🇪🇸 Diego Costa

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

15 minutes ago, coolhead23 said:

That is at the end of the season ... Not right now.
And even if the player terminates his contract at the end of the season, the club can still fight that legally. Yes the player will be given preference but it will be a 50-50 chances. 

Clubs are smart that we think ... they will tell Costa to play the odd league game in between, if he does the quota is met, if he doesnt legal will say that the player refused to ply his services when asked for. At of the day, the above clause is just messy and no one wants to get into it. 

 

I never said about "right now". That's why I quoted after words "let this cunt rot with the U23s till next summer and".

Again then, "playing the odd league game" is not "rot with the U23s till next summer". You just can't ostracize player completely for a season.

[TheIceMan 596]

Such a shame !!! I loved him so so much !!! Imagine him and Morata together !!!

[Special Juan 28,141]

Told ya, goes both ways, he fucked us off in January and Conte fucked him off.

Nobody is bigger than this club, fucking rot.

[Jype 6,398]

51 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

You can't use player in whatever way you like only because he's on contract. That's a mutual contract that works both way. Player have obligations to the club the same way as the club have obligations to player.

If there's no such cases yet, it doesn't mean that there's no such rule. Maybe that's the reason why clubs just don't benching a player with a long-term (>1 year) contract for a season. You can only refute this rule by giving an example.

Van Dijk example is complete opposite. Southampton don't want to sell him and player want to leave. If Van Dijk will refuse to play, it would be breach of contractual obligations by him. As per yet, Diego doesn't refused to play for Chelsea. Club just don't want him to play.

What about Costa's previous history of asking for a transfer though? Surely the club have evidence of that correspondence to prove all this has started because Costa made his bed and now has to lie in it. Ffs the man even caused a fight with his boss in training because the club didn't want him to move to China and instead continue at Chelsea, stuff like that will certainly go a long way in ruling any case in favor of the club.

And also like I said, and you so conveniently ignored, the club are not exactly denying him the chance to play football so that's "sporting just cause" thrown out of the window already.

He's being allowed to leave the minute an acceptable bid comes in and after that it's all up to him. If he declines an offer from another club because he would rather sit in the stands at Chelsea if he can't move to Atletico, that's the case done and dusted for him and there's no 'sporting just cause'. If Atletico are so obviously lowballing because they know Costa will decline a move elsewhere, Chelsea sure as hell can't be bullied into accepting an offer well below market value or risk the player suing the club for termination of contract. Like I said earlier, sets a really bad precedent that would have huge implications on the transfer market as a whole.

In the end this is all Costa's own doing, he's the one who's repeatedly thrown his tantrums and soured his relationship with the staff at the club. A little respect to the employer goes a long way in securing a move elsewhere, see cases of Matic, Mata, Cech, Lukaku etc. where the club have even sold to domestic rivals when the players haven't behaved like spoiled brats. Chelsea are not a club that has history of keeping players against their wills as long as the situation is handled professionally, but Costa's behavior has been anything but professional with all these public statements about Atletico, partying with Atletico shirt and so on. 

[YorkshireBlue 3,277]

2 minutes ago, Jype said:

What about Costa's previous history of asking for a transfer though? Surely the club have evidence of that correspondence to prove all this has started because Costa made his bed and now has to lie in it. Ffs the man even caused a fight with his boss in training because the club didn't want him to move to China and instead continue at Chelsea, stuff like that will certainly go a long way in ruling any case in favor of the club.

And also like I said, and you so conveniently ignored, the club are not exactly denying him the chance to play football so that's "sporting just cause" thrown out of the window already.

He's being allowed to leave the minute an acceptable bid comes in and after that it's all up to him. If he declines an offer from another club because he would rather sit in the stands at Chelsea if he can't move to Atletico, that's the case done and dusted for him and there's no 'sporting just cause'. If Atletico are so obviously lowballing because they know Costa will decline a move elsewhere, Chelsea sure as hell can't be bullied into accepting an offer well below market value or risk the player suing the club for termination of contract. Like I said earlier, sets a really bad precedent that would have huge implications in the transfer market as a whole.

