• Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here

UEFA Champions League 2013/2014

I think you know damn well that those loans are one of our main revenue sources already, questioning our current financial stability won't get you nowhere as this plan was only initiated about 2 or 3 years ago, while our financial state was disastrous (like many other big clubs actually) for about a decade. These loans are really helpful and we've been cutting off some losses BECAUSE of them.

I know it's unpleasant for the neutrals, but we aren't alone to blame for his situation, it take two to tango, seeing my team taking all the blame pisses me off.
 
amineken, sorry to ask an OT question but could you tell me why Marin didn't worked for Chelsea?

He is a great player and I saw he only played a few games for Chelsea, what went wrong!?
 
amineken22 said:
I think you know damn well that those loans are one of our main revenue sources already,
I know it's unpleasant for the neutrals, but we aren't alone to blame for his situation, it take two to tango, seeing my team taking all the blame pisses me off.
Click to expand...

That's magnificent logic. One of your main 'revenue' sources is literally the wages that you HAVE to pay YOUR players.

- Pay over the odds to sign young player on transfer fees
- Give them great wages at CFC
- Loan them out, often subsidizing some of their wages at loaning clubs
- Claim the wages that the loan clubs are paying as revenue

Brilliant. Way to increase the top line!

That's as comical as calling Abramovich's money as a 'loan'. If Roman ever decided he wanted to diamond-plate his fleet, and called in his 'loan' you would cease to exist.

Using business terms that are grounded in a reality of economics is pointless when discussing the oil-funded 'projects'. They literally exist outside of economic sense, and can only be explained by other incentives.
 
@Dani: Well, I don't know either TBH, although he was never meant to be first team player, he never took part of the team plan, no coach ever rated him really.
It seems that he was deteriorating physically, the fact that he didn't have a proper pre-season and followed that by injuries.
From what I saw: things aren't going better with Sevilla either.

I wish him luck, he was a magnificent little player once, I hope he recovers soon.
 
Ryan! Where were you mate? I was just wondering: "How come he didn't take part of this already", and here you are!

I think with that last paragraph you implicitly answered everything, haven't ya?
 
Thanks for the answer mate!

And yeah he does need to get back playing great football, and that will never happen at Sevilla imo, hope he finds his way.
 
amineken22 said:
seeing my team taking all the blame pisses me off.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but it wasn't my intention. I don't care that this particular case involves Chelsea. I think about the bigger picture. I'm questioning the practice in general, and not the clubs that operates within the current laws.
 
He is overrated, I agree, but he is also a great player as well. They are saying the same thing about Herrmann now, and they are in the same level imo.

I saw practically every game of his with Werder and I can tell you that kid is good. Moving to Chelsea was just a bad call, it was clear would never work, he should stayed in the Bundesliga a little more and maybe join BVB or something of the kind.
 
I'm totally with Beach on this.
Apart form that i've very explicitly written that this isn't about Courtois ir Chelsea, but about the principle.
 
amineken22 said:
Really? So how about that Thiago clause, should it be allowed too?
Click to expand...

Which Thiago clause? And what it has to do with the fact that I (a person) don't respect or like at all any club (put any name of club here) that doesn't allow loaned players (put any loaned player here) to play against them?

amineken22 said:
You also should be the last one talking about things being "ethical" giving all the sleazy things your club done/does/will do.
Click to expand...

Now I am responsible for what the barcelona board does or don't? Can't you see my oppinion as a person is way beyond what my favorite club does or don't? Don't you understand that loving a club doesn't imply you agree with the things OTHER PEOPLE, who run the club, do?

And ultimately, even if I agreed with unethical things done by my club (that I don't), this would imply I couldn't consider unethical any other practice by others? I should then shut up?

Don't you see how flawed is your logic?

Considering loans and this clauses as "protecting investment" to me it implies a vision of football that is far from the one I would like. Barcelona and Real Madrid also protect their investments by taking 60% shares of Spanish TV rights, you see? It's easy to justify any unethical practice with finantial terms.

To me it's unethical, at the same level of a diver, of a club who snaps young players illegally, a club that doesn't cut the grass according to the rules, a player who feigns, a club that owes money to the government, a club that operates on loses to clean dirty money, a player that dopes, a player that kicks another when the ref doesn't watch, a player that moans to the ref even when he knows he's wrong, etc... And obviosuly, as we aren't 12 years old or brainless fanatics, it doesn't matter if it's my favorite club or another the one who does it, it remains unethical to my eyes.
 
What would you have said if Chelsea would loaned one of their key players from another club and they had to pay in order to let him play, amineken.

This thing provides Chelsea wit an opportunity to show that they have class. They could say something along the line of: "we are aware of the clause, but this is something special for Courtois and we think he should play."

Chelsea could win some sympathy by doing the right thing.
 
I think Chelsea's point of loaning him was to let him gain experience against top teams. Don't think there's a better shot at getting experience than this...
 
@Alexis: What I did was give you examples from you own environment, whether you agree on them or not isn't part of issue. You attacked a club which you virtually know nothing about on a basis of a totally legal action, and I am the one with the flawed logic?

Of course you have the right to have a different opinion, it's a free world. Just know that your freedom ends where the freedom others begins. So, to resume: having different view on things doesn't allow you to judge them.

PS: Just so you know I have nothing against you, I actually think you're a very nice guy, and I find most of your posts here delightful (even Barcelona related stuff) this one though, I disagree.

gerd said:
What would you have said if Chelsea would loaned one of their key players from another club and they had to pay in order to let him play, amineken.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't know. I'd wait to see that happen, it's hard to judge things from the outside. Dealing with facts is much complicated than dealing with possibilities.
 
Atletico wanted Courtious because he's better than the Gk they have. It makes sense that Chelsea would not want to face a better GK. Atletico have got a great deal over the last 3 years. Both clubs have benefited. This isn't a case of 'evil chelsea'. Without the loan would Atletico be where they are in LL and the CL? probably not.

The whole notion of a loaned out player even being allowed to face his own club is a bigger talking point than Atletico having to pay a few extra quid. It's obviously far more potentially destructive to football in general.

And another thing, people talking about being ethical blah blah blah, we all accept that for a club to sell to, and strengthen, one of their rivals, rather than to a club in another country, the rival buying club would have to cough up a desirably higher fee to make it worth it. Knowing that they might meet each other in the CL, this is all Chelsea have done.
 
Last edited:
This is really bad, such a clausole doesnt have to be allowed by UEFA.

You want to loan a player he play vs who ever his coach wants.
 
Loans are part of the game, they help both teams (financially, in footballing terms or both). I thing such clause shouldn’t be allowed. It's detrimental to the game. Imagine if Aranzubia and David Gil are both injured, Atlético should be forced to use a youngster when their starter is fit?
Said that, teams will always find a way to take a competitive advantage - that is all what it is in this case, and not that protect your investment bullshit. In Portugal, such clause was forbidden, but still is very rarely for the loanee player to play against the club that owns his right(with the exception of Sporting's loanees). They are always "injured" on that weekend.
 
Godotelli, but the point is that Chelsea loaned Courtois out because they think that he is not good enoug (yet) to play for them. Otherwise they would have kept him.

So they shouldn't be afraid to let him play against them. That for me is the crucial point.
 
gerd said:
Godotelli, but the point is that Chelsea loaned Courtois out because they think that he is not good enoug (yet) to play for them. Otherwise they would have kept him.

So they shouldn't be afraid to let him play against them. That for me is the crucial point.
Click to expand...

I think Aguero is better than Suarez but I'll still be petrified of the goofy cheating twat on Sunday ;)

With regards to GK's tho, for example, the 2nd best GK in the world isn't good enough for you if you have the best. Only one can play.
 
Last edited:
Guys forget everything you know about Courtois, Chelsea and Atletico. As usual there is more than meets the eye. I've been reading some very well informed Belgian papers. What is happening here is more cynical than Game of Thrones.

Take a look at the chronology.

First legs QF's CL:

Barcelona - Atletico 1-1 (bear in mind that Courtois has never won with Atletico against Barcelona).

PSG-Chelsea 3-1

It is very well possible that both Chelsea and Atletico will not reach the semi's.
Courtois announces in the Belgian press that next week(this week) he will make an annoucement about his future. His dad (vice-president of the Belgian volleyball federation, somebody who knows a lot about sport) gives a hint: Thibaut will play either for Chelsea or Atletico.

It transpires that Courtois and Chelsea are negociating another prolongation of Courtois's contract. Father Courtois hints that Thibaut will sign a new contract and will be loaned out to Atletico for another year.

Suddenly there are rumours that Mourinho wants Cech out (the Pastore goal being alledgedly the final nail in the coffin).

