UCL Draw Thread

[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 6,783]

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:

[duo11bluecl 207]

Eliminated by Aris Salonika (!) in 2010.

They had Aguerro-Forlan also then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjnbjKY82fc

lost 2-1 at home to Basel despite having full strength team and they just lost 5-0 at Valencia yesterday in this same season. The point is that is the most pointless video ever.

[LAM09 6,783]

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.

Basel have beaten Bayern, Utd in the past CL seasons. They aren't mugs. Regarding the contract, it is called PRINCIPAL!

[iseah100 5,612]

Basel have beaten Bayern, Utd in the past CL seasons. They aren't mugs. Regarding the contract, it is called PRINCIPAL!

Okay, Atletico beat Porto and Zenit. Milan and Barca.

Principal? If you don't have to pay it, and are in debt to begin with why go on principal? That's silly thinking, if you were put in a similar position you wouldn't pay it either.

[Rmpr 8,977]

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.

Nailed it. Everyone should just bow to that post!

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

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...

Barbara you are missing an important point. That both of them, Chelsea and Atletico, don't mind him playing for a fee. That is part of the agreement. If they pay, he plays. Both of them are prepared to overlook conflicts or whether it is ethical or not. Should their be a law or restriction by UEFA to avoid things like that? Maybe. It is debatable. You might find this unethical, I might see it ethical but it doesn't matter really. What matters is what both parties involved see it as. You and I know very well that at good moments and bad ones people talk and question things. We win against Paris, most people are happy but some would still call it lucky and have a go at a player or the manager. We lose from Paris, the same scenario happens. So there is no clear way to stop people from not coming up with conspiracy theories . Say for the sake of being ethical from your point of view, he doesn't play regardless if they are willing to pay a fee or not, the Costa situation still exists and Courtois loan agreement is not over . There are still conflict of interests there right? Rumors will exist right? I can guarantee you that whether we win or lose, with Courtois or without him, some people would put speculations about it. Not long ago Hazard gave a polite comment and all of a sudden he is a bad guy, didn't want to face his new team!!!! What if Costa plays bad? Is he doing it for Chelsea? What of he play exceptionally well? Does that mean he doesn't like us and doesn't want to join? In this game and industry, there are always conflict of interests. Always some sort of a hunt and fight off the field and on the field. Again both Chelsea and Atletico agreeing to those terms means that they are willing to overlook this matter. As far as Cesar's wife is concerned I am 100% with you . I respect your opinion and point of view as usual.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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...

I finally understand what my Engineering Ethics teacher was trying to say!

[kellzfresh 7,229]

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.

[LAM09 6,783]

Okay, Atletico beat Porto and Zenit. Milan and Barca.

Principal? If you don't have to pay it, and are in debt to begin with why go on principal? That's silly thinking, if you were put in a similar position you wouldn't pay it either.

Have you seen the state of the sides you mentioned this season?!

The teams Basel played were league winning sides. In relation to your second point, what has debt got to do with it? If you sign something, it is legally abiding. There should be no discuss at all.

Either way, we will know the state of affairs come the first leg.

[iseah100 5,612]

I just don't understand peoples argument that Atletico should pay, on principles. If i go to buy a car, and a salesmen and I contractually agree on a price, but then the owner of the car lot says I don't have to pay for the car and can have it for free, I'm not fucking paying for it on "Principle" just cause we agreed on a price already.

[LAM09 6,783]

I just don't understand peoples argument that Atletico should pay, on principles. If i go to buy a car, and a salesmen and I contractually agree on a price, but then the owner of the car lot says I don't have to pay for the car and can have it for free, I'm not fucking paying for it on "Principle" just cause we agreed on a price already.

How likely is that scenario? VERY unlikely!

[iseah100 5,612]

How likely is that scenario? VERY unlikely!

But not impossible. Point is, if a higher governing body says they wont have to pay, they shouldn't pay. To hell with principles.

[LAM09 6,783]

But not impossible. Point is, if a higher governing body says they wont have to pay, they shouldn't pay. To hell with principles.

I totally get what you are saying mate, but a contract is signed for a reason. Something will be sorted out between the clubs.