In the end this is all Costa's own doing, he's the one who's repeatedly thrown his tantrums and soured his relationship with the staff at the club. A little respect to the employer goes a long way in securing a move elsewhere, see cases of Matic, Mata, Cech, Lukaku etc. where the club have even sold to domestic rivals when the players haven't behaved like spoiled brats. Chelsea are not a club that has history of keeping players against their wills as long as the situation is handled professionally, but Costa's behavior has been anything but professional with all these public statements about Atletico, partying with Atletico shirt and so on. 

Let's no forget it was Costa who went running to the media about this so called text message even tho he was told in January he will be leaving. Brilliant player just an absolute idiot head case.

[Johnnyeye 7,509]

Costa is just going to drag this club down with all his bullshit, if Atletico want him pay up or fuck off, no player is bigger than the club, Costa is a disgrace

[bluephoenix 1,131]

WTF can the player actually demand to be sold to a particular team? but if the team(athletico) doesnt meet our asking price we aren't necessarily obliged to sell for a loss are we?

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

5 minutes ago, bluephoenix said:

WTF can the player actually demand to be sold to a particular team? but if the team(athletico) doesnt meet our asking price we aren't necessarily obliged to sell for a loss are we?

we can do whatever we want.

[Polo7 3,496]

Even when he is leaving, he is creating an issue. 

[YorkshireBlue 3,277]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/10972679/chelsea-striker-diego-costa-to-hand-in-formal-transfer-request-confirms-lawyer

Wtf is this shit... hand in a transfer request????  We don't want you mate!!!! We are already trying to shift your ass like handing in a transfer request is going to make it any faster. Guys a clown.

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

9 minutes ago, BluesMadLad said:

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/10972679/chelsea-striker-diego-costa-to-hand-in-formal-transfer-request-confirms-lawyer

Wtf is this shit... hand in a transfer request????  We don't want you mate!!!! We are already trying to shift your ass like handing in a transfer request is going to make it any faster. Guys a clown.

haha... ridiculous. we don't want him.. he can *** off to milan or china but because he wants only to atletico, we can't sell him. transfer request? lol!

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

4 hours ago, Jype said:

What about Costa's previous history of asking for a transfer though? Surely the club have evidence of that correspondence to prove all this has started because Costa made his bed and now has to lie in it. Ffs the man even caused a fight with his boss in training because the club didn't want him to move to China and instead continue at Chelsea, stuff like that will certainly go a long way in ruling any case in favor of the club.

And also like I said, and you so conveniently ignored, the club are not exactly denying him the chance to play football so that's "sporting just cause" thrown out of the window already.

He's being allowed to leave the minute an acceptable bid comes in and after that it's all up to him. If he declines an offer from another club because he would rather sit in the stands at Chelsea if he can't move to Atletico, that's the case done and dusted for him and there's no 'sporting just cause'. If Atletico are so obviously lowballing because they know Costa will decline a move elsewhere, Chelsea sure as hell can't be bullied into accepting an offer well below market value or risk the player suing the club for termination of contract. Like I said earlier, sets a really bad precedent that would have huge implications on the transfer market as a whole.

In the end this is all Costa's own doing, he's the one who's repeatedly thrown his tantrums and soured his relationship with the staff at the club. A little respect to the employer goes a long way in securing a move elsewhere, see cases of Matic, Mata, Cech, Lukaku etc. where the club have even sold to domestic rivals when the players haven't behaved like spoiled brats. Chelsea are not a club that has history of keeping players against their wills as long as the situation is handled professionally, but Costa's behavior has been anything but professional with all these public statements about Atletico, partying with Atletico shirt and so on. 

You can't just bench a player for a whole season only because he asked for a transfer, lol. He asked for a move to Atletico without refusing to play for Chelsea if that move won't happen. Is there any violations in that? Of course there's not. He's ready to fulfill his contractual obligations. Chelsea do not have any legal custody to completely ostracize Costa from a first-team for a whole season. The only exception would be if Costa is happy to do that, but it doesn't look like the case.

