| Gone a bit quiet 14:30 - Aug 19 with 3182 views | Tommy_ITFC |
On the Cajuste front..
Any news on him? |  |
| |  |
| Gone a bit quiet on 14:38 - Aug 19 with 3117 views | Vaughan8 |
"Cajuste Set to Make Decision on Town Move" was last reported on here on Friday......!
I know there isn't any particular rush but you'd have thought he would know if he wants to come 3 days after the story broke out. | | | |
| Gone a bit quiet on 14:39 - Aug 19 with 3089 views | pointofblue |
From Phil's article on O'Shea, posted just over half an hour ago:
"Town are close to confirming the loan signing of Napoli’s Swedish international midfielder Jens Cajuste with the paperwork relating to the deal understood to be the delay.
It’s understood there’s a loan fee of €1.5 million (£1.3 million) with a mandatory €12 million (£10.2 million) buy-out should Town stay up." | |
| |
| Gone a bit quiet on 15:18 - Aug 19 with 2797 views | Keno |
You can juste wait a little longer |  |
| |
| Gone a bit quiet on 15:21 - Aug 19 with 2732 views | stiff_talking |
| Gone a bit quiet on 15:18 - Aug 19 by Keno |
You can juste wait a little longer |
Pending International working visa! | | | |
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:18 - Aug 19 with 2197 views | Battersea_Blue |
He looks an excellent player from the clips. but what I’d like to get to the bottom of is why we’re seemingly happy to sign him but his initial deal with Brentford didn’t go through.
I don’t buy the “paperwork issue”, that has to be hogwash. I also don’t see how he can fail a medical with Brentford but pass one with us, particularly if we have an “obligation” to buy for 12m euros or whatever the actual price is, if we stay up.
So what’s the truth here? Just seems really odd to me, but of course we don’t know all the facts.
Some clarity if or when it’s confirmed would be good for us fans to understand. | | | |
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:22 - Aug 19 with 2117 views | Zx1988 |
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:18 - Aug 19 by Battersea_Blue |
He looks an excellent player from the clips. but what I’d like to get to the bottom of is why we’re seemingly happy to sign him but his initial deal with Brentford didn’t go through.
I don’t buy the “paperwork issue”, that has to be hogwash. I also don’t see how he can fail a medical with Brentford but pass one with us, particularly if we have an “obligation” to buy for 12m euros or whatever the actual price is, if we stay up.
So what’s the truth here? Just seems really odd to me, but of course we don’t know all the facts.
Some clarity if or when it’s confirmed would be good for us fans to understand. |
Even if it was his Brentford medical, that doesn't really mean anything as far as ITFC are concerned. Medicals aren't pass/fail per se; clubs will use them to determine the general fitness of a player and likelihood of injury.
It could be that both medicals have flagged up the same concerns/risks and that Brentford were simply more risk-averse than ITFC.
Given that the buy clause is only activated if ITFC stay up, it could well be that the decision-makers have decided that Cajuste playing a part in a successful season may indicate that any issues flagged in the medical should not (after a full season on extended trial) pose a barrier to a permanent signing. | |
| |
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:24 - Aug 19 with 2073 views | tcblue |
He was at the game on Saturday | | | |
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:44 - Aug 19 with 1876 views | Battersea_Blue |
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:24 - Aug 19 by tcblue |
He was at the game on Saturday |
Yes, saw that on the tv coverage. Was good to see him there.
But that doesn’t answer the questions though . . | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:56 - Aug 19 with 1697 views | Battersea_Blue |
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:22 - Aug 19 by Zx1988 |
Even if it was his Brentford medical, that doesn't really mean anything as far as ITFC are concerned. Medicals aren't pass/fail per se; clubs will use them to determine the general fitness of a player and likelihood of injury.
It could be that both medicals have flagged up the same concerns/risks and that Brentford were simply more risk-averse than ITFC.
Given that the buy clause is only activated if ITFC stay up, it could well be that the decision-makers have decided that Cajuste playing a part in a successful season may indicate that any issues flagged in the medical should not (after a full season on extended trial) pose a barrier to a permanent signing. |
Yep, totally understand what you’re saying and I had thought that through.
What we don’t know is how many appearances he’ll make, how many games he may miss because of injury, how many times he’ll be picked, etc.
If it is a medical issue that caused Brentford to pull out but we’re prepared to take the risk, there could be a scenario where he starts 5 games, comes on as sub for 5 games and is injured for the other 27 games (assuming he signs before Man City) and we stay up, so we’re committed to buy him for circa 12m euros.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t sign him as he looks like an excellent player, but why did it fall through with Brentford? Are we taking a risk and if so, how big a risk? Or was it some kind of paperwork issue? | | | |
| Gone a bit quiet on 18:09 - Aug 19 with 1511 views | portmanking |
| Gone a bit quiet on 17:56 - Aug 19 by Battersea_Blue |
Yep, totally understand what you’re saying and I had thought that through.
What we don’t know is how many appearances he’ll make, how many games he may miss because of injury, how many times he’ll be picked, etc.
If it is a medical issue that caused Brentford to pull out but we’re prepared to take the risk, there could be a scenario where he starts 5 games, comes on as sub for 5 games and is injured for the other 27 games (assuming he signs before Man City) and we stay up, so we’re committed to buy him for circa 12m euros.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t sign him as he looks like an excellent player, but why did it fall through with Brentford? Are we taking a risk and if so, how big a risk? Or was it some kind of paperwork issue? |
Led to believe the deal requires him to play a certain number of games (along with Town's survival) for the obligation to kick in. | | | |
| Gone a bit quiet on 18:24 - Aug 19 with 1262 views | Zx1988 |
| Gone a bit quiet on 18:09 - Aug 19 by portmanking |
Led to believe the deal requires him to play a certain number of games (along with Town's survival) for the obligation to kick in. |
In which case it feels like a bit of a no-brainer. We're only obliged to sign him if we stay up and he either stays fit, or is a sufficiently good player/egg that he stays in/around the first team. | |
| |
| Gone a bit quiet on 19:45 - Aug 19 with 1016 views | Tommy_ITFC |
Speak of the devil | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
