I thought Randall’s running was strong but his finishing was poor.
Mason-Clark (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluericoh
- Start date
MacAnthony said there was an option.
SleepyGinger
Well-Known Member
Blackpool 0-3 Peterborough United | EFL Trophy highlights creates 2 brilliant chances before the first goal too
StrettoBoy
Well-Known Member
I suspect it is just a gentleman's agreement. The player himself would have to be a party for it to be legally binding and that means agreeing his financial package.
Probably just an informal non-binding pre-emption arrangement under which Posh will give us the first chance to try and agree a deal before they can sell elsewhere.
It probably doesn't amount to much. The most important thing is probably that the owners and chairmen of the two clubs seem to trust and respect each other.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Looks good, different type of player to Wright on the left though. Not sure we're necessarily going to use him there.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
slowpoke
Well-Known Member
He will replace Wright on the left.
SleepyGinger
Well-Known Member
I still think we see wright as predominantly a striker
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
Essentially, Peterborough will tell us when any bids are made for the player (or players) in question and layout the financials of the offer to see if we want to match it.
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
Simms is desperate for a winger who plays some of the through balls EMC did for Posh tonight. He would feast off them with his runs in-behind that currently don't get seen until too late.
Astute
Well-Known Member
What I find strange is we have agreed a deal with one player. The player is still with them and we haven't paid a penny for him yet. Then we have 1st refusal on another player. Why couldn't we have done the same with this player?
I think it is just a wise move by their chairman. Several clubs are sniffing around their players. The other player we have shown interest in hasn't been named. So he could use this on any player he likes to bump the price up.
Wanting first option on the player is not the same as saying we want to sign the player.
It sounds to me a similar situation to the Sakamoto transfer. We were watching EMC but whilst doing so another player has caught our eye.
However we are not yet certain we want him but we want to be kept informed in case we do.
Having a legally agreed first option would prevent Posh selling him to anyone else without us being aware there was a proposed transaction for the player. We might choose to match the offer or walk away but it gives us slightly more control than we would otherwise have.
We have signed EMC, not “agreed a deal” for him. He is our player. It doesn’t matter that we haven’t paid for him yet, that’s not irrelevant.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So we haven't agreed a deal for him?
And as you're being pedantic don't you mean 'relevant'?
slowpoke
Well-Known Member
That MacAnthony is a shrew operator I’ve read he gets add ons if Ivan Toney gets an England cap and it’s either 10 or 15% of any future transfer after the initial 6 million fee that could be between another 5mill ion plus. Bet he has similar with us with the MSC deal.
As for MSC he is our player bought and paid for loaned back to Posh for an agreed fee.
As for MSC he is our player bought and paid for loaned back to Posh for an agreed fee.
Your implication was that we have only agreed a deal for him, i.e. not signed him, and that it mattered that we hadn’t paid for him. Which it doesn’t.
Yes, fair cop on irrelevant.
skyblueelephant76
Well-Known Member
Maybe we'd like to wait and see what division we're in before committing to another one
Astute
Well-Known Member
Neither.
I hadn't said we didn't sign him. I said we had come to an agreement. This was against not coming to an agreement with the so called other player. This I find very strange and that works to their chairman's advantage.
Not sure what the first refusal really give us. Surely the player still just goes to the highest bidder (depending on player also agreeing terms)
As to why we didn’t do it with Mason Clark…exactly that and we wanted to secure him now, even if he doesn’t arrive until the summer
Astute
Well-Known Member
Astute
Well-Known Member
First paragraph is my point. Second paragraph has always been agreed.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
We've signed him, he's our player on loan at Peterborough
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Terry_dactyl
Well-Known Member
There’s obviously a mole in the Peterborough camp.He lives underground?
As in like the Gyokeres deal?
Alkhen
Well-Known Member
Isn't it just sort of a way to make sure we are kept in the loop early if any offers or interest is shown in those players. Would give us time to consider if we want to get involved earlier rather than panicking as deals and bids get made public.
Also I'm sure players would add some value to the fact we have been admiring them for long enough to put the first refusal in place. Of course money talks but could tip things in our favour to show they were a long term target if things get tight.
I agree he didn't execute his chances but I liked the way he tried to. The first across the keeper and the second, a dink. He had some pace about him and his control of the ball was excellent. Looked effortless.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I did wonder as much about whether it was dependent on promotion or not but yeah if the player doesn't want to sign for us it's pointless
slowpoke
Well-Known Member
MSC has signed an
Calista
Well-Known Member
... application to change his name by deed poll?
skybluecam
Well-Known Member
People are getting the “option” thing wrong. If we have got one it will give us the ability to buy the player at a set price. All Macanthony said was Doug asked for one, didn’t confirm it.
slowpoke
Well-Known Member
That’s for the one we have an option on right ?
robbiekeane
Well-Known Member
Correct
