Vardinio'sCat Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 looking forward to seeing him tomorrow, the injuries came at an unfortunate time, and we haven't been chasing the game much of late.
Deeg67 Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 Is there any reason whatsoever people are assuming Under is going to play tomorrow? 1
Wizerud Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 "You don't get to play in Brendan Rodgers team unless you're prepared to do the dirty work". 1
volpeazzurro Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 1 hour ago, Wizerud said: "You don't get to play in Brendan Rodgers team unless you're prepared to do the dirty work". I think he's done that side of the game, it's a myth that he hasn't. I don't think that that's anything to do with his none selection. 1
Popular Post Ric Flair Posted 24 January 2021 Popular Post Posted 24 January 2021 26 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said: I think he's done that side of the game, it's a myth that he hasn't. I don't think that that's anything to do with his none selection. Yes he has, made a number of defensive interceptions and his stats in that regard for Roma were good too. If he doesn't play today then he's done here. 7
reynard Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 39 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Yes he has, made a number of defensive interceptions and his stats in that regard for Roma were good too. If he doesn't play today then he's done here. You would think this would be the case unless he is injured. 1
Deeg67 Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 Happily, in the lineup today, which suggests the rumored appearances clause may not be a thing.
LCFCCHRIS Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 7 hours ago, Wizerud said: "You don't get to play in Brendan Rodgers team unless you're prepared to do the dirty work". Gray's on laundry duty for the last 6 months of his contact then
EastAnglianFox Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 Hope we give him a real chance, looks like an old school game changer who wants the ball and has the genuine quality to make things happen. 1
MPH Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 6 hours ago, Deeg67 said: Happily, in the lineup today, which suggests the rumored appearances clause may not be a thing. Unless of course it’s LEAGUE appearances...
BlackFox Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 6 minutes ago, MPH said: Unless of course it’s LEAGUE appearances... That is too specific. It doesn't really make sense that Ünder would agree to that
BroughtonFox Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 1 hour ago, Richardson said: looks a better option than Grey anyway That’s not hard to be fair
dannythefox Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 Definitely offers us something different, I’d like to keep him he’s done more in a few games than gray has in 5 seasons. 1 1
Popular Post Pliskin Posted 24 January 2021 Popular Post Posted 24 January 2021 I still think a fully match fit Under is the cheese on our jacket with beans.... 3 6
MGLCFC Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 I hope we keep because just like Mahrez I think he will adapt to the demands of the Premier League and offers a genuine attacking threat.
MPH Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, BlackFox said: That is too specific. It doesn't really make sense that Ünder would agree to that I meant as an agreement between the clubs. That we would pay them an extra fee after a set amount of LEAGUE appearances. It’s probably a load of rubbish of course but that would free him up for cup games.. Edited 24 January 2021 by MPH
LanguedocFox Posted 24 January 2021 Posted 24 January 2021 I don’t get the thing about appearances. He’s only played six times in the league and about the same in Cups. And don’t we have an option to buy?
Raw Dykes Posted 25 January 2021 Posted 25 January 2021 10 hours ago, LanguedocFox said: I don’t get the thing about appearances. He’s only played six times in the league and about the same in Cups. And don’t we have an option to buy? I think the rumour about the apps-triggered obligation to buy clause is just from people reading too much into why he hasn't played that much. I think it's more to do with his fitness and injuries, plus the 3 at the back formation we used that has no room for wingers, and an on-form Albrighton. He's just been unlucky with circumstances so far. I think he could feature a lot more for the rest of the season. Yes, I believe we did negotiate an option to buy instead of an obligation.
Scotch Posted 25 January 2021 Posted 25 January 2021 2 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said: I think the rumour about the apps-triggered obligation to buy clause is just from people reading too much into why he hasn't played that much. I think it's more to do with his fitness and injuries, plus the 3 at the back formation we used that has no room for wingers, and an on-form Albrighton. He's just been unlucky with circumstances so far. I think he could feature a lot more for the rest of the season. Yes, I believe we did negotiate an option to buy instead of an obligation. I think what has people wondering also is that these options to buy becoming obligations to buy after X appearance are quite popular in loan deals these days....
Raw Dykes Posted 25 January 2021 Posted 25 January 2021 2 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said: I think what has people wondering also is that these options to buy becoming obligations to buy after X appearance are quite popular in loan deals these days.... Ah, right. Thanks. I wasn't aware.
Scotch Posted 25 January 2021 Posted 25 January 2021 Just now, Raw Dykes said: Ah, right. Thanks. I wasn't aware. That Mateta lad that Palace have just signed has a similar contract. There was someone else recently too...
Recommended Posts