sportsczy wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:
that somebody told you wrong

m.premierleague.com/en-gb/about/handbook-2013-14.html

page 198, rule V.7.2

  Thanks.  Well i don't understand why UEFA ruled against Chelsea then.  With EPL allowing this type of clause and Atleti accepting the clause, UEFA really overstepped imo.  Pretty bs.  

My friend is Spanish so i think he had a bias in making his case to me lol.  Thanks again...

Because it's two different matters. What I was talking about, and the rule, is only the Premier League.
The Premier League has this rule, UEFA (and the Bundesliga and other leagues) thank god have not.
So if Chelsea loan out a player to Atletico, the rule of course does not apply.
Chelsea and Atletico had a contract clause - which UEFA said was either none of their business, not approved by them and not enforcable by them.
I guess if Atletico had REFUSED to pay and Chelsea had INSISTED on the clause, they would have had to settle it in front of CAS or anything, and I don't think it's sure how that would have been ruled.
In the end I think Chelsea decided to not insist on the payment in the clause, probably because public and public UEFA backlash (even if not legally clear), and also probably because they just made some deal with Atletico.
Maybe they got a little money of Costa or Filipe, who knows.

It doesn't matter though.  Typically, when you sign a contract, you designate the location whose laws govern the contract.  Since it's Chelsea's player, they likely designated the UK/EPL for the contract.  

All contracts have this.  Unless the clause explicitly contradicts international or european law (in this case, UEFA regulations) and these laws supersede laws governing the contract, then the legal courts uphold the terms of the contract as both parties signed it willingly.

I've done business across Europe and executed multi-national contracts...  it's always like this.  UEFA really had no legal leg to stand on if Chelsea decided to push back (which they didn't).  They can't just make a new regulation and have it go in arrieres without going through a process i would assume

sportsczy wrote:It doesn't matter though. Typically, when you sign a contract, you designate the location whose laws govern the contract. Since it's a Chelsea's player, they likely designated the UK/EPL for the contract.

All contracts have this. Unless the clause explicitly contradicts international or european law (in this case, UEFA regulations) and they supersede local laws, then the legal courts uphold the contract.

I've done business across Europe and executed multi-national contracts... UEFA really had no legal leg to stand on if Chelsea decided to push (which they didn't).

I think there's a misunderstanding.

The Premier League rule is about eligibility - a loaned out player is not eligible to play against the parent club by Premier League rules.
That means if they play him the game is nullified and the points awarded to the opponent etc. - like when they'd field 15 players or something lol.

On the other hand it was never a question that Courtois would be ELIGIBLE to play by UEFA rules. He was, period.
The contract clause was about a penalty/fee/bonus PAYMENT that would incurr should Atletico play him against Chelsea.

So that's two completely different legal level that should not be confused.
UEFA initially said such a contract clause is none of their business (neither approved nor enforcable), and of course it isn't as it's not about eligibility of the player but about money.
Then they publicly questioned whether such a clause might be legal in the first place since it might violate certain UEFA rules (equality of contest etc).

But it's not like UEFA 'ruled' against Chelsea, there was nothing for them to rule as, again, it was not about eligibility anyway.

the thing is...  once Courtois played a game for Atleti in Europe, didn't his contract become de-facto ratified by UEFA?  Anyhow, i don't think UEFA had a very good case.  But Chelsea didn't want to fight it.

sportsczy wrote:the thing is...  once Courtois played a game for Atleti in Europe, didn't his contract become de-facto ratified by UEFA?  Anyhow, i don't think UEFA had a very good case.  But Chelsea didn't want to fight it.

yes you've got a point there.
Anyway, sorry for off topic, the starting point were the loan rules of the Premier League, and there loanees are forbidden from playing their parent clubs and I think it's a farce.

sportsczy wrote:the thing is...  once Courtois played a game for Atleti in Europe, didn't his contract become de-facto ratified by UEFA?  Anyhow, i don't think UEFA had a very good case.  But Chelsea didn't want to fight it.

You also have to look at it outside the legal scope of a contract. Chelsea may have had a claim depending on what clauses they put in place (I wouldn't recommend assuming too much btw, bad legal teams do exist lol) however taking a Governing body to court couldn't possibly be beneficial for Chelsea in the long term.

Arbitration would probably a better option from a Chelsea perspective but since the actual announcement from UEFA that Courtois could play came only a day before the tie there really wasn't much Chelsea could do.

In any case it sets a good precedent imo since now teams will think twice about who they loan players to (if at all).

Typically you file an injunction to go with your complaint so that it bars UEFA from enforcing its decision until the court/arbitrator makes a ruling.... and that can be done really quickly. In the US, you can file it the next day and everything is halted until the injunction hearing happens. UEFA would be shafted.

But yeah, it's not that great of an idea to attack a ruling body unless you really have to.... although in my industry (real estate), you file the lawsuit first and ask questions later

but I don't really get what you're discussing.. UEFA made no 'decision'.. Courtois could play anyway, it was up to Atletico to decide whether to field him or not

sportsczy wrote:Typically you file an injunction to go with your complaint so that it bars UEFA from enforcing its decision until the court/arbitrator makes a ruling.... and that can be done really quickly. In the US, you can file it the next day and everything is halted until the injunction hearing happens. UEFA would be shafted.

But yeah, it's not that great of an idea to attack a ruling body unless you really have to.... although in my industry (real estate), you file the lawsuit first and ask questions later

Yeah I agree, under normal conditions you file your complaint as quickly as possible but in this case there were clearly more factors at play.

I'm not sure how long it would have taken Chelsea to get their claim processed with the CAS though since I'm not familiar with how they usually work.