Cengiz Ünder

[1972 Fox]

On 16/09/2020 at 16:04, UHDrive said:

Call me stupid but why don't they just sell him outright if the club is guaranteed to keep him as part of the terms?

Please don't tempt me.

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

29 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

He is still in Rome then,

Stand down Liam.

 

No point wasting anymore baby oil and tissues tonight.

It's never a waste; it's just practice.

[Finnegan]

22 minutes ago, ashfosse said:

I don't get it. Why not buy the lad? He looks talented enough otherwise we wouldn't be interested. We've had £130 million from 2 players. Just buy him!

 

WYS

 

Money. Ignore that sky snippet, almost every single other source has said we're loaning with an obligation to buy. 

 

That's code for we're buying him but we want to pay for it in next year's transfer window, when we don't also desperately need to sign a centre back and when we'll finally have some expensive flops wages off the books. 

 

Edited 17 September 2020 by Finnegan

[LCFCABC]

Done

[Silva Fox]

1 minute ago, LCFCABC said:

Done

Under Oveur Done? 

[Max Power]

For what it’s worth, Tanner says it’s done and he’s flying in tomorrow for a medical. 
 

 

 

Edited 17 September 2020 by Max Power

[Grebfromgrebland]

Just now, Max Power said:

For what it’s worth, Tanner says it’s done and he’s flying in tomorrow for a medical. 
 

 

He just read that on foxes talk. I think that's where he gets all his info from now. 

[PhillippaT]

7 minutes ago, Silva Fox said:

Under Oveur Done? 

Considering I started the Airplane jokes, I think they've been a tad Oveur Dunn, now, too...  

[Guest SO1]

.

Edited 17 September 2020 by SO1

[AKCJ]

55 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Money. Ignore that sky snippet, almost every single other source has said we're loaning with an obligation to buy. 

 

That's code for we're buying him but we want to pay for it in next year's transfer window, when we don't also desperately need to sign a centre back and when we'll finally have some expensive flops wages off the books. 

 

Didn't it just say that we were negotiating the prospect of an option as opposed to an obligation?

 

We'd be daft not to have at least tried but it sounds like we've accepted the obligation.

[weller54]

34 minutes ago, Max Power said:

For what it’s worth, Tanner says it’s done and he’s flying in tomorrow for a medical. 
 

 

 

Quarantine?

[GingerrrFox]

1 minute ago, weller54 said:

Quarantine?

Not needed from Italy currently. 

[Walshy5]

38 minutes ago, Max Power said:

For what it’s worth, Tanner says it’s done and he’s flying in tomorrow for a medical. 
 

 

 

First of 90 medicals

[mozartfox]

Tanner is the new Nob Dorsett.

[Finnegan]

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Didn't it just say that we were negotiating the prospect of an option as opposed to an obligation?

 

We'd be daft not to have at least tried but it sounds like we've accepted the obligation.

 

My understanding of obligation vs option is that it extends to the player as well. 

 

As in, where its "obligation" the loan is essentially a farce because ultimately the player and both clubs have actually all agreed terms for the permanent move but the permanency of the transfer is just postponed for almost entirely financial reasons. 

 

It's why these deals only really ever became a thing recently since FFP, PSG seemed to pretty much populise it as a method of getting round their desire to spend beyond their short term allowance. In our case, it's more about what we can actually afford rather than the laws of the game I imagine. 

 

Where as an option is just a pre-agreed fee if a transfer were to go ahead, it means essentially they can't legally charge us more than that option if - for example - he has an amazing year and his value shoots through the roof. It also means the player is free to say bollocks to us if we try to trigger the clause because he's not committed to any move beyond the loan. 

 

I am absolutely, obviously, not a football agent or lawyer so these are only what my assumptions always were about the distinction.

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

My understanding of obligation vs option is that it extends to the player as well. 

 

As in, where its "obligation" the loan is essentially a farce because ultimately the player and both clubs have actually all agreed terms for the permanent move but the permanency of the transfer is just postponed for almost entirely financial reasons. 

 

It's why these deals only really ever became a thing recently since FFP, PSG seemed to pretty much populise it as a method of getting round their desire to spend beyond their short term allowance. In our case, it's more about what we can actually afford rather than the laws of the game I imagine. 

 

Where as an option is just a pre-agreed fee if a transfer were to go ahead, it means essentially they can't legally charge us more than that option if - for example - he has an amazing year and his value shoots through the roof. It also means the player is free to say bollocks to us if we try to trigger the clause because he's not committed to any move beyond the loan. 

 

I am absolutely, obviously, not a football agent or lawyer so these are only what my assumptions always were about the distinction.

YEah definitely but the "option" to buy is like a try before you buy and is much more beneficial to the buying club.

 

If given the two options, the "option" is surely much better.

[Finnegan]

Just now, AKCJ said:

YEah definitely but the "option" to buy is like a try before you buy and is much more beneficial to the buying club.

 

If given the two options, the "option" is surely much better.

 

But like I said, if it turns out he's amazing then the obligation might be better because he's obligated to sign also and can't just sack us off and sign for Barcelona or whatever. 

 

So it goes both ways. 

 

It depends if you're glass half full or not. End of the day, every transfer is a risk, if we've done our due diligence might as well just sign him

[Trav Le Bleu]

17 minutes ago, Walshy5 said:

First of 90 medicals

Is that the Med90 stat?

[AKCJ]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

But like I said, if it turns out he's amazing then the obligation might be better because he's obligated to sign also and can't just sack us off and sign for Barcelona or whatever. 

 

So it goes both ways. 

 

It depends if you're glass half full or not. End of the day, every transfer is a risk, if we've done our due diligence might as well just sign him

But surely if the option is agreed in the contract then there is a legal obligation for us to be given the chance to sign him at the pre-agreed price. Rather than having no say in it.

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

But like I said, if it turns out he's amazing then the obligation might be better because he's obligated to sign also and can't just sack us off and sign for Barcelona or whatever. 

 

So it goes both ways. 

 

It depends if you're glass half full or not. End of the day, every transfer is a risk, if we've done our due diligence might as well just sign him

Glass half full?

 

FoxesTalk?

 

[NewquayFox]

Dare Rodgers start him in the Burnley game, maybe even the Arsenal cup game, Fofana will need to quarantine for 2 weeks when we sign him tomorrow though... 

[matty98]

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

But surely if the option is agreed in the contract then there is a legal obligation for us to be given the chance to sign him at the pre-agreed price. Rather than having no say in it.

Think Southampton had an issue with Alderweireld when they had an option to buy but he just rejected them and went to Spurs instead so definitely can be beneficial to have an obligation if the player does really well.

[peach0000]

5 minutes ago, NewquayFox said:

Dare Rodgers start him in the Burnley game, maybe even the Arsenal cup game, Fofana will need to quarantine for 2 weeks when we sign him tomorrow though... 

Only 6 days not two weeks for elite sport stars with regular testing. 
 

I believe in those six days they are still allowed to train and play matches just not go out into the community as well but I may be wrong on that.

Edited 17 September 2020 by peach0000

[dooflip]

The most important thing is that we’ve got our winger. And he’s a better option than anything else we have, especially on the right.

 

obligation sounds better to me. With an option the player can still reject the deal or demand silly money. 25m or whatever is being quoted is pretty smart money and we could recoup that pretty much straight away. This isn’t a slimani/silva situation. This is a young player with potential. Any signing is a gamble of course, but some more than others. This seems like a smart move. Just hope it is an obligation personally.

[AKCJ]

6 minutes ago, matty98 said:

Think Southampton had an issue with Alderweireld when they had an option to buy but he just rejected them and went to Spurs instead so definitely can be beneficial to have an obligation if the player does really well.

Not every contract is written the same way. IIRC there was a specific clause that Alderweireld had put into the contract.