyway, I'm not talking about shady stuff happening, I'm talking about opportunities being created for shady stuff being speculated and situations such as those players futures being affected by the decisions made. We don't know if the rumor about Chelsea conditioning the loan renewal on his absence is true or not, but if there was a rule prohibiting him from playing no questions would be made. Clean cut business. The way it stands it's too inviting to all sort of rumors and even investigations depending on what happens. And I'm not naive to believe Chelsea and Atletico won't have interests that conflict here. They certainly do if not involving Costa as well, at least Thibaut's future...

[iseah100 5,612]

Fuck that ethically right stuff, if UEFA says they don't need to pay, they shouldn't. Chelsea should be worrying about how to beat this team that has not lost in the tournament yet, not trying to get advantages.

[LAM09 7,092]

Fuck that ethically right stuff, if UEFA says they don't need to pay, they shouldn't. Chelsea should be worrying about how to beat this team that has not lost in the tournament yet, not trying to get advantages.

UEFA has nothing to do with a contract that was signed by both clubs. It is up to the parties involved what should and shouldn't happen. Secondly, AM haven't played a difficult match in the CL par Barca to an extent. They were yet to lose to Barca prior to the CL matches, so there was no surprise on my behalf they progressed quite comfortability IMO.

[duo11bluecl 207]

LOL at people writing essay style posts on non-important issue. He wants to play so let him, are we that coward we want the easy way out? If Madrid had CR7, Bale and Ramos out of final of CL for example I would be disappointed if we play them and win, there will always be people question us and say that we wouldn't have won if,,,etc. I want it to be like 2012 CL final where we had like 5 1st team players out and still win, that victory will be remembered for years to come as one of the greatest upset in CL history.

Courtois deserves to play and we shouldn't do anything against that, more like focusing on how to beat them rather than the advantages we might have if they have players out.

[iseah100 5,612]

UEFA has nothing to do with a contract that was signed by both clubs. It is up to the parties involved what should and shouldn't happen. Secondly, AM haven't played a difficult match in the CL par Barca to an extent. They were yet to lose to Barca prior to the CL matches, so there was no surprise on my behalf they progressed quite comfortability IMO.

UEFA doesn't recognize it, right? Can't be enforced?

You realize we had the easiest group, right? Atletico did what they had to do. We lost twice to BASEL.

[cosmicway 1,333]

Eliminated by Aris Salonika (!) in 2010.

They had Aguerro-Forlan also then: