2013-14 Uefa Champions League

Kirby

He wont play. UEFA wont want to get bogged down in court and you can be 100% sure that Chelsea will contest it in court. Chelsea drew up a contract, Madrid agreed to it and signed it. It's legally binding.

Will I Amnt

Kirby wrote: »

He wont play. UEFA wont want to get bogged down in court and you can be 100% sure that Chelsea will contest it in court. Chelsea drew up a contract, Madrid agreed to it and signed it. It's legally binding.

Could they not go down the "my gaff, my rules" road?

EuropeanSon

Kirby wrote: »

He wont play. UEFA wont want to get bogged down in court and you can be 100% sure that Chelsea will contest it in court. Chelsea drew up a contract, Madrid agreed to it and signed it. It's legally binding.

That's not exactly true. Some things you cannot put in contracts, and if you do they are unenforceable. This might be one such.

Without knowing the relevant laws and regulations, you can't really say it's legally binding.

retalivity

Atletico want him back next season too, so may not risk the wrath of Chelsea by playing him anyway

Jelle1880

retalivity wrote: »

Atletico want him back next season too, so may not risk the wrath of Chelsea by playing him anyway

Chelsea also really want Diego Costa though.

Luckycharms_74

Real Vs Bayern
Atleti Vs Chelski

Will I Amnt

Luckycharms_74 wrote: »

Real Vs Bayern
Atleti Vs Chelski

Bit late to the party :pac:

Luckycharms_74

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Bit late to the party :pac:

haha WTF. I thought it was a 12:00 draw. I just saw on twitter :o:o:o

Jelle1880

Kirby wrote: »

He wont play. UEFA wont want to get bogged down in court and you can be 100% sure that Chelsea will contest it in court. Chelsea drew up a contract, Madrid agreed to it and signed it. It's legally binding.

UEFA have shown in the past they don't give a f*ck about courts. Also, who will give a verdict so fast that it's done and dusted before the games ?

citytillidie

Luckycharms_74 wrote: »

haha WTF. I thought it was a 12:00 draw. I just saw on twitter :o:o:o

12CET which is 11am our time

LuckyLloyd

Two brilliant ties in store. Ideal for Chelsea to have the first leg away.

Skylinehead

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Two brilliant ties in store. Ideal for Chelsea to have the first leg away.

I don't think the first leg will be away, as Real Madrid are playing at home first on the Tuesday. To have Atletico play at home the next day breaches UEFAs rules.

LuckyLloyd

Skylinehead wrote: »

I don't think the first leg will be away, as Real Madrid are playing at home first on the Tuesday. To have Atletico play at home the next day breaches UEFAs rules.

Huh?

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Huh?

Some cities and their relevant local authorities (e.g., Milan for definite) don't allow more than one midweek game per week. Madrid may be the same.

Skylinehead

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Huh?

Chelsea will play at home first, as I understand it.

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Some cities and their relevant local authorities (e.g., Milan for definite) don't allow more than one midweek game per week. Madrid may be the same.

Skylinehead wrote: »

Chelsea will play at home first, as I understand it.

Interesting. But surely they should draw lots to decide which game gets moved, no?

Skylinehead

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Interesting. But surely they should draw lots to decide which game gets moved, no?

Nah Real came out first so they'll play at home.

Lennonist

retalivity wrote: »

Atletico want him back next season too, so may not risk the wrath of Chelsea by playing him anyway

He'll play if they can play him, they wont be worried about risking Chelsea's wrath. It's the semi final of the Champions League.

Lennonist

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/chelsea-chief-exec-ron-gourlay-confirms-thibaut-courtois-will-play-for-atletico-madrid-in-cl-semi/

Courtois will play.

Hank Scorpio

Another Chelsea Bayern final maybe?

Nuri Sahin

retalivity wrote: »

Atletico want him back next season too, so may not risk the wrath of Chelsea by playing him anyway

Atleti shouldn't worry about upsetting Chelsea whatsoever. A chance of achieving greatness is dangling in front of them.

citytillidie

Skylinehead wrote: »

I don't think the first leg will be away, as Real Madrid are playing at home first on the Tuesday. To have Atletico play at home the next day breaches UEFAs rules.

They said during the draw that it was ok for the two Madrid team to play at home in the 1st leg

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Some cities and their relevant local authorities (e.g., Milan for definite) don't allow more than one midweek game per week. Madrid may be the same.

That maybe because the two Milan teams play in the same ground

dsmythy

Tempted to place a bet that Chelsea don't score a goal in either leg. Bayern v Real is a pure 50/50 battle for me.

LuckyLloyd

dsmythy wrote: »

Tempted to place a bet that Chelsea don't score a goal in either leg.

The writing off of Chelsea yet again begins!!

ozymandias10

dsmythy wrote: »

Tempted to place a bet that Chelsea don't score a goal in either leg. Bayern v Real is a pure 50/50 battle for me.

I think Bayern will suffocate them..hope they go at them the way Bayern did against Barca. it would then be end to end .

both semis have the potentioal to be ggod games all round

Amirani

Kirby wrote: »

He wont play. UEFA wont want to get bogged down in court and you can be 100% sure that Chelsea will contest it in court. Chelsea drew up a contract, Madrid agreed to it and signed it. It's legally binding.

That's not how contracts work. There can't be stipulations within contracts that breach the rules under which the contract is facilitated. If you look at employment contracts for example, someone can sign a contract saying they'll work for €3 per hour. This won't be legally binding though as it's unlawful.

UEFA control player registrations. It's their laws that stand here, regardless of what's written in the contract.

ahnowbrowncow

Diego Simeone wrote: »

That's not how contracts work. There can't be stipulations within contracts that breach the rules under which the contract is facilitated. If you look at employment contracts for example, someone can sign a contract saying they'll work for €3 per hour. This won't be legally binding though as it's unlawful.

UEFA control player registrations. It's their laws that stand here, regardless of what's written in the contract.

UEFA don't make laws though, they make rules, so what's in the contract is still legally binding despite breaching UEFA's rules. If Chelsea wanted to bring this to court I'm guessing they'd win unless it was somehow found unlawful in an EU court of law.

jamaamaj

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The writing off of Chelsea yet again begins!!

But he could mean two 0-0 draws, two exciting one's at that.

It is possible with the way Atletico and Chelsea play.

Turtwig

I'd wager that many soccer contracts if they were brought before the courts would be deemed illegal for many reasons. Doubt Chelsea would bring it to court.

Will I Amnt

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The writing off of Chelsea yet again begins!!

It's a bet
Not the craziest bet in the world either considering the ridiculous amount of clean sheets they keep.
They have shut out Barca 3 times this season iirc.

LuckyLloyd

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It's a bet
Not the craziest bet in the world either considering the ridiculous amount of clean sheets they keep.
They have shut out Barca 3 times this season iirc.

And I think it would be a bad bet, hence the post

SantryRed

Disappointed with the draw. Would have loved to have seen:

Bayern-Atletico and Real-Chelsea.

Mourinho returning to Madrid would have been fantastic and then also getting to see how Simeone's tactics would work against Guardiola's tiki-taka style.

Amirani

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

UEFA don't make laws though, they make rules, so what's in the contract is still legally binding despite breaching UEFA's rules. If Chelsea wanted to bring this to court I'm guessing they'd win unless it was somehow found unlawful in an EU court of law.

Well UEFA can disqualify Chelsea from the competition if they decide to do that, or simply withdraw Courtois registration from them. UEFA'S rules are the only thing that matter here. Chelsea wouldn't even have time to challenge the rule.

I'm not sure Chelsea would win in any case.

EuropeanSon

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And I think it would be a bad bet, hence the post

Can't say that unless you know the odds

LuckyLloyd

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Can't say that unless you know the odds

Yeah, yeah

ebbsy

Diego Simeone wrote: »

That's not how contracts work. There can't be stipulations within contracts that breach the rules under which the contract is facilitated. If you look at employment contracts for example, someone can sign a contract saying they'll work for €3 per hour. This won't be legally binding though as it's unlawful.

UEFA control player registrations. It's their laws that stand here, regardless of what's written in the contract.

Wonder what they mean by sanctions. Platini/Blatter always gets their way, even if somebody has to be thrown underneath the bus.

kona

Athletico will win it this year

greendom

Good to see UEFA standing up to the big boys for once.

