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.
|
There were no rules on third party ownership then, the whole crux of the matter revolves around one paragraph in their contracts that was never invoked that stated they could be sold regardless of the clubs permission if a club bid over a certain amount, this amounted to third party influence in the contract. Which incidentally was brought in originally to stop clubs putting clauses in contracts like a player can't play against the selling club that season, not to stop some shyster business man making a few quid.