From my previous article we all have an idea of the situation on ground. Here’s is a similar situation. But here, there seems to be inconsistency when you look at UEFA’s position.
In July 2013, Celtic faced IF Elfsborg in the qualifying rounds. Celtic player Mo Bangura was on loan with Elfsborg. When the issue of his availability came up, UEFA had the following to say;
“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. 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.”
What I want to know is, has the rule changed or UEFA(I mean Platini) has something against Chelsea? From the above stated response from UEFA it means UEFA would neither intervene nor enforce. We have no problem with Courtois playing for Atletico Madrid in the semi-finals, all we’re saying is they’d have to pay up. I cannot help but over flog this issue.
This whole issue smacks of inconsistency on the part of UEFA which has been a trait since Platini became president and his apparent dislike of English teams because they make money off continental teams than the English. Another reason for this ruling would be the Vitesse case, which is currently being investigated where we have 7 players and the previous Chairman had accused Chelsea of asking them not to qualify for the Champions league.
Most importantly UEFA shouldn’t threaten to sanction us if we challenge the ruling. With such evidence there’s no justification, and there’s every likelihood that we’d win in a court of law or court of abitration for sports.