Jump to content
Outfox the Fox

Under - back to Roma?

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

:whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by MPH
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...