Page 1 of 1
Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:41 pm
by Vegas Claret
Given we had apparently triggered the permanent move after 5 games and plenty of people have said that's nonsense, does the lack of him even on the bench suggest that maybe there was a 'number of performances' clause and we have decided not to trigger it ? I've not seen a single journo ask where he is, I've not heard he's injured etc. Any thoughts ? (other than the predictable 'he's crap')
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:42 pm
by bobinho
Other than that, no.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:47 pm
by Poulton-le-Claret
Ideal if we can get out of buying him somehow. I did hear that we had already signed him, but honestly I have no idea if he is our player or not.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:49 pm
by Bordeauxclaret
He’d have fitted in nicely to today’s performance.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:50 pm
by agreenwood
I said to someone today that you wouldn’t be surprised if the club are looking at ways to unpick to obligation to buy (if it’s true of course).
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:54 pm
by wilks_bfc
At least him not being in the squad, means we don’t have to hear the “most assists” stat every time he’s on the ball
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:55 pm
by Swizzlestick
Was on the bench against Fulham though. So doubtful. Probably just injured or gone to Wetherspoons or something.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:59 pm
by JR1882
He’s got Galatasaray on loan written all over him.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:03 pm
by Blatherwickstattoo
He can’t be any worse than Ramsey . I am 40 year old and unfit and I’d offer more
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:08 pm
by NewClaret
Thought the same today. Maybe the #apps needed to trigger purchase was wrong and we’ve given up on him after Luton.
Cannot argue with that, he’s been poor for us.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 12:20 am
by Goliath
Hes been dreadful but the decision to bring him on in games like Luton when we are defending a lead and then not give him a chance when we are chasing games is bizarre.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 1:57 am
by cockneyclaret
Blatherwickstattoo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:03 pm
He can’t be any worse than Ramsey . I am 40 year old and unfit and I’d offer more
I'm 44 with sciatica and could do more too
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 6:03 am
by steve1264b
If its true we have triggered the clause to sign him, he should start every game for the rest of the season now.
He needs game time, I've no idea what role he played last year, but lets put him that role and see what he can do.
What the worst that can happen?
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:12 am
by LincsWoldsClaret
From The Athletic -
Should Esteve hit his appearance-related clauses to trigger his deal that will already be an initial €12million (£10.2m) spend in the summer.
Adding that to Mike Tresor’s €18million (£15m) obligation to buy, it totals a similar amount to their entire summer spend when preparing for the Championship last season.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:31 am
by JohnMcGreal
Can anybody explain the purpose of these loan deals with obligations to buy after a number of appearances?
From our point of view I'd imagine it gives us the opportunity to take a player and if we don't like the look of them we just stop playing them before the appearance threshold is hit, meaning we no longer have to buy them.
But if the number of appearances is as low as people make out then maybe we really do want to buy these players and we're just delaying payments until the summer. So perhaps these deals are a way of dealing with cash flow issues?
I find them pretty strange, anyway.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:34 am
by RVclaret
JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:31 am
Can anybody explain the purpose of these loan deals with obligations to buy after a number of appearances?
From our point of view I'd imagine it gives us the opportunity to take a player and if we don't like the look of them we just stop playing them before the appearance threshold is hit, meaning we no longer have to buy them.
But if the number of appearances is as low as people make out then maybe we really do want to buy these players and we're just delaying payments until the summer. So perhaps these deals are a way of dealing with cash flow issues?
I find them pretty strange, anyway.
They are basically buy deals but just delaying the full payment (could be for cash flow purposes or even FFP). Seem to be getting more common.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:40 am
by Pearcey
I’d forgot about him to be honest. If we have bought him then maybe he’ll be off on loan next season. He’s another who looks technically good but doesn’t contribute. Doesn’t mean he won’t in the future though.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 9:27 am
by Neil
I'm sure at some point someone will start a thread asking to sum up this season in one word. That will be mine - Tresor.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 12:27 pm
by IanMcL
Sums up the purchase of so many young bucks, with no experience and senior pros left to guide them all.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 1:01 pm
by Jamesy
Does this mean we are obligated to pay for Tresor in July?
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 1:19 pm
by Burnley1989
I’m sure I’ll be proven wrong but I’ve seen nothing to suggest he will cut it in English football.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 1:31 pm
by StayingDown4Ever
Jamesy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 1:01 pm
Does this mean we are obligated to pay for Tresor in July?
That sickens me if you are right.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 1:47 pm
by mickleoverclaret
Him being nowhere near the first team in recent weeks is one of the few decisions VK has made this season that makes sense. I'll be very surprised if we see him next season.
Re: Tresor
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2024 1:49 pm
by Jamesy
18 million down the drain……. Mike Tresor sits it out again!
Astute bit of business this.
