Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkC1984
Because Mascherano was not owned solely by the club, he was owned in part by a third party. Chelsea loaned Courtois out because he was never going to get Cech out of the number 1 spot. Hence why they are now worried about him playing against them in Europe. Personally, if it is like the Lua Lua situation a while ago (where Newcastle failed to put a clause in saying he could not play against them, he did and scored the winning goal) then Chelsea have no right to demand money for Courtois to play against them. They messed the loan agreement up, so they must pay the consequences.
|
But then if they all agreed to the supposed clause in his loan contract, they have every right to what was agreed. If the boot had been on the other foot, and it was chelsea that released info from an agreed contract, they'd be getting slated by everyone. Whereas they didn't release it, the Atletico bloke did, and they are getting slated by everyone. He was always going to play if the situation arose, and as I posted yesterday if there's any future deal for Costa to Chelsea, or for Courtois going back there on loan, it'll all sort itself out no matter what the UEFA rules are. Neither of the clubs are going to fall out over it as they both want things from each other