LuckyLloyd

greendom wrote: »

Good to see UEFA standing up to the big boys for once.

Typically lol reaction on here. Athletico signed a contract. Irrespective of UEFA's position on the matter, Athletico should honour their agreement. A man or institution are their word. If Athletico violate that agreement then it's another example of Spanish football plumbing the ethical depths.

Very typical of Latin men in my anecdotal experience too, but that's a different matter.

Turtwig

Why the heck should they? If Chelsea had something unethical in their contract and expect it to be upheld then they're the ones plumbing the unethical depth. It's like expecting a modern day slave who signed a contract to their master in Ireland to abide by that contract even the though the lack of wages and sanitary conditions that they agreed to were illegal in the first place. But slave is a man of his word and will continue to work in the cess pit for no money! :rolleyes:

Also, if somebody visited Ireland and was mugged by an Irish gang would it be fair of them to say that, Irish people, in their experience are dishonest thugs? Not really, those undertones of your last sentence about latin people are quite disturbing!

greendom

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Typically lol reaction on here. Athletico signed a contract. Irrespective of UEFA's position on the matter, Athletico should honour their agreement. A man or institution are their word. If Athletico violate that agreement then it's another example of Spanish football plumbing the ethical depths.

Very typical of Latin men in my anecdotal experience too, but that's a different matter.

Sounds more like a feck up by whoever drew up the contract, inserting a clause that went against UEFA regulations.

And as for breaking contracts, Chelsea are hardly whiter than white... Gael Kakuta ring a bell ?

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Athletico signed a contract. Irrespective of UEFA's position on the matter, Athletico should honour their agreement. A man or institution are their word. If Athletico violate that agreement then it's another example of Spanish football plumbing the ethical depths.

Very typical of Latin men in my anecdotal experience too, but that's a different matter.

Meh, Chelsea inserted a clause which was clearly against UEFA rules (I called this yesterday) and also unlikely to stand up in any court. Its odds on that Athletico knew this but correctly played Chelsea for the suckers.

Chelsea displayed typical English arrogance thinking the thicko foreignors didn't have a clue and could be ordered about, a trait very typical of Englishmen in my anecdotal experience, but thats a different matter.

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Meh, Chelsea inserted a clause which was clearly against UEFA rules (I called this yesterday) and also unlikely to stand up in any court. Its odds on that Athletico knew this but correctly played Chelsea for the suckers.

Chelsea displayed typical English arrogance thinking the thicko foreignors didn't have a clue and could be ordered about, a trait very typical of Englishmen in my anecdotal experience, but thats a different matter.

My observation was genuine at least.

People don't like Chelsea, think Athletico are magical - those observations shouldn't cloud the basics of honouring an agreement though. Carry on however, I know who I'll be rooting for in the tie.

Sheepy99

Alright lads, the Courtois clause is a bit dodgy which UEFA has overruled. We get it, no need for 20 posts all saying the same thing where it looks like ye're just arguing over each other!

spiralism

For those saying it a couple of pages ago, Chelsea are indeed at home second leg.

citytillidie

Tuesday Game
Club Atlético de Madrid (ESP) V Chelsea FC (ENG)

Wednesday Game
Real Madrid CF (ESP) V FC Bayern München (GER)

citytillidie

Tuesday Game
FC Bayern München (GER) V Real Madrid CF (ESP) (Agg 0-1)

Wednesday Game
Chelsea FC (ENG) V Club Atlético de Madrid (ESP) (Agg 0-0)

Shanotheslayer

Can't see anything but a Bayern win tonight.

SantryRed

If Bayern are to win this tie, they're gonna need at least 3 goals. If Ronaldo, Bale and Benzema all start up top, I fancy Real to score twice.

citytillidie

Tuesday Game
FC Bayern München (GER) 0 V 4 Real Madrid CF (ESP) (Agg 0-5)

Wednesday Game
Chelsea FC (ENG) 1 V 3 Club Atlético de Madrid (ESP) (Agg 1-3)

Champions League Final
Real Madrid CF (ESP) V Club Atlético de Madrid (ESP)