Are we keeping the loaned players (ie have we already bought them) - poll please (1 Viewer)

Should Zlatan keep all our loaned players?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Yes, as long as he keeps Motta off of the pitch as well


Results are only viewable after voting.

Alen

Ѕenior Аdmin
Apr 2, 2007
52,539
#23
How do you know that? or how anyone can know that?
Lol, I don't know that. I was telling you the two options. In option #1 it's loan with rights to buy, in option #2 there is an agreement between the directors that it's a purchase, but it's presented as a loan.
One of these two is correct, the other one is wrong.
 

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
123,473
#24
Lol, I don't know that. I was telling you the two options. In option #1 it's loan with rights to buy, in option #2 there is an agreement between the directors that it's a purchase, but it's presented as a loan.
One of these two is correct, the other one is wrong.
According to all sources, it is the first option. The second option is something some of the forum members came up with.
 

Alen

Ѕenior Аdmin
Apr 2, 2007
52,539
#25
According to all sources, it is the first option. The second option is something some of the forum members came up with.
That could be said about Mutu's transfer from England to Italy too.
According to all sources Livorno was the team that bought him and after a week they sold him to Juve. Yet many still think that we found a loop hole and used it so Mutu won't count as a non-EU player. By signing him from Italian club, he didn't count as non-EU.
 

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
123,473
#26
That could be said about Mutu's transfer from England to Italy too.
According to all sources Livorno was the team that bought him and after a week they sold him to Juve. Yet many still think that we found a loop hole and used it so Mutu won't count as a non-EU player. By signing him from Italian club, he didn't count as non-EU.
We got to know that after it happened, no one speculated or came up with what was going on. That second option popped up only to emphasize the ineptness of the current directors and to further show how bad they are.
 
OP

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #28
    We got to know that after it happened, no one speculated or came up with what was going on. That second option popped up only to emphasize the ineptness of the current directors and to further show how bad they are.
    No, it had nothing to do with showing how bad the directors were, I just found it utterly ridiculous that someone said we should send Matri back at the end of the season and buy someone else. So Cagliari gave us their best player for 2 mil € in mid-season. And can send him back? Really?

    The logic is well explained in the first post.
     

    Nicholas

    MIRKO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Jan 30, 2008
    38,737
    #30
    Marotta is your point about market strategies and reply to those questions and the design, made up of many loans with redemption right and obligation to: "Juve on loan? Once and for all, we have no obligation''

    End of argument from the horses mouth Zlatan. Can you accept it now?
     

    electricRoo

    Senior Member
    Feb 27, 2011
    839
    #31
    Marotta is your point about market strategies and reply to those questions and the design, made up of many loans with redemption right and obligation to: "Juve on loan? Once and for all, we have no obligation''

    End of argument from the horses mouth Zlatan. Can you accept it now?
    I don't want to sound paranoid, but wouldn't admitting to a deal like that be breaking the Serie A rules? I think because of that we can't ever know if there was an agreement or not.
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #33
    A loan is a loan, your logic is only to show how bad the current management are.
    No it's not, while the current management might be bad, thats not what my posts are about.


    Marotta is your point about market strategies and reply to those questions and the design, made up of many loans with redemption right and obligation to: "Juve on loan? Once and for all, we have no obligation''

    End of argument from the horses mouth Zlatan. Can you accept it now?
    And we know from the horses mouth that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Or that Clinton did not have sexual relations with Miss Levinsky. And lets not start talking about lies in sports, do you expect him to tell the whole truth ffs?



    I don't want to sound paranoid, but wouldn't admitting to a deal like that be breaking the Serie A rules? I think because of that we can't ever know if there was an agreement or not.

    Exactly, this is something you can only speculate on and have an opinion, but it's very unlikely we will have any proof. Anyways, I'm 100% confident that Pepe, Matri and Quag are staying next season and that they're Juve players permanently.
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #36
    Do you have a complex admitting you're wrong?
    Have you actually proven I'm wrong? Of course the official statements are going to say its a loan, because it formally is, thats not what I'm talking about, same thing with the Mutu deal a few years back, as somebody said.

    There were discussions before the Mutu deal that we were looking at somebody else to sign him for us because of the non-EU rule, them officially Livorno bought him and the officially sold him to us. So if you're looking at it very formally there was no deal between us and Livorno, after all there were no official statements to say so. So by your purely formalistic logic it would seem it was just a coincidence that Livorno bought him and sold him to us on the same day?

    Thats what I'm talking about. While the official deals are one thing, in reality the presidents/DGs can unofficially agree something between them, like Moggi unofficially asking for Livorno to help us out with Mutu, and Marotta unofficially promising to buy M/Q/P. Some things, while not being official, are pretty evident.

    So how exactly have you proven I'm wrong?


    He is not wrong but he does not have any evidence to support what he is saying is true. It is pure speculations and that's about it.

    Exactly, you cant have any evidence to support that, but you can make a reasonable assumption, or a well founded speculation.
     

    Scuba51

    Junior Member
    Aug 9, 2007
    241
    #37
    Have you actually proven I'm wrong? Of course the official statements are going to say its a loan, because it formally is, thats not what I'm talking about, same thing with the Mutu deal a few years back, as somebody said.

    There were discussions before the Mutu deal that we were looking at somebody else to sign him for us because of the non-EU rule, them officially Livorno bought him and the officially sold him to us. So if you're looking at it very formally there was no deal between us and Livorno, after all there were no official statements to say so. So by your purely formalistic logic it would seem it was just a coincidence that Livorno bought him and sold him to us on the same day?

    Thats what I'm talking about. While the official deals are one thing, in reality the presidents/DGs can unofficially agree something between them, like Moggi unofficially asking for Livorno to help us out with Mutu, and Marotta unofficially promising to buy M/Q/P. Some things, while not being official, are pretty evident.

    So how exactly have you proven I'm wrong?





    Exactly, you cant have any evidence to support that, but you can make a reasonable assumption, or a well founded speculation.
    I see the benefit of the Mutu deal, it got us a non-eu player when we shouldn't have been able to get him. Where's the benefit of declaring these as loan deals rather than just transfers with spread out payments?
     

    JCK

    Biased
    JCK
    May 11, 2004
    123,473
    #38
    Exactly, you cant have any evidence to support that, but you can make a reasonable assumption, or a well founded speculation.
    The only reason behind that assumption is because the board is doing wrong. Doing something wrong does not mean that the deals are as bad as you describe them and this does not make it a well founded speculation.
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #39
    I see the benefit of the Mutu deal, it got us a non-eu player when we shouldn't have been able to get him. Where's the benefit of declaring these as loan deals rather than just transfers with spread out payments?

    1 extra year of installment.


    The only reason behind that assumption is because the board is doing wrong. Doing something wrong does not mean that the deals are as bad as you describe them and this does not make it a well founded speculation.

    You're trying to put words in my mouth. I dont think the way of doing things is wrong (I actually think its quite smart), I might not agree with the quality of some players (Pepe) or that others are too expensive (Matri), but I dont think its a bad way of doing things, and I think the Quag deal is quite OK.
     

    JCK

    Biased
    JCK
    May 11, 2004
    123,473
    #40
    You're trying to put words in my mouth. I dont think the way of doing things is wrong (I actually think its quite smart), I might not agree with the quality of some players (Pepe) or that others are too expensive (Matri), but I dont think its a bad way of doing things, and I think the Quag deal is quite OK.
    I am not trying to put anything in your mouth, I am just saying my opinion about your logic. Which in fact you presented to show that the board actually lied and said they loaned players they actually intended to buy. Most of them bad deals.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)