Transfer Rumours Summer 2024 transfer thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
It is and it isn't. If the player is happy to sign permanently on the pre arranged terms, we or Luton don't have a say.

If he refuses, then there's a spanner in the works and it ends up with the agents and lawyers.
If it was an obligation he’d have contractually already agreed to those terms.
 
Your personal definition of what an obligation is isn't really the point.

The point here, according to the information we have, is that we have signed up to an obligation to buy him for an agreed fee this summer, meaning we can't choose to back out of that from our side. Giles himself might not be obliged to go along with it, but we are. If Luton and us both agree then I'm sure we could cancel it, but the obligation is on City, so if Luton and Giles want the deal to be completed then we have to go along with it.
That’s not an obligation though is it if we don’t have to buy him under certain circumstances.

Tan did an interview saying it was an option
 
If it was an obligation he’d have contractually already agreed to those terms.

I don't think contract law allows that.

Unfortunately some bloke called Wilberforce helped stop humans being subject to forced employment and all of that liberal hippy stuff...

He was here on a loan contract til the end of June.

No one can compel him to sign beyond that.

The obligation is between the clubs. Ultimately the player decides
 
Last edited:
Christ, you're frustratingly naive.

You're a complete moron. Disbelieving the official club channels because they don't support your elaborate theory.

Baz has a track record of getting things wrong, it is a simple slip-up.

If you want to read about obligations, go and read the JKA case with Leeds.
 
I don't think contract law allows that.

He was here on a loan contract til the end of June.

No one can complete him to sign beyond that.

The obligation is between the clubs. Ultimately the player decides

That's all wrong. Clubs and players agree terms months and sometimes years in advance. Chelsea sign kids years in advance of them being 18 and actually being allowed to register them
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewcastleTiger
That’s not an obligation though is it if we don’t have to buy him under certain circumstances.

Tan did an interview saying it was an option

Can you ****ing guys not understand caveat and that a sentence in a statement doesn't tell the full story?

Luton and City have an agreement that the player will sign a pre arranged contract for a pre arranged fee if he wants to. Neither club can back out of that, ergo obligation.

If the player refuses to sign, then both clubs will be looking to the player to cover their investments and valuations, and it gets sticky.

But ultimately, if the player signs the pre arranged contract then there's nothing city can do to stop it.

It's not in our hands.

Giles could decide to sit on his Luton contract if he wants to. But if he wants to sign our contract, we have to fulfil it.


That's totally different to taking a punt on a kid with contractural triggers who's not gonna get a better offer elsewhere tho now is it?

Contracts are all about small print. The words 'option' or 'obligation' being semantically discussed by folk spending too much time on the internet isn't going to influence reality.

From the player side it could be described as an option.

But if he takes our option it becomes an obligation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SW3 Chelsea Tiger
Can you ****ing guys not understand caveat and that a sentence in a statement doesn't tell the full story?

Luton and City have an agreement that the player will sign a pre arranged contract for a pre arranged fee if he wants to. Neither club can back out of that, ergo obligation.

If the player refuses to sign, then both clubs will be looking to the player to cover their investments and valuations, and it gets sticky.

But ultimately, if the player signs the pre arranged contract then there's nothing city can do to stop it.

It's not in our hands.

Giles could decide to sit on his Luton contract if he wants to. But if he wants to sign our contract, we have to fulfil it.


That's totally different to taking a punt on a kid with contractural triggers who's not gonna get a better offer elsewhere tho now is it?

Contracts are all about small print. The words 'option' or 'obligation' being semantically discussed by folk spending too much time on the internet isn't going to influence reality.

From the player side it could be described as an option.

But if he takes our option it becomes an obligation.
Yeah that’s called an option to buy. Fixed price, but gives the player an option.
 
Yeah that’s called an option to buy. Fixed price, but gives the player an option.

Penny drops.

It's semantics, but if the player decides we're the best offer then we pay 4m plus or minus a half season loan fee and we can't stop it.

