Danizen Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 It's not That's my point Chelsea couldn't "really own him off the record" That would be illegal It will be a permanent deal and looks like a 5 year deal So Chelsea will have to pay a fortune for him next summer if they have a gents deal with leicester That would only come into play if Chelsea tried to stop us playing him against them. But I happen to think Chelsea would only want firs refusal on him. They wouldn't commit to buying him without seeing how he does in the Premier League. He could break his leg on the last day of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny the fox Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Bloke on radio Leicester says he is weak as s h i t... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playerzgb Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 "If he chooses Chelsea, Kramaric won't ever set foot on the Stamford Bridge pitch," he said. "He'll get lost in Holland, just like Delac, Pasalic or Perica. All that 'glitter' lasts two or three days. There is also the case of the 12-year old Karlo Ziger who was never ever heard of after he joined Chelsea. He mysteriously disapeared as somebody killed him or something like that. Probably the woods of České Budějovice has something to do with that. Delac is the most worst case, he spend two years on loans and played only 2 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tylesta Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Can someone repost the YouTube video of him? Trawling back through pages on mobile is a ballache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowardsBulletHeader Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 The title of the video is wrong, penalties don't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjslcfc Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-City-Kramaric/story-25807753-detail/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Look on the brite side whatever we have agreed with Chelski. If we loaned him he would be dropped on feb 28th. But if we sign him he will score the winner 3pts in the bag trust me lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Penalties don't count tbf..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazfox9 Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 I hope all this Chelsea having first refusal talk is bullsh1t. If true we'd be taking all the risk. If he's a success surely we should be able to sell to the highest bidder? Because if he's a massive flop Chelsea aren't gonna shell out 7 million for him are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 I hope all this Chelsea having first refusal talk is bullsh1t. If true we'd be taking all the risk. If he's a success surely we should be able to sell to the highest bidder? Because if he's a massive flop Chelsea aren't gonna shell out 7 million for him are they? All first refusal means (in this case) is that if we accept a bid from a club, we'd also have to accept Chelsea's offer if they were to bid an equal sum. I don't get people's issue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMicky Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Can we sign number 99 as well. Loves an assist that bloke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxybiscuits Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 All first refusal means (in this case) is that if we accept a bid from a club, we'd also have to accept Chelsea's offer if they were to bid an equal sum. I don't get people's issue with that. It wont be that if there is an agreement. It'll be more like we sign him now, and summer 2015 or 2016 he goes to Chelsea for double what we paid or at least same fee. It'll literally be essentially a loan, but not technically as player's registration is ours. May even be that when the chelsea part of agreement kicks in and he goes there, we get an option to loan him straight back here if he did well prior EDIT: As dimarzio tweeted before anybody else caught on, there was a rule blocking him joining us on loan this window so a pre arranged deal was agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 I hope all this Chelsea having first refusal talk is bullsh1t. If true we'd be taking all the risk. If he's a success surely we should be able to sell to the highest bidder? Because if he's a massive flop Chelsea aren't gonna shell out 7 million for him are they? Who would want him if he is a flop? So we are stuck with him. But if he rips it up but we still go down would you rather we get our money back or have a player that is pissed and don't want to be with us. Much as I want this and yes must move quick and no not anti Nige. We built from the front in the summer but lacking at the back. I do think if our midfield had more confidence in our back line we would be ok going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 It wont be that if there is an agreement. It'll be more like we sign him now, and summer 2015 or 2016 he goes to Chelsea for double what we paid or at least same fee. It'll literally be essentially a loan, but not technically as player's registration is ours. May even be that when the chelsea part of agreement kicks in and he goes there, we get an option to loan him straight back here if he did well prior Why would we offer him a five year deal then? I don't think there's any agreement in place with Chelsea at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazfox9 Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 All first refusal means (in this case) is that if we accept a bid from a club, we'd also have to accept Chelsea's offer if they were to bid an equal sum. I don't get people's issue with that. That's great if that's what the agreement would be. I just don't want to see us lose out if he is a massive success! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Can we sign number 99 as well. Loves an assist that bloke. I was thinking the same - actually looks up before crossing the ball and then puts it in the right place. A simple yet effective trait a few of our wide men ought to consider doing from time to time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narborough_fox Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 The goal at around 3:35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lineker's Left Foot Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Is he signing then mi ducks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxybiscuits Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Why would we offer him a five year deal then? I don't think there's any agreement in place with Chelsea at all. Id guess in that case (if there is an agreement) that's the timeframe chelsea have to snap him up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 It wont be that if there is an agreement. It'll be more like we sign him now, and summer 2015 or 2016 he goes to Chelsea for double what we paid or at least same fee. It'll literally be essentially a loan, but not technically as player's registration is ours. May even be that when the chelsea part of agreement kicks in and he goes there, we get an option to loan him straight back here if he did well prior EDIT: As dimarzio tweeted before anybody else caught on, there was a rule blocking him joining us on loan this window so a pre arranged deal was agreed He could not be loaned to a prem club in the window he is purchased in. Thats why he is choosing us over chelsea as he don't want to go to holland on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzell Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 All first refusal means (in this case) is that if we accept a bid from a club, we'd also have to accept Chelsea's offer if they were to bid an equal sum. I don't get people's issue with that. I don't see the problem with that whatsoever. If we go down all parties will be happy. He gets off the books and we make money on him and he gets to play a higher standard of football again. Win/win situation. Let's hope we don't go down though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxybiscuits Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 He could not be loaned to a prem club in the window he is purchased in. Thats why he is choosing us over chelsea as he don't want to go to holland on loan. No i mean if for instance they signed him in summer 2016 after doing really well here, we have some option to insert an instant loan back here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Why would we offer him a five year deal then? I don't think there's any agreement in place with Chelsea at all. I think the agreement is only if we go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB11 Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 35% of the people online are viewing this specific thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsthejoeker Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Min2nqo0xxM Five goals?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.