Things just got juicy.

Atletico Madrid president Enrique Cerezo has confirmed that the club will be unable to field goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois in the Champions League semi-finals should the Spanish side draw Chelsea in the final four as it would trigger a clause in the Belgian keeper’s contract that would see Atleti forced to pay a significant lump sum to his parent club.

Courtois has been on loan at Atleti from Chelsea for the past three seasons and, should the two sides be drawn together, Cerezo confirmed to Spanish radio station Onda Cero that his side would have to stump up “a large sum of money” – anywhere from €2.5million to €8million across the two legs depending on which report you believe - to their opponents in order to field the 21-year-old Belgian stopper.

“The problem is whether Courtois can play if we get Chelsea in the draw,” Cerezo said. “There is something in the contract. For him to play we would have to pay a large quantity of money, a figure we cannot pay.

”As it stands, UEFA rules are in place to supposedly prevent players from being unable to feature against any other given club, though Platini’s gang are powerless to stop clubs inserting such clauses into loan contracts.

Straight from whoateallthepies.tv

UEFA has said he can play, the contract's clause was INVALID and false

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2602333/Courtois-CLEARED-play-against-Chelsea-UEFA-warns-Blues-5m-Atletico-demand-violate-rules.html

BUT, Chelsea on the other act, demanded a 5 mil. discounted on possible Costa transfer (rumor says)

Hope he does the game of his life.

Damn, that's disappointing. And here I thought we could have made the semis much easier for us.

Lol UEFA always changes it is rules when it comes to English club especially if it is Chelsea :D It is cool , nothing new here . Let's hope Costa comes in discounted price .

@tiki I am sure you are not hoping , you are praying for it mate ;)))

@Ven & @Mar: If I were you guys, I would wish for Chelsea to allow Courtois to play, because I wouldn't want any excuse and I want to beat the other team at the max of their potential. If Chelsea is the true champ, they Chelsea should be able to beat Atletico with or without Courtois. Of course it would be better if the opponent is weaken by some reasons, like yellow cards etc... but certainly not this way. Right?

Agreed Tuan_jinn :)
After Galatasaray and inexperienced PSG, they want now to play Atletico without Courtois and say at the end, we were the best.
Welcome back Mourinho to Spain, a little surprise is waiting for you :)

@tuan

Before you speak put your self in our shoes . It is our player . We respect Atletico and we know our goalie is arguably the best player in their squad . Would you let your opponent to use YOUR knife during the fight ? So it will be fair ...

@tiki

My god your so such hypocrite ! Have some shame mate ! Now PSG is inexperienced .... and calling us who makes excuses ... so much envy from you go take a break from this forum and football until World Cup do not watch matches , you may get yourself a heart attack . I am seriously starting to worry about you .

chelsea and atletico had an agreement, atletico knew that, its up to them to respect it or not, its up to them to play courtois or not, UEFA should not interfere.

I believe, chelsea and atletico will sit and discuss about this quietly without media and uefa involvement and come to a conclusion that will benefit everyone. maybe chelsea can let courtois play and get costa in the summer for a cheaper price

"Would you let your opponent to use YOUR knife during the fight ? So it will be fair ..."

@Marcus's statement (above) is the perfect example for why we don't want Courtois to play. It's not 'unfair' or 'against football ethics'. Would you want your own player, by contract, face you and possibly stop you from winning 60m euros? No club in their right mind would want that. Arsenal, Barcelona, ManUtd, Madrid, Bayern... All big clubs would do the same.

And remember guys, we aren't forcing Atletico to not play Courtois. Bugatti isn't stopping you from driving one of their cars, they just want to make sure you pay.

@ven Exactly. If they pay i will be fine with it . What you meant was Bugatti is not stopping you from driving one of their cars :D better metaphor than mine still :D

^I guess it sounds better that way :), I'll edit it now.

When this behavior is accepted, football has lost it's essence of what makes this the best sport in the world. And like everything else, it's become a greedy business where the rich are out to make more.

How you guys claim Courtois is your player is hilarious. If I were him, I wouldn't consider myself a Chelsea players after spending 3 straight years at a different club. It's hard to form an attachment to a club like that. His heart is probably fonder of Atleti than of Chelsea.

@Marcus
"Would you let your opponent to use YOUR knife during the fight ?"
"If they pay i will be fine with it"
It's like you say "if you pay me, you can use MINE knife during the fight"

Lol I conceded that was silly already Vendeta metaphor was way better ... LOL

This is not the first time there has been a potential clash between an on-loan player and his parent club in the Champions League.In the 2003-04 season, Real Madrid loaned Fernando Morientes to Monaco without a clause to prevent him playing against them. He scored twice in the quarter-finals to help knock Real out and finished top scorer.Uefa rules stop a club banning a player from playing against another team, but there is nothing to stop what the Spanish refer to as a ‘fear clause' that means the borrowing club have to pay for the player to face his parent club.

He was sold to liverpool one season after .

@raimondo

What did you expect ? Do give him for free ? It is our player and arguably reason why Atletico in the semi final is all due our goalkeeper on loan . We could have sent him where the fkc we please to if Atletico did not want to sign the contract , but they did . So they either pay up or bench him . Courtois made them tons of money by keeping clean sheets and keeping Atletico in the games when they should have lost . They are top of the La Liga and in semi final . It is only 3 million per match , so it is not the time to cheap out and disrespect the contract by using UEFA rules . That is dirty and classless move from Atletico if they do so .

