Kasper

Welcome to the first post. Welcome to 6 seconds ago.

Yes Skirge. It's in the first post......

am i the only one that sees a headless, armless woman wearing timotei t-shirt ? I certainly hope so

Well this is for Kaizero

Shola and Leon getting it on..............

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/7440646/__Tiot_op_weg_naar_Newcastle_United__.html?p=5,1 Says they've already rejected our offer of €2.2m and they want €5m. So apparently we've made an improved offer.... hindu times

They refer to this site: http://www.tctubantia.nl/sport/fctwente/7154526/Tiote-dichtbij-transfer.ece Which seems to be a newspaper. Says:

According to a Dutch board he's signed and on his way. http://fctwente.blog.nl/geruchten/2010/08/20/breaking-cheick-tiote-op-weg-naar-engeland

Sol's pre match dance

Live feed from the press conference:

No, the risk is still in our favour as he goes back if we don't stay up. Well yeah. Exactly why I dont understand why someone would want us to sign him now permanently but not get him on loan with an agreed deal in place for next summer. Again I'll refer you to Zaki with Wigan and Benitez at Birmingham. By agreed price I mean that a deal is made now and we pay later like the rumours are suggesting. Dont think that's similar to Zaki at all as they only had an agreed price, not agreed deal?

Not necessarily. I would like a permanent signing or a loan with an option to buy. But loan with compulsory purchase isn't how these deals usually work, it seems like too much in favour of the selling club. He could play terribly, ruin the team spirit or whatever, and we would still have to buy him. With the loan with the option to buy, both parties share the risk. If he does well, he'll cost a buyer more at the end, if he does shit we don't have to buy him but we've taken him off their wage bill for a season. Out of not signing him at all and signing him in that way, I'm not sure which I'd prefer. But we should definitely try to avoid it if possible. But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no? Well if we sign him permanently now his value can increase or decrease depending on how he plays for us. We could get him cheap now and make a profit, for example. With a loan and optional purchase, we have a season to assess him and the club's situation and make another decision later. In that case Marseille might benefit because he performs well and they can charge us more, or they might lose out in the opposite situation. So risk shared. In the case of loan with compulsory purchase, we have to buy him for his current value even if his stock goes down... risk all on us. I didnt ask about the difference between a transfer and a loan because I knew what that is So the two options are: Option a) "Well if we sign him permanently now his value can increase or decrease depending on how he plays for us. We could get him cheap now and make a profit, for example. " Option b) "In the case of loan with compulsory purchase, we have to buy him for his current value even if his stock goes down... risk all on us." Are you honestly trying to say there's some difference between these two

No, the risk is still in our favour as he goes back if we don't stay up. Well yeah. Exactly why I dont understand why someone would want us to sign him now permanently but not get him on loan with an agreed deal in place for next summer.

Not necessarily. I would like a permanent signing or a loan with an option to buy. But loan with compulsory purchase isn't how these deals usually work, it seems like too much in favour of the selling club. He could play terribly, ruin the team spirit or whatever, and we would still have to buy him. With the loan with the option to buy, both parties share the risk. If he does well, he'll cost a buyer more at the end, if he does shit we don't have to buy him but we've taken him off their wage bill for a season. Out of not signing him at all and signing him in that way, I'm not sure which I'd prefer. But we should definitely try to avoid it if possible. But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no?

So I assume the people who are arguing against this loan & buy next summer wouldnt want to us to buy him all upfront either?

It's irrelevant? No its not. It's got everything to do with his valuation.

Mike and Chris heard the news that Barfa is training by himself in the Southern France and went looking for the lad.......

Shola needs a new rebel bike?

I think you had some water in your ears.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6577/youtubemp.jpg

I honestly spent 10 minutes looking for this thread. Guess that confirms the "no one reads stickies" rule.

I knew it all along etc etc

But Parky says NO

Havent you heard? We're signing Ben Arfa again...