Liverpool brought in a new keeper seems to have worked. Man City stuck with Joe Hart. I would like to see Petr Čech remain at the club for another 5 years atleast.
I cannot fault Cech at all this season (or any season) and I not one for pandering to todays obsession with youth we seem to have in football at the moment, For me both are good enough to be Chelsea's number one and both deserve it, The only thing for me that seprates them is Cech IS Chelsea's number one and until he does something to deserve to lose that spot (and I not talking about a one off howler or a couple of day games) I think he should reamain so.
Yes I know we have to think of when Cech does start to fade but on the other hand I have yet to see any sign of that yet and think its unfair for us to expect this guy to hang around waiting for something that might not happen for a number of years.
I don't like the idea of being told by UEFA that our contractual agreement with Atletico is worthless. But on the other hand, I think we should have waved that agreement and allowed him to play without forcing a compensation payment. It would have shown class, and we might benefit in the long run by keeping on good terms with both Courtois and Atletico.
Personally, I have no respect for UEFA, FIFA or any of these governing bodies, that's what rankles.
I don't like the idea of being told by UEFA that our contractual agreement with Atletico is worthless. But on the other hand, I think we should have waved that agreement and allowed him to play without forcing a compensation payment. It would have shown class, and we might benefit in the long run by keeping on good terms with both Courtois and Atletico. Personally, I have no respect for UEFA, FIFA or any of these governing bodies, that's what rankles.
I would question the sanity and intellegence of anyone who does if if they did they clearly have not been a fan of a club that has to deal with this bodies year in year out
I would question the sanity and intellegence of anyone who does if if they did they clearly have not been a fan of a club that has to deal with this bodies year in year out
That's right, it's like politics..a plague on all their houses, I say. >:(
That's right, it's like politics..a plague on all their houses, I say. >:(
If you told me UEFA or FIFA was bringing in a rule where there is a coin toss and the losing team had to play with all their players having to have one hand tied behind their backs I would have to check if it was true or not.
I don't like the idea of being told by UEFA that our contractual agreement with Atletico is worthless. But on the other hand, I think we should have waved that agreement and allowed him to play without forcing a compensation payment. It would have shown class, and we might benefit in the long run by keeping on good terms with both Courtois and Atletico.
Personally, I have no respect for UEFA, FIFA or any of these governing bodies, that's what rankles.
Uefa have absolutely no jurisdiction over this. A contract is a contract. If he plays against us, they have to pay.
Uefa have absolutely no jurisdiction over this. A contract is a contract. If he plays against us, they have to pay.
I don't know. At first, I thought the same as you because it was only reported in The Mail. But now the BBC are also saying the same...
" Madrid's on-loan goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois can play against parent club Chelsea in the Champions League semi-finals, Uefa has said.
Under the terms of the loan, Atletico would have to pay a fee to allow the Belgium international to face Chelsea. But European football's governing body said in a statement* that any such agreement would be "null, void and unenforceable".
"The integrity of sporting competition is a fundamental principle," it added."
I don't know. At first, I thought the same as you because it was only reported in The Mail. But now the BBC are also saying the same...
" Madrid's on-loan goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois can play against parent club Chelsea in the Champions League semi-finals, Uefa has said.
Under the terms of the loan, Atletico would have to pay a fee to allow the Belgium international to face Chelsea. But European football's governing body said in a statement* that any such agreement would be "null, void and unenforceable".
"The integrity of sporting competition is a fundamental principle," it added."
I sign a contract (even one that there are rules against) I would honor that contract, For me its just a symbol of todays society that we agree to something then when we dont want to keep our word its acceptable.
Should we have put that in the contract? It looks like we should not have BUT on the other hand they should have said "no we dont agree to that and you either remove it or we dont sign".
I sign a contract (even one that there are rules against) I would honor that contract, For me its just a symbol of todays society that we agree to something then when we dont want to keep our word its acceptable.
Should we have put that in the contract? It looks like we should not have BUT on the other hand they should have said "no we dont agree to that and you either remove it or we dont sign".
It is fine for Uefa to say that the sport has to have integrity - but the whole loan system is against any integrity.
Chelsea and City have loaned Everton their two best players, and yet the "integrity" states that they cannot play against their real club. This gives Chelsea and City a huge advantage.
And yet when we loan a player to AMadrid, perhaps we should insist that he cannot play against us - like the other loan agreements?
But no, in the contract drawn up we said he can, but they must pay us per game. That seems reasonable, and BOTH parties agreed to this. Surely this must have been signed off by the FA etc
Lots of loan agreements have odd contract points. LIke committing to pay a percentage of the wages, sometimes 100% in the case of manchester city, or a varied amount depending on how many games they play.
It is fine for Uefa to say that the sport has to have integrity - but the whole loan system is against any integrity.
Chelsea and City have loaned Everton their two best players, and yet the "integrity" states that they cannot play against their real club. This gives Chelsea and City a huge advantage.
And yet when we loan a player to AMadrid, perhaps we should insist that he cannot play against us - like the other loan agreements?
But no, in the contract drawn up we said he can, but they must pay us per game. That seems reasonable, and BOTH parties agreed to this. Surely this must have been signed off by the FA etc
Lots of loan agreements have odd contract points. LIke committing to pay a percentage of the wages, sometimes 100% in the case of manchester city, or a varied amount depending on how many games they play.
Different companies have different rules.
I dont see a problem with that, You take a loan in the league knowing you will have to do with out him for two games, Both parties should have known that rule does not exist with UEFA (and you are not allowed to use such a rule).
While yes I agree UEFA or someone should have picked up on this, Its not that surprising that they did not considering the people running it.
As i have said him playing does not concern me that much one way or another, If he never plays for us its not a big deal and if he does playing in a semi final and maybe a champions league final surely is the sort of experence we sent him out on loan for?
Well any draw was going to be difficult but i think id still rather play Athletico than Real or Bayern in all honesty. We also have the second leg at home which is a great advantage, weve shown we can overturn deficits at home if necessary. It would be fantastic to get the final yet again but theres no doubt Jose has done well in Europe this season for us, yet again.
Courtois playing is annoying, i thought he wouldn't be allowed, as that is generally what happens in english football, but it seems he will be playing against us after all.
Decent draw for us. They're all very good teams left in it now, but I particularly wanted us to avoid Bayern in the S/F because of them being in the position where they can afford to rest players in their league games with the title already sewn up. Atletico won't have that luxury with a smaller squad and the Spanish title race set to go to the wire. Good to see we're at home in the 2nd leg too.
On paper, Atletico appear to be the easiest draw. But I'm not so sure, they've impressed me for a few seasons now. They seem to be a "genuine team", they've got some real quality players, but more importantly they have a terrific spirit and never know when they're beaten..a bit like us really.
It's going to be tough, but we could be in for a couple of classic encounters. Obviously I'm hoping we get through, but if we fail I hope Atletico go on to win it.
Atletico will be tough, but I'd fancy our chances against the other 2 more over 90 (or 120) minutes than over 2 legs. CL nights are tough enough this time of year
Atletico will be tough, but I'd fancy our chances against the other 2 more over 90 (or 120) minutes than over 2 legs. CL nights are tough enough this time of year
Yes, you could be right. Atletico are a pretty physical side though..for a Spanish outfit.
I think it's going to be a tough couple of battles, both home and away.
You don't knock out Barca by luck, they are a very good team and will be a real test for us, like the last leg it could go either way for us. While we have experience on our side we have to be at our very very best
You don't knock out Barca by luck, they are a very good team and will be a real test for us, like the last leg it could go either way for us. While we have experience on our side we have to be at our very very best
Try telling that to ZicoZ.
So how many libellous generalisations do you think will be levelled at the fanbase tomorrow?
Oh well, second best result for us at Anfield. At least we will have the opportunity to influence the outcome in our away game against Liverpool. Providing we win this afternoon we're not entirely out of it. Man City would be 5 points behind with two games in hand.
Looks like we are using Schurrle as our "false no 9" again, is Eto'o injured ?
I was praying for a draw, but its looking like we NEED to win all our remaining games if we want to win the league- will that even be enough? I havent worked out the maths but the liverpool game is looking like a must win. And they are on fire at the moment, going to be very very difficult. I think they will win the league this year sadly. Hopefully we can win the CL though!
I was praying for a draw, but its looking like we NEED to win all our remaining games if we want to win the league- will that even be enough? I havent worked out the maths but the liverpool game is looking like a must win. And they are on fire at the moment, going to be very very difficult. I think they will win the league this year sadly. Hopefully we can win the CL though!
