Cheatski are still scum

[Robbo]

If they're guilty of these wrongdoings and if FA/UEFA can prove it, Chelski will get a slap on the wrist and a £10.000 fine, find another club, and continue with the same practice.

 

[milo]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the two clubs have the same owner. My understanding is that the owner of Vitesse is a friend of Abramovic. Improper influence will be a lot harder to prove.

 

[chancer]

Seriously, how out of line is Mourinho with what he said about Torres and to a lesser extent Eto'o (who wasn't fit for the CL game, meaning Jose is really talking about Torres)?

"I'm not happy with my strikers' performances, so I have to try things. And with André Schürrle playing up front] at least I know we have one more player to have the ball, one more player to associate with the other players, and even if he is not dangerous because he's not a striker, he can associate and the team can have control of the ball possession like we had.

"But football is not just about that. It's also about scoring goals, getting behind, and that is for strikers. Real strikers. And I had to try. We are not out, and we have nothing to lose now.

Eh, I know Torres is pretty much terrible now, but that is a shocking thing to say. And even moreso for the fact that it's not Torres fault he's crap and the only striker there. If Mourinho had such a problem with him it was his responsibility to fix it, not Torres'. Dumping on the guy so viciously and publicly is seriously cowardly.

I've always liked Mourinho but this stinks.

 

[90291Spur]

i mean the release clause that liverpool just chose to ignore. and setting a very interesting precedent in doing so. basically everyone else would have honored that clause.

and i hope you (fans in general) havent missed the irony of calling a £40m bid "petty", and then complaining about stuff like ticket prices and footballers wages.

The pettiness was that it was £40 million and one pound, and there was never (at least that we know of) other bid above that.

 

[Neymar]

The pettiness was that it was £40 million and one pound, and there was never (at least that we know of) other bid above that.

but why should they have bid more? i'm personally 100% convinced that any other club would've done the same 40+1 bid too had they wanted him.

 

[indianspur]

but why should they have bid more? i'm personally 100% convinced that any other club would've done the same 40+1 bid too had they wanted him.

Levy would have bid 40 mill plus 1p.......he is not a man to waste 99p if he doesnt have to

 

[7percent]

Seriously, how out of line is Mourinho with what he said about Torres and to a lesser extent Eto'o (who wasn't fit for the CL game, meaning Jose is really talking about Torres)?




Eh, I know Torres is pretty much terrible now, but that is a shocking thing to say. And even moreso for the fact that it's not Torres fault he's crap and the only striker there. If Mourinho had such a problem with him it was his responsibility to fix it, not Torres'. Dumping on the guy so viciously and publicly is seriously cowardly.

I've always liked Mourinho but this stinks.

It's still not as bad as saying 'my wife could have scored that'

 

[nelto]

If they had any integrity Chelsea, FIFA & UEFA should all tell Gazprom to do one. But I'll not hold my breath.

 

[Jordinho]

Sagna has warned PSG of the barrage of noise they will face at Stamford Bridge. :ross:

I suppose it feels like that when you're used to playing at the scumirates

 

[markysimmo]

If they had any integrity Chelsea, FIFA & UEFA should all tell Gazprom to do one. But I'll not hold my breath.

Chelsea and integrity in the same sentence hahahahaha

 

[Robbo]

The Athletico Madrid goalkeeper is out on loan from Chelski, I've now learned. If they meet in the CL semis (or final), Courtois can still play, but there is a clause in the contract saying Athletico must pay Chelski in the region of £2-4 million per game he plays for Athletico against Chelski. Which probably means he won't play, according to Athletico.

So once again Chelski might benefit from the non-functioning loan system that allows them to stockpile as many players as they like. It's just ridicuolus, and there should be limitations in place to avoid this practice - which does nothing to benefit anyone other than the club that owns and loans out players.

 

[indianspur]

The Athletico Madrid goalkeeper is out on loan from Chelski, I've now learned. If they meet in the CL semis (or final), Courtois can still play, but there is a clause in the contract saying Athletico must pay Chelski in the region of £2-4 million per game he plays for Athletico against Chelski. Which probably means he won't play, according to Athletico.

So once again Chelski might benefit from the non-functioning loan system that allows them to stockpile as many players as they like. It's just ridicuolus, and there should be limitations in place to avoid this practice - which does nothing to benefit anyone other than the club that owns and loans out players.

Atletico should play Courtois, i really dont see the problem....its the CL semi final ffs, already the club has made a sh!tload of money from the CL run and if they play Courtois against Chelski in the semis they have a great chance of reaching the final meaning even more mega dollars into the bank account.

 

[Superted]

It's ****ed. Corrupt ****s with the power to do something won't do **** coz they are a bunch of ***** ****s who lick donkey scrotum.

 

[Sandman]

It's ****ed. Corrupt ****s with the power to do something won't do **** coz they are a bunch of ***** ****s who lick donkey scrotum.

to play devils advocate here. I believe the clause was added because unlike with a domestic loan they are not forced to leave him on the sidelines. So to have something similar that was contractually legal they put in this massive fee as it was basically never going to be action-ed. Athletico have already said they will not play him should they get drawn against chelski. But Imaging the meet in the final? will they think the same then?

 

[Robbo]

to play devils advocate here. I believe the clause was added because unlike with a domestic loan they are not forced to leave him on the sidelines. So to have something similar that was contractually legal they put in this massive fee as it was basically never going to be action-ed. Athletico have already said they will not play him should they get drawn against chelski. But Imaging the meet in the final? will they think the same then?

The issue, now that Chelski will face Athletico, is whether Athletico will be weakened by not playing their number one goalkeeper. Their reserve goalie could play a blinder, of course, but on paper I'd say this is an advantage for Chelski. Imagine if it was Villa or Mikthyrain (sp), or both, that were Chelski property on loan to Athletico. Would anyone say it would benefit Athletico if they didn't play?

Because of the massive flaws of the loan system, that Chelski take full advantage of because they have basically unlimited funds at their disposal, they will now face a weakened team in the CL semi final. FA/UEFA should have fixed this years ago, but as usual they show what a bunch of corrupt pussies they are.

 

[tw12yid]

The issue, now that Chelski will face Athletico, is whether Athletico will be weakened by not playing their number one goalkeeper. Their reserve goalie could play a blinder, of course, but on paper I'd say this is an advantage for Chelski. Imagine if it was Villa or Mikthyrain (sp), or both, that were Chelski property on loan to Athletico. Would anyone say it would benefit Athletico if they didn't play?

Because of the massive flaws of the loan system, that Chelski take full advantage of because they have basically unlimited funds at their disposal, they will now face a weakened team in the CL semi final. FA/UEFA should have fixed this years ago, but as usual they show what a bunch of corrupt pussies they are.

UEFA have responded saying Chelsea can't stop him playing. They have basically said Chelsea will have a disciplinary matter on their hands if they do.

http://www.uefa.org/about-uefa/administration/news/newsid=2088774.html

In response to media reports referring to the situation of Club Atlético de Madrid goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois, UEFA would like to reiterate its position.
The integrity of sporting competition is a fundamental principle for UEFA.
Both the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations contain clear provisions which strictly forbid any club to exert, or attempt to exert, any influence whatsoever over the players that another club may (or may not) field in a match.
It follows that any provision in a private contract between clubs which might function in such a way as to influence who a club fields in a match is null, void and unenforceable so far as UEFA is concerned.
Furthermore, any attempt to enforce such a provision would be a clear violation of both the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations and would therefore be sanctioned accordingly.

I still can't believe in the Premier league how a player can play against 18 teams and not another. Ruins the competition completely imo.

 

[Sandman]

I dont think Chelski will exert any pressure not to play him. But if Athletico do play him they will owe Chelski nearly 5m. I dont think UEFA can stop a contractual agreement that has been signed and vetted by their system.

 

[Dicko]

UEFA have responded saying Chelsea can't stop him playing. They have basically said Chelsea will have a disciplinary matter on their hands if they do.

http://www.uefa.org/about-uefa/administration/news/newsid=2088774.html



I still can't believe in the Premier league how a player can play against 18 teams and not another. Ruins the competition completely imo.

I still can't believe in the Premier league how a player can play sign for one club yet play for another. Loans in the same division are bonkers!

 

[Neymar]

Atletico should play Courtois, i really dont see the problem....its the CL semi final ffs, already the club has made a sh!tload of money from the CL run and if they play Courtois against Chelski in the semis they have a great chance of reaching the final meaning even more mega dollars into the bank account.

If the rumours are true that chelsea would be owed 2.5m per game, it makes absolutely no sense (financially) to play courtois. Contrary to what many fans may think, the benefits of having courtois (or any other starting 11 player for that matter) over the 2nd choice is marginal. But 2.5m is a lot of money to anyone.

ie. the betting line for this game wouldn't move that much based on whether Courtois will or will not play.

And yes the club have probably made a lot of money so far from their ucl campaign, but that doesn't mean that they can/should now throw it away.

I think all semi-finalists are garunteed 5m euros regardless of whether they win or lose. And you get 6m if you lose the final, and 10m if you win. i think the prize money for the final would have to be around 60m and 100m before you can consider actually playing courtois at 2.5m per game in the semis.

 

[Superted]

Just ban loans. simples.