If Inter seriously breached the contract before the 'forced buy' clause was activated (or some other clause came into play), then we could have a strong argument to make. My only issue is that, if Inter did do something really wrong, then we could and should have packed him up and sent him home at the time.
But the loan will have it's own set of conditions which will include a percentage of responsibility to Inter on treatment costs. If the refusal to allow the op means Inter defaulted on the agreement first then the contract has already been voided.
I have to say I think we are clutching at straws here. A contract is a legal agreement and if we agreed that we buy him if we stay up, we buy him if we stay up. I prefer to focus on the fact that if we get him the op and the lad gets and stays fit, he is a left sided player with a lot of ability.
Re, first and second para's, depends on the get-out caveats. Re, third, agree totally mate. Could still be good business once he's fit again and eggnog gets to work on him.
I just don't think, realistically, there'd be a get out clause for them not wanting the player to have an operation. Seems more likely to me that we were responsible for any treatment costs and approached Inter for half and they declined, time will tell. Doesn't feel like it would breach a legal agreement to me, unless they cast iron agreed to sharing any bills. I really don't think £7million for an Argentinian international with obvious ability is too bad a burn, you'd imagine in reality even if he never steps up we see at least half of that back, and with the new TV deal the clubs can easily swallow that loss. What will be will be with this one for me.
