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
Danny280995

Cengiz Ünder

By Danny280995, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

Guest Mickyblueeyes

Guest Mickyblueeyes

Posted
Posted
55 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.

Sorry, again showing my legal nerd side here. but a few are asking, so I thought I would explain the practicalities (though, you have covered it off quite well). 
 

In legal terms, an obligation or an option is effectively the same thing. They’re both an option. Options in contracts are put in two ways a “put” option and a “call” option. A put option is in favour of the seller and basically allows them to “put” the buyer in a position to fulfil their contractual promise i.e. the “obligation” for us to purchase Under. The “call” option works in the other way and allows us to call in our contractual promise from the seller to buy Under - we are under no obligation to trigger this. 
 

Now, in this case, there is a third party, the player. We would’ve all seen the reports where Under’a salary with Leicester has been agreed. This is because on the side of the agreement with the club, Leicester and the player have agreed pre-contract terms where the completion of the contract is  conditional on the fulfilment of certain obligations on part of Leicester i.e. the option being triggered for Under’s purchase between us and Roma. Therefore, Under is bound to join us immediately on us or Roma (depending on whether it’s a put or call option) being triggered.
 

The fee in both instances as well as Under’s wages are fixed and agreed. Otherwise, the contracts do not work - without set figures it creates an “agreement to agree” which is void in contract law. 
 

To summarise, Roma are pushing for the call option, we are pushing for the put option and it seems the call option does form part of the sale contract. What will happen in practice is immediately on completion of the loan contract, Roma will serve notice of the call option giving us 1 year to complete the deal and pay the money or we would be in breach of contract. Basically, Under will be our player, permanently, on completion of the loan.

 

On a side note, someone’s asked about the Alderweireld deal. This was also an option (not seen the contract but based on the facts) but the selling club could “buy out” the option for a fee. If I remember rightly, the selling club missed the date to buy out the option right. However Saints chose not to pursue. 
 

 

Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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.

 

If the player wasn't obligated it makes it virtually worthless so all three parties will have agreed terms a year before.

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted

 

Cengiz #Under arrived at Villa Stuart to carry out medical examinations with the #Leicester , then he will fly to England to sign the contract. Alla #ASRoma 3 million for the loan and another 25 after the redemption obligation
 

No idea how reliable this is (low number of followers), but...

 

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
Just now, Aus Fox said:

Anyone else really want the announcement video to be an @Countryfox dingbats where we have to decipher the clues to work out who has signed?

 

No, just me ... okay.

I like the idea, but just feel we may all have an inkling who the answer may be lol

Aus Fox

Aus Fox

Posted
Posted

Hold on, serious point for a second:

If we signed him on loan for the season and the we’re drawn to play against Roma in the Europa League, could they refuse him permission to play? 

Dylster

Dylster

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Hold on, serious point for a second:

If we signed him on loan for the season and the we’re drawn to play against Roma in the Europa League, could they refuse him permission to play? 

Probably depends if theres a clause in the contract for that, Coutinho played against Barca in the Champions League 

peach0000

peach0000

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Hold on, serious point for a second:

If we signed him on loan for the season and the we’re drawn to play against Roma in the Europa League, could they refuse him permission to play? 

If it’s agreed by both clubs in the loan agreement he could be blocked from playing. My suspicion with it being a loan with an obligation to buy, he will be considered by both sides to be our player so I doubt he would be blocked but it’s certainly possible but would have to be agreed before hand. Roma couldn’t suddenly decide the day before a semi final for example.

foxinsocks

foxinsocks

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

If it’s agreed by both clubs in the loan agreement he could be blocked from playing. My suspicion with it being a loan with an obligation to buy, he will be considered by both sides to be our player so I doubt he would be blocked but it’s certainly possible but would have to be agreed before hand. Roma couldn’t suddenly decide the day before a semi final for example.

I would expect him to be blocked form paling against roma - why would they let him.  Why is this not a buy rather than a loan with an obligation?

foxinsocks

foxinsocks

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Why would he do a medical in Italy then fly here when there's currently no restrictions between Italy and England?

maybe the chance of passing was so low they didn't want to spring for the ticket?

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
Just now, foxinsocks said:

I would expect him to be blocked form paling against roma - why would they let him.  Why is this not a buy rather than a loan with an obligation?

Because we want both a right sided attacker (Under) and a CB (Fofana), we cannot buy both outright this year, so the deal for Cengiz make sense

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Why would he do a medical in Italy then fly here when there's currently no restrictions between Italy and England?

Seemed strange too me but suppose there could be all sorts of reasons (Maybe he is meeting the Pope tomorrow and couldn't get to both Leicester and the Vatican in time) :dunno:

foxinsocks

foxinsocks

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Because we want both a right sided attacker (Under) and a CB (Fofana), we cannot buy both outright this year, so the deal for Cengiz make sense

are we short of money?

Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted
Just now, moore_94 said:

 

Liam tracked the wrong departure, he needed jets from the midlands to Rome yesterday. All makes sense why we're doing the medical in Rome now after Big Daddy last summer.

foxinsocks

foxinsocks

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

No idea, but don`t see us splashing much more than the Chilwell money

Hmmm if chilly has stayed (injured or chelsea found anotehr lover...) then would we have just stuck with yhe squad we had?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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