After the weekend, Mourinho says that at present he don't want to talk with Courtois about a new contract because both clubs could well play against each other.

Tibaut himself declares that it is too soon to talk about his future. He aplogises for having announced that he would revealhis plans.

¨Second legs:

Chelsea - PSG 2-0
Atletico - Barcelona 1-0

Thibaut has gambled an has lost. He hoped that Chelsea would be eliminated by PSG and that there would be no chance both clubs have to play each other.

Right after the match in Madrid, Atletico president Enrique Cerezo tells radio station Onda Cero about the contract and the fact that Atletico should pay Chelsea in order to let Courtois play. ButCerezo is adamant: the amount is too high, Atletico doesn't have the money (let's be honest: this is bullshit).

It is very Obvious that he is using negociating tactics to put pressure on....Courtois.
What he wants is that Courtois signs a contract extension as soon as possible. In a new contract there will be no clause that Atletico have to pay to let Courtois play against Chelsea. In the new contract Courtois will play against Chelsea (so no protection of investments Amineken).

It is clear that if the clause will not be in the contract, Chelsea should get something. The loosing party in all this is Courtois. He will earn less than he wants to.

So what will happen is that everybody will wait until the draw today. If Atletico don't play Chelsea, the poker game will continue. If Atletico plays Chelsea, then both Atletico and Chelsea expect Courtois to sign a new contract (and in that case he will earn significantly less than what he asked). If he signs the new contract, then he will play the match and Atletico will not have to pay (in fact Atletico will never have to pay the amount).

If Atletico plays either Real or Bayern, Courtois has won, but could still loose if both teams play the final.

So basically if both teams play each other, it will be Courtois who willhave to pay in order to play a semi-final or a final...not the amount mentioned in the contract, but if he signs the new contract, he will earn less than he has asked...Chelsea (and Atletico) are using the eventual CL match between both teams as leverage.

This appeared in a couple of newspapers who have Always been very well informed about the transfer plans of the likes of Lukaku, De Bruyne and Courtois. I'm pretty sure father Courtois and Courtois's agent have leaked this information as^part of the poker game.

A very, very cynical game.

This is not Chelsea against Atletico/Courtois.

But Chelsea/Atletico against Thibaut Courtois.
 
Last edited:
amineken22 said:
@Alexis: What I did was give you examples from you own environment, whether you agree on them or not isn't part of issue. You attacked a club which you virtually know nothing about on a basis of a totally legal action, and I am the one with the flawed logic?
Click to expand...

Please read again my posts:

1- I didn't attack your club, I attacked a practice that many clubs do. Personally I have nothing against any club, so don't think I'm having a go at Chelsea. At all!

2- Your logic is flawed since the moment you say that my oppinion is less for being a barcelona fan. I wouldn't say "you shouldn't talk about suggar daddies when you're a fan of chelsea" because that is the flawed logic you used and you may have very interesting things to say about it, regardless of your favorite club. It's similar to people attacking me when a barcelona player feigns or dives. As if it was me who did it!

3- To better understand my point: the problem is not between Atletico and Chelsea. It's not about investments or purposes of loaning. It's about adultering the competition. Having a player able to play against anyone except you is adultering the competition towards third teams and it's unethical.

PS: You're a nice guy as well so don't worry, I think it's nice to debate this things. You're invited to the Barcelona thread to talk about the transfer ban. Chelsea experienced something similar some seasons ago, isn't it?
 
12:00 European Time, 11:00 UK time, but dont forget there will be a load of dead-air (where they have all the clips of the tournament and that bald Giovanni Infantillo guy talks for ages) before they make the actual draw.
 
Dazzlà said:
if atlético were to draw chelsea in semi-final it gonna cost them €6m for them to use their goalkeeper:LOL:
Click to expand...
ThomasGOAL said:
F**k no Courtois in semi, lucky Mourinho
Click to expand...

UEFA said that such contract it is not valid and will be punished if chelsea want to take influence in such a way !!!

see here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...e-is-null-void-and-unenforceable-9253857.html

Btw: Bayern lucky with the best draw they could get.
Feel sorry for Real, but La Decima will be postponed for another year. ;)
 
Last edited:
I think Bayern will rape Madrid but Chelsea and Atletico match will be so amazing! Both teams will fight till the end and it will be very balanced! Can't wait to see who will go to the final.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom