Tuesday, 15 April 2014

UEFA, Courtois & the If-By-Whiskey Argument

UEFA, Courtois & the If-By-Whiskey Argument

UEFA on the Chelsea-Atletico Madrid Courtois eligibility case:

"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."

On the case of Bangoura playing for Elfsborg against Celtic, UEFA said:

"As we, in line with the FIFA regulations on status and transfer of players, consider a loan to be a transfer, we do not have any regulations regarding players not playing against their parent club whilst on loan to another club," the governing body told STV.

"If a player is duly registered on the player list of IF Elfsborg then he can play against any team that Elfsborg are drawn against.

"Any agreement between the two clubs that this player wouldn’t play against Celtic should Elfsborg be drawn against them is purely between the clubs.

"UEFA would not have any involvement or consideration of this agreement, it would be neither endorsed or enforceable by UEFA."


You don't need to visit Specsavers to see the inconsistency and the contradiction here

Someone said they changed their stance after the 'messy' Bangoura situation

How convenient that it was on the eve of the semi final draws!!

It has been raised previously that the Platini- led UEFA isn't exactly pals with English teams. This just adds more credence to that theory

Chelsea have the moral and legal high ground in this matter.

Football lives and breathes contracts. Chelsea had a contract with Atletico which was agreed to by all parties - including Courtois

Atletico gained financial advantage by agreeing to this clause. Courtois is their second best player ( and he has contributed immensely to their current position in Spanish/World football )

It was disingenuous for the Atletico President to raise the clause issue just before the semi final draw

What UEFA subsequently did borders on two-facedness and doublespeak ( re- Bangoura & Celtic)

You could say that this is a classic example of an if-by-whiskey argument

-an argument that is implemented through doublespeak - which appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the listener supports, in effect, taking a position without taking a position

I wonder whether UEFA's position would actually stand up in a courtroom.

Football lives and breathes contracts determining the rights of each club and player.

If there is a contract how on earth, legally, can it be ignored ?

Simply declaring that fulfilling a contract is suddenly ‘exerting pressure’ on another club and that this is not allowed within the rules seems to border on the ridiculous.

Just imagine how ugly the legal wrangling could be


What could this potentially mean for Courtois?

Conflict of interest

It makes it very difficult for the player to be at his best knowing that he’s actually hurting his employer.

Besides any error that he makes will be instantly described in the media as him being a traitor to his current team and helping Chelsea.

Then imagine the uproar from the media about match fixing if a Courtois howler occur in the game

Courtois should not be put in such a ridiculous position where any mistake he makes in those games will be made into him throwing the game because it’s his parent club.

One'd always assume that players on loan couldn't face their real teams in case they threw them ...or became accused of doing so. Particularly precarious situation for a goalkeeper.

This is one of the reasons this clause was allowed in England in the first place

However, Courtois will play because Chelsea want Costa at the end of the season.

Courtois might end up spending one more season at Atletico too

We'll get our money ( £6 million) one way or the other

Don't expect the Atletico Madrid President to go public on future 'gentleman's agreement'

The Borrower is slave to the Lender. That's from Proverb right there. I saw it on a bumper sticker :D


No comments:

Post a Comment