Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Danny280995

Cengiz Ünder

By Danny280995, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

Wolfox

Wolfox

Posted
Posted

I don’t understand the obligation to buy…?

 

we loan him and then are obliged to buy him @ £xm???  
 

isn’t that the same as just buying him?  If he’s rubbish are we still obligated to buy or if he’s really good are they still obligated to sell?

 

i am a little confused 😐 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted
Just now, StanSP said:

Can work both ways. 

 

An option to buy could mean Roma bump up the price if he plays well, as far as I understand it just means we get first option on him? If he plays rubbish we just let him go back, no harm. 

 

An obligation to buy means there's a fixed fee when the loan ends and we have to buy him regardless how he plays. If he plays well, it could turn out to be a bargain. Plays badly, we have to buy him and hope he comes good at some point. 

 

I think we've done alright and made the most of Roma being in the shit financially. 

Option to buy is a fixed fee as well otherwise if the fee can fluctuate because the seller fixes the price it renders it as good as worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

View points from Roma fans:

 

I personally am very sorry, we will talk about it in June when, in my opinion, it will have gone at least in double figures.

 

 

We sold the two players who saw the goal better, Kolarov and Under, oh well ...
The Serbian was certain and I agree, but after the injury of Zaniolo Under he could have been very comfortable.
At this point it is to be hoped that Perez is stronger, or that Pedro has a big impact with the Serie-A.

 

He can also score 30 goals but in Rome he was now burned, often adding his own. Moreover, with the 3-4-2-1 he would not even have had space. Right to sell it above all for 30 million, it has potential but cannot express it here

 

23 years old, has he been in Rome for how long, 3 seasons? Too many injuries and discontinuities, in my opinion the potential has it as well and I think even more than Kluivert but better monetize now than risk selling it even less waiting for it again.

 

This is strong, it has already proved it.
Now he is out of shape, but in flashes he always shows some lightning.
He is someone who does not cincischia, points the door and shoots, and how he shoots ...
Of course, those who like Pastore and Patches players will hardly like Cengiz,
I say it without controversy, they play a kind of football at the antipodes.

 

His transfer would not make me hot or cold, he has not shown that he has adapted to Serie A and to the coach's schemes, who are inconstant and often injured. Carles Perez I see it much better. With the spaces left by the teams in the Premier, he can have his say

 

The figures are good if they are not linked to any achievement of objectives (x the obligation), sorry because he hinted at great potential that however he was unable to pull out here, I wish him to do so at Leicester.

 

It ends at liverpool within two seasons

 

Ao to me, I'm a player, I rode to lose him like this.
With a coach who knows how to value him, in my opinion, he makes holes.
He certainly had physical problems, but he is strong and has the best shot of the whole squad. Not that it takes long eh

 

 

Perez stronger than Under based on what?!?
The Spaniard hasn't shown shit.
At least Under in the first year here he was a baller, it seemed he could break asses

 

In my opinion, between the two he has / had more Under potential. But it proved too intermittent.
Perez does not excite me and I do not see a possible phenomenon, he seems to me an honest trader and a little more sincerely.

 

Interesting takes. Opinion is understandably divided, or they wouldn’t be selling.

Under those circumstances, perhaps a change of scenery best serves everyone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lcfc82

Lcfc82

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Wolfox said:

I don’t understand the obligation to buy…?

 

we loan him and then are obliged to buy him @ £xm???  
 

isn’t that the same as just buying him?  If he’s rubbish are we still obligated to buy or if he’s really good are they still obligated to sell?

 

i am a little confused 😐 

We would have to buy him whatever. Doing it this way we won’t have to pay until next summer allowing us to spend the money we do have on other areas 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
happy85

happy85

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Wolfox said:

I don’t understand the obligation to buy…?

 

we loan him and then are obliged to buy him @ £xm???  
 

isn’t that the same as just buying him?  If he’s rubbish are we still obligated to buy or if he’s really good are they still obligated to sell?

 

i am a little confused 😐 

Think everyone confused 

 

solid sources saying obligation 

 

percy saying option
 

one journo saying outright deal

 

🤷🏽‍♂️ 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Wolfox said:

I don’t understand the obligation to buy…?

 

we loan him and then are obliged to buy him @ £xm???  
 

isn’t that the same as just buying him?  If he’s rubbish are we still obligated to buy or if he’s really good are they still obligated to sell?

 

i am a little confused 😐 

 

It means exactly what it says, we're obligated to buy and Roma are obligated to sell.

 

We're buying him regardless but it puts it off a year.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Wolfox said:

I don’t understand the obligation to buy…?

 

we loan him and then are obliged to buy him @ £xm???  
 

isn’t that the same as just buying him?  If he’s rubbish are we still obligated to buy or if he’s really good are they still obligated to sell?

 

i am a little confused 😐 

It means that our money stays (or we find money to put) in our bank account until next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aleksz

Aleksz

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Wolfox said:

I don’t understand the obligation to buy…?

 

we loan him and then are obliged to buy him @ £xm???  
 

isn’t that the same as just buying him?  If he’s rubbish are we still obligated to buy or if he’s really good are they still obligated to sell?

 

i am a little confused 😐 

Because we’re skint and don’t want it to be on the books for another year. Quite clever really.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarriedaLeicesterGirl

MarriedaLeicesterGirl

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

It means exactly what it says, we're obligated to buy and Roma are obligated to sell.

 

We're buying him regardless but it puts it off a year.

Don't understand why it would be a loan then, if we are absolutely obligated to buy. We could just buy him and arrange it so most of the payment was back-ended to next season; perhaps its an obligation like Bennett was an "obligation"? Certain requirements -- appearances, minutes, or some such -- must be met before the transfer is necessary. But the transfer hasn't been announced, and I doubt any of us will see the agreement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justfoxes

justfoxes

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, happy85 said:

Think everyone confused 

 

solid sources saying obligation 

 

percy saying option
 

one journo saying outright deal

 

🤷🏽‍♂️

 

 

 

Confused you will be, each reporter stating something but Sounds like an eeenie meenie miny mo report to believe then ??? :frusty: :frantics:
 

Edited by justfoxes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...