"It is our player and arguably reason why Atletico in the semi final is all due our goalkeeper on loan . "
What if I tell you that they are TEAM and not ONE MAN.
"That is dirty and classless move from Atletico if they do so ."
How is it dirty?
" It is only 3 million per match"
ONLY 3 MILLION? Man I just, I don't know what to say.
" disrespect the contract by using UEFA rules."
Shouldn't the one, who prepares contract know UEFA RULES?
Marcus I got nothing against you but, I think you want Chelsea to succeed so bad, but try to look at it from other side ;)

@fabryi It is a place where we can talk so there is never personal unless you take it personal mate :)

What if I told you , last time they played their back up player they lost to Almeria 2:0 and he got sent off on 86th minute. :)) Very good back up to win titles , right ? What if I told you, he kept 17 clean sheets conceding 20 goals in La Liga so far . And I have feeling you did not watch his performance against Barcelona. You are right , It is a team play but one can make a huge difference . For Atletico it is Courtois , because even with their subs they still did good against Barca .

How is it dirty ?

It is called breach of contract . IT IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPAL OF DOING BUSINESS . Chelsea allowed Atletico to have Courtois 3 season in the row with contract signed in good faith it won't be breached . Dirty will be for Atletico to not value contract with a clause that they signed and allow themselves to justify their action with UEFA rules . UEFA rules has not said anything about loans with clause and suddenly as soon as Chelsea does it they do it . Also , it is business and if they have class they will respect the deal that was signed . If Courtois plays without them paying a penny , I say good luck keeping him there next year or ever getting loans from Chelsea . ( you may say that it is not a big deal , but that also shows Atletico is not trustworthy even with a contract and other clubs will be reluctant to do business with them ) .

ONLY 3 MILLION?"

Mmmhh Winning champions league prize will give them around 50 million even just to reach final will pay off , so should Atletico gamble and spend 6 million on both matches or at least 3 on one match or not spend at all mmmmm I don't know . What do you think ?

Shouldn't the one, who prepares contract know UEFA RULES?

I don't know mate I could ask UEFA same thing why did not they say anything when contract was signed by Atletico ? They are supposed to monitor all the transfers and contracts . Seems like they change they rules according to what they like and what works for them . Also according how things are going in England especially in Chelsea .

That c'nt Platini never shuts up about Chelsea ever since he came to power in UEFA .

Now I know mate if you were Chelsea fan you would be outraged too , but your dislike towards Chelsea makes advocate for unethical breach of contract . We do not fear of Atletico but if we have our player playing for them why would we allow him to play to make things more difficult for ourselves ? We are still competing for EPL Title , we do not need sweat extra in semi final of Champions League against one of our own .

P.S. Also , FFP rules came out because of Chelsea and City , but he was very surprised when Chelsea was one of the first clubs to support it . He was just bitter that it did not affect us . Corrupt piece of sht .

@Marcus

Your logic is messed up. Courtois currently is part of Atletico's squad, and he has every right to play against his former employers. You're just making up excuses in case Atletico beat you.

Nuri Sahin played against us, no? He was part of the team that beat us in 2013. We didn't complain.

Messed up Logic ? LOL Come on Dynastian that is not very mature . So, contract does not mean anything ? Why bother signing contract ?

There is a contract including a clause within that binds two clubs to obey it and if the clause to be broken , the club that breaks must pay the fee . If Chelsea was to recall Courtois they would have to pay a fee just like Atletico if they want him to play against parent club . When player has a transfer clause 40+ million " couigh .. cough Suarez ' and could not leave the club because no Club wanted to pay that amount ( Well Wenger bid 40,000,001 pound :D ) , no one said if that unfair to him . It is a contract and he had to obey it , because he signed it . They forced him to stay in Liverpool . Liverpool stated clearly if you want him cough out the money that we want for him .

That is smart business something that Madrid should have thought about when loaning it's player to a potential CL title contender . Instead , they almost stepped on the same shovel that they stepped in 2004 .

I am sure Nuri Sahi's contract did not include a clause that obligated Dortmund to pay per match if he was to play against parent club. Do you think, if there was a clause they would have played Sahin ? I don't think so .

This is the case that can actually result in lawsuit , if Atletico does not comply with contract breaches it, without paying a dime . That jeopardizes their reputation as trustworthy club .

The essence of business transfer relationship is being jeopardized and questioned here by UEFA stepping in and nullifying clause . Yeah , It is unfair for Courtois , but he knew about it so did Ateltico knew but they signed it and now they must respect it . Simple .

Not like it never happened before . Not long ago in UEFA Super Cup and we allowed him to play against us . Did we complain ? No ! However, this time we learned our lesson and put a clause on it , so if it happens we will get paid .

Either way it is standard even without clause , loan players do not play against their parent clubs , every time there is established contract between clubs , it states it with black on white .

If Cristiano Ronaldo was a loan player in Manchester United , under the same contract terms as Courtois , and he was facing Real in Champions League , I am 100% sure , you would say exactly opposite ! So , let's not kid our selves and talk as a grown ups .