It's still out of our hands as far as Man City are concerned. But we could overhaul Liverpool with a win at Anfield. It all becomes immaterial if we fail to win this afternoon, and as you say, we've got to win all our remaining games to have any kind of chance.
Comments
I cannot fault Cech at all this season (or any season) and I not one for pandering to todays obsession with youth we seem to have in football at the moment, For me both are good enough to be Chelsea's number one and both deserve it, The only thing for me that seprates them is Cech IS Chelsea's number one and until he does something to deserve to lose that spot (and I not talking about a one off howler or a couple of day games) I think he should reamain so.
Yes I know we have to think of when Cech does start to fade but on the other hand I have yet to see any sign of that yet and think its unfair for us to expect this guy to hang around waiting for something that might not happen for a number of years.
Personally, I have no respect for UEFA, FIFA or any of these governing bodies, that's what rankles.
I would question the sanity and intellegence of anyone who does if if they did they clearly have not been a fan of a club that has to deal with this bodies year in year out
That's right, it's like politics..a plague on all their houses, I say. >:(
If you told me UEFA or FIFA was bringing in a rule where there is a coin toss and the losing team had to play with all their players having to have one hand tied behind their backs I would have to check if it was true or not.
Uefa have absolutely no jurisdiction over this. A contract is a contract. If he plays against us, they have to pay.
I don't know. At first, I thought the same as you because it was only reported in The Mail. But now the BBC are also saying the same...
" Madrid's on-loan goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois can play against parent club Chelsea in the Champions League semi-finals, Uefa has said.
Under the terms of the loan, Atletico would have to pay a fee to allow the Belgium international to face Chelsea.
But European football's governing body said in a statement* that any such agreement would be "null, void and unenforceable".
"The integrity of sporting competition is a fundamental principle," it added."
I can see this in the courts then
Is it real worth it?
He plays or he does not play its no big deal.
For me its just a personal moral code issue.
I sign a contract (even one that there are rules against) I would honor that contract, For me its just a symbol of todays society that we agree to something then when we dont want to keep our word its acceptable.
Should we have put that in the contract? It looks like we should not have BUT on the other hand they should have said "no we dont agree to that and you either remove it or we dont sign".
It is fine for Uefa to say that the sport has to have integrity - but the whole loan system is against any integrity.
Chelsea and City have loaned Everton their two best players, and yet the "integrity" states that they cannot play against their real club. This gives Chelsea and City a huge advantage.
And yet when we loan a player to AMadrid, perhaps we should insist that he cannot play against us - like the other loan agreements?
But no, in the contract drawn up we said he can, but they must pay us per game. That seems reasonable, and BOTH parties agreed to this. Surely this must have been signed off by the FA etc
Lots of loan agreements have odd contract points. LIke committing to pay a percentage of the wages, sometimes 100% in the case of manchester city, or a varied amount depending on how many games they play.
Different companies have different rules.
I dont see a problem with that, You take a loan in the league knowing you will have to do with out him for two games, Both parties should have known that rule does not exist with UEFA (and you are not allowed to use such a rule).
While yes I agree UEFA or someone should have picked up on this, Its not that surprising that they did not considering the people running it.
As i have said him playing does not concern me that much one way or another, If he never plays for us its not a big deal and if he does playing in a semi final and maybe a champions league final surely is the sort of experence we sent him out on loan for?
Courtois playing is annoying, i thought he wouldn't be allowed, as that is generally what happens in english football, but it seems he will be playing against us after all.
It's going to be tough, but we could be in for a couple of classic encounters. Obviously I'm hoping we get through, but if we fail I hope Atletico go on to win it.
Yes, you could be right. Atletico are a pretty physical side though..for a Spanish outfit.
I think it's going to be a tough couple of battles, both home and away.
Try telling that to ZicoZ.
So how many libellous generalisations do you think will be levelled at the fanbase tomorrow?
Schwarzer, Cole, David Luiz, Mikel, Oscar, Torres, Eto’o
Looks like we are using Schurrle as our "false no 9" again, is Eto'o injured ?
Oops, sorry. Read that wrong, Ba is up front.
It's still out of our hands as far as Man City are concerned. But we could overhaul Liverpool with a win at Anfield. It all becomes immaterial if we fail to win this afternoon, and as you say, we've got to win all our remaining games to have any kind of chance.