I'm not "conveniently ignored" it. That's just de-jure wrong, because club can't simply force him out to somewhere he doesn't want to go and then be like "well, we gave you a chance to leave, but on our terms". "Either eat shit or stay hungry". That's a infant behaviour.

Of course Chelsea also can't be forced to accept low offer. If Atletico' offer are not acceptable for Chelsea, then situation should be not different from previous summer - refuse it and continue as it is. There wouldn't be any precedents if Chelsea tell Costa to report back to Cobham and make him work his ass off. If he's refusing to do so, well, then, obviously, he's wrong and he's responsible for the consequences. Then any possibility of contract termination from Costa' side would be completly out of the question. But as it stands, Chelsea told him to stay away from the training ground.

Again, it doesn't matter as long as he's ready to play for Chelsea. Did he refused or refusing right now to play for Chelsea? No, there's no any reports about that, i.e he's ready to fulfill his contractual obligations.

I'm not exalting Costa on a moral pedestal in this siuation. But any move would happen only if both parties are satisfied with terms. Otherwise, they both should honor contract.

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

4 hours ago, bluephoenix said:

WTF can the player actually demand to be sold to a particular team? but if the team(athletico) doesnt meet our asking price we aren't necessarily obliged to sell for a loss are we?

Yes, player can demand/ask/request to be sold to a specific team. No, Chelsea are not obligated to meet his demand or to accept offer that doesn't meet club' asking price. Then there's 3 situations:

A: Costa accept that and continue to play for Chelsea. Both sides are right.

B: Costa refusing to stay and to play for Chelsea. Costa is wrong.

C: Chelsea are forcing Costa out to another club and denies him the right to play for Chelsea. Chelsea are wrong.

[bluephoenix 1,131]

2 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

Yes, player can demand/ask/request to be sold to a specific team. No, Chelsea are not obligated to meet his demand or to accept offer that doesn't meet club' asking price. Then there's 3 situations:

A: Costa accept that and continue to play for Chelsea. Both sides are right.

B: Costa refusing to stay and to play for Chelsea. Costa is wrong.

C: Chelsea are forcing Costa out to another club and denies him the right to play for Chelsea. Chelsea are wrong.

exactly what I thought,  thanks.

 

[Yeboii 1,844]

9 hours ago, pHaRaOn said:

Yes, Florent Malouda, who then left next summer for free.

Because his contract was over.

[Jype 6,398]

3 hours ago, pHaRaOn said:

You can't just bench a player for a whole season only because he asked for a transfer, lol. He asked for a move to Atletico without refusing to play for Chelsea if that move won't happen. Is there any violations in that? Of course there's not. He's ready to fulfill his contractual obligations. Chelsea do not have any legal custody to completely ostracize Costa from a first-team for a whole season. The only exception would be if Costa is happy to do that, but it doesn't look like the case.

I'm not "conveniently ignored" it. That's just de-jure wrong, because club can't simply force him out to somewhere he doesn't want to go and then be like "well, we gave you a chance to leave, but on our terms". "Either eat shit or stay hungry". That's a infant behaviour.

Of course Chelsea also can't be forced to accept low offer. If Atletico' offer are not acceptable for Chelsea, then situation should be not different from previous summer - refuse it and continue as it is. There wouldn't be any precedents if Chelsea tell Costa to report back to Cobham and make him work his ass off. If he's refusing to do so, well, then, obviously, he's wrong and he's responsible for the consequences. Then any possibility of contract termination from Costa' side would be completly out of the question. But as it stands, Chelsea told him to stay away from the training ground.

Again, it doesn't matter as long as he's ready to play for Chelsea. Did he refused or refusing right now to play for Chelsea? No, there's no any reports about that, i.e he's ready to fulfill his contractual obligations.