It's lowest common denominator stuff, but I'd have thought someone of average intelligence could imagine a scenario where both obligation and option are fair reflections of the scenario, depending on your perspective.
 
You're a complete moron. Disbelieving the official club channels because they don't support your elaborate theory.

Baz has a track record of getting things wrong, it is a simple slip-up.

If you want to read about obligations, go and read the JKA case with Leeds.

Baz reported it in Jan as an option. Quoting the club statement.

Ultimately it is an option, but is in the players favour, not the clubs.

We currently are in a 4 way standoff.

Luton and city have a guaranteed fee. The player wants to go to Boro. Boro will offer him more than his agreed city contract, but they won't pay the fee.

You think you can just say 'the club website said this' and make a credible argument?

Get a ****ing grip son. Concentrate on your btex or something because you make **** up based on the club website, stats sites and computer games. Or at least that's how you present..

Now Baz, he's basically Acuns puppet. And he's correcting himself saying it's an obligation based on decent club sources.

Only a Muppet would think he knows it all based on a single line in a club statement Vs someone who has a direct line to the owner.

As I said before, time will tell, but it's not necessarily city who have the final say.

Wind your neck in a bit, maybe you'll eventually be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
I see Manure have agreed terms with Braithwaite £150-160k a week, but yet to agree a fee with Everton who are asking for £70m, though they are expected to agree matters.

I wonder if that will push them forward to go for Greaves?
 
How do we know Giles prefers a move to Boro ?

We don't know if he prefers us or Boro.

We don't know if Tim wants him.

We don't know if its an obligation or option to buy.

We don't know if he has already agreed terms as part of the initial deal.

We don't know anything but there's not much else to talk about <laugh>

The window opened today BTW
 
Interested in Stansfield, Windass/Reynolds a load of ****e and Giles is expected to complete a move but also Boro alerted to the situation and he might want to go there so aren’t sure what Baz is on about there.
 
Baz reported it in Jan as an option. Quoting the club statement.

Ultimately it is an option, but is in the players favour, not the clubs.

We currently are in a 4 way standoff.

Luton and city have a guaranteed fee. The player wants to go to Boro. Boro will offer him more than his agreed city contract, but they won't pay the fee.

You think you can just say 'the club website said this' and make a credible argument?

Get a ****ing grip son. Concentrate on your btex or something because you make **** up based on the club website, stats sites and computer games. Or at least that's how you present..

Now Baz, he's basically Acuns puppet. And he's correcting himself saying it's an obligation based on decent club sources.

Only a Muppet would think he knows it all based on a single line in a club statement Vs someone who has a direct line to the owner.

As I said before, time will tell, but it's not necessarily city who have the final say.

Wind your neck in a bit, maybe you'll eventually be taken seriously.

Lets ask CHATGPT to settle this matter.

When a football club agrees to an “obligation to buy” as part of an initial loan scheme, it means they are committed to signing the player permanently after a specified period. The decision is not optional; it’s a binding agreement. So, yes, they have no choice but to sign the player once the conditions are met1. ⚽
 
We don't know if he prefers us or Boro.

We don't know if Tim wants him.

We don't know if its an obligation or option to buy.

We don't know if he has already agreed terms as part of the initial deal.

We don't know anything but there's not much else to talk about <laugh>

The window opened today BTW

Ah but what you don't know is that we have posters who sit on the board meetings, they are there with the transfer team deciding who to buy and who to sell, they are there when contracts are being negotiated, fly on the wall has nothing compared to these guys. ITK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stockholm Tiger
So Bryan Reynolds isn’t a target, apparently. I would’ve thought he’d be a good option at right-back to replace Christie and challenge Coyle but Walter may have his own targets. Jusuf Gazibegović at Sturm Graz may be a target at right-back. Walter wanted him last summer for HSV. He actually played for Bosnia in the game against England recently. Defensively he’s pretty solid and he’s a set-piece specialist as well. We don’t really have a good free-kick taker in the squad now.