I'm not exalting Costa on a moral pedestal in this siuation. But any move would happen only if both parties are satisfied with terms. Otherwise, they both should honor contract.

”There is no way that he can continue to play for Chelsea, a message which has been communicated various times to those in charge there” - Diego Costa’s lawyer Ricardo Caraso

Still think Costa is ready to fulfill his contractual obligations? After such statement by his lawyer I somehow doubt it. He wants out just as much as the club want him to get out, the only problem is that Atletico aren’t willing to pay and he’s refusing to go anywhere else.

Why can’t players be frozen after asking for a transfer though? Clubs often decide not to field players who have asked for moves and sometimes even exclude them from training because their head is not in it anymore. If that move for one reason or another never materializes that doesn’t mean the club should be obligated to welcome the player back with open arms and play him ahead of more loyal and committed members of the squad, it’s just not how it works in a team game. 

Also Costa, by repeatedly asking for a move, alienated himself from the club to the point where he got replaced by another player in Morata. Signing the replacement most likely means that the club won’t have enough room for Diego to be registered in the squad lists for PL & CL, therefore making it impossible for him to even appear in the club’s official games. 

It was said that ’sporting just cause’ terminations are handled on a case-by-case basis with all facts taken into consideration from both sides. If Costa’s incident were to be tried in court, I’m pretty sure the outcome would be ruled in favor of the club. Aside from his transfer demands that have already forced the club to sign a replacement to take his place in the squad there’s also cases to be argued for disrupting team chemistry, lack of match fitness etc. as reasons for not playing him. 

This so called ’sporting just cause’ as grounds for termination seems to me something like crystal clear bullying and forcing a good professional out of the action without a valid reason, only that’s not what is happening with Costa because there sure as hell is a good reason why he’s not in the first team squad anymore. It’s his own toxic actions that got him frozen out and replaced in the first place so playing the victim card now would really be something to behold. 

Making a quick search I kind of found a precedenting case too. David Albelda, at the time club captain of Valencia who had just signed a new contract too, was forced out of the first team by incoming manager Ronald Koeman without an explanation back in 2007. He then later sued his club for termination of the contract and lost, being forced to stay and train with the youngsters. Of course in his case it wasn’t a full season spent on the sidelines but still, it’s at least some precedent to note that the clubs aren’t necessarily obligated by the contracts to involve the players in first team football. As history knows Albelda then stayed at Valencia for five more years having been welcomed back into the fold after Koeman got sacked so we never got to see if release from contract would’ve happened later. With Albelda I think there might even have been grounds for termination if it went on for a full season because there really was no other reason for his exile other than Koeman not liking him, but with Costa there are other factors at play too with his constant disruptive behavior and transfer demands.

Anyway, not much point arguing further because we’re clearly never going to agree on this and either way there’s still a very slim chance of something like this even happening. If a move won’t be agreed in this window, it’s likely that Costa will be frozen out till end of the year and then sold in January at the very latest. If for some reason Costa is still at the club after the winter transfer window and still out of the first team we can talk about this more. 

[Clockwork 1,794]

30 minutes ago, Jype said:

”There is no way that he can continue to play for Chelsea, a message which has been communicated various times to those in charge there” - Diego Costa’s lawyer Ricardo Caraso

Still think Costa is ready to fulfill his contractual obligations?After such statement by his lawyer I somehow doubt it. He wants out just as much as the club want him to get out

Important to note that Chelsea are paying Costa to stay away from the club and stay on vacation. So far that is the most telling evidence, and shows Conte/club really wants him out. So far nothing to suggest Costa is not willing to fulfill his obligation.

 

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

Read a statement that "Conte has also rejected a loan to AC Milan". Is it true?

Atletico, Chelsea and Costa need to sit down and settle this as soon as possible. Before somebody get hurt, lol.

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

Chelsea informed costa about his future last January, and not via a text message this June.

[Special Juan 28,141]

Very straight talking from the club official in that press conference there, the situation is simple and the door shut on Costa.