Tosic - Gone. To CSKA

to be fair, Tosic indeed looked not that fit today. He was pretty crap, but he may turn out to be a good buy for them given time.

Doumbia, however, had his own debut today and looked much much better on the wing.
 
MacMUFC said:
This is the only question that matters in your reply:





If anybody else randomly stumbled across this quote, they would assume that this player had played well.

Key point is, is that you were implying Tosic played well.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

If you think that means I think he played well, then you need to go with haste to Specsavers..
 
Devil_forever said:
Wow, so glad that you're over him. What I don't get is Vuc, given how patriotic you are, why don't you actually live in Serbia?
Click to expand...

I'm a realist, economic situation over there is not what it is over here (clearly). Though one day should the situation change I would go. Doesn't need to stop me being patriotic, it's just the way I am.
 
vuc said:
I'm a realist, economic situation over there is not what it is over here (clearly). Though one day should the situation change I would go. Doesn't need to stop me being patriotic, it's just the way I am.
Click to expand...

wait! are you born in Serbia? you don't live there? shit this is new info...
 
MacMUFC said:
This is the only question that matters in your reply:

If anybody else randomly stumbled across this quote, they would assume that this player had played well.

Key point is, is that you were implying Tosic played well.
Click to expand...

By any chance did you happen to randomly stumble upon it?

Why post what you think others may think of it rather than what you know what it means.. Also what he said in no way means Tosic played well.. Just that Tosic has a good delivery on him from a set piece.. Which BTW is common knowledge if you know anything about the player himself..

P.S This is in no way related to the above posts.. But I was wondering if it was possible that Partizan put in an add on clause in Tosic's transfer that states if he were to start a 1st team game we owe would then owe Partizan 'x' amount of money? Which is why we never played him from the start? Yes I know it sounds ludicrous but its a thought..
 
Chirag said:
By any chance did you happen to randomly stumble upon it?

Why post what you think others may think of it rather than what you know what it means.. Also what he said in no way means Tosic played well.. Just that Tosic has a good delivery on him from a set piece.. Which BTW is common knowledge if you know anything about the player himself..

P.S This is in no way related to the above posts.. But I was wondering if it was possible that Partizan put in an add on clause in Tosic's transfer that states if he were to start a 1st team game we owe would then owe Partizan 'x' amount of money? Which is why we never played him from the start? Yes I know it sounds ludicrous but its a thought..
Click to expand...

You'll just get people saying 'he was shit'.
 
vuc said:
You'll just get people saying 'he was shit'.
Click to expand...

He was. Had he been any good for us and impressed Ferguson, he would've played regardless of any clause that may have or may have not existed.
 
Chirag said:
By any chance did you happen to randomly stumble upon it?

Why post what you think others may think of it rather than what you know what it means.. Also what he said in no way means Tosic played well.. Just that Tosic has a good delivery on him from a set piece.. Which BTW is common knowledge if you know anything about the player himself..

P.S This is in no way related to the above posts.. But I was wondering if it was possible that Partizan put in an add on clause in Tosic's transfer that states if he were to start a 1st team game we owe would then owe Partizan 'x' amount of money? Which is why we never played him from the start? Yes I know it sounds ludicrous but its a thought..
Click to expand...

Do you really think that after paying a big-ish fee for a player, that SAF would then not play him (when he thought he was good enough for the first team), so he doesn't have to pay a mill or two extra on top?

I know you described it just as a theory but I just think it sounds ridiculous but no surprise that vuc would try to cling to it.
 
Chirag said:
P.S This is in no way related to the above posts.. But I was wondering if it was possible that Partizan put in an add on clause in Tosic's transfer that states if he were to start a 1st team game we owe would then owe Partizan 'x' amount of money? Which is why we never played him from the start? Yes I know it sounds ludicrous but its a thought..
Click to expand...

Never considered that but it's an interesting point. If Fergie/coaches decided very early on that signing him was a mistake then that'd make sense. I was always surprised that he didn't even start the Carling Cup games. Nothing about the Ljajic deal made sense, so in all honesty I could believe the above easily enough.
 
Devil_forever said:
Do you really think that after paying a big-ish fee for a player, that SAF would then not play him (when he thought he was good enough for the first team), so he doesn't have to pay a mill or two extra on top?

I know you described it just as a theory but I just think it sounds ridiculous but no surprise that vuc would try to cling to it.
Click to expand...

Do you like putting words in peoples mouths? In what way am I clinging on to anything here?
 
vuc said:
Do you like putting words in peoples mouths? In what way am I clinging on to anything here?
Click to expand...

Errr because Chirag suggested his idea and you said that we'd all just dismiss it by saying "he's shit", implying that, his money argument makes sense. Anyone who believes that, he was sold for any other reason than not being good enough, is clearly clutching at straws, which you're doing.

HTH.
 
Sarni said:
He was. Had he been any good for us and impressed Ferguson, he would've played regardless of any clause that may have or may have not existed.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say shit. I think people tend to go to extremes. Who thought Fletcher 30 games in ..wasn't shit at that moment in time? How many love child comments...Tosic wasn't strong enough. We loaned him and clearly he wasn't confident enough to win a place in the team and that's it. It don't make someone shit

I remember half the people calling rossi shit, comparing him against tevez and it was absolute bollocks. Clearly he wasn't shit. Clearly he isn't. We can look back on the brief games he played for united (Tosic), and there were glimpses in the few games he played but you get confidence and fitness with games. the same with Rossi.
 
Sarni said:
He was. Had he been any good for us and impressed Ferguson, he would've played regardless of any clause that may have or may have not existed.
Click to expand...

Shit where? Shit in the reserves, where he scored goals? Shit in the games where he barely featured? Shit for Koln on loan?
 
hehe vuc we still got vidic. Chin up son. I was thinking actually how strange it must be for him? I mean he showed the two we signed around. It must have been very disappointing for him
 
Devil_forever said:
Errr because Chirag suggested his idea and you said that we'd all just dismiss it by saying "he's shit", implying that, his money argument makes sense. Anyone who believes that, he was sold for any other reason than not being good enough, is clearly clutching at straws, which you're doing.

HTH.
Click to expand...

So basically I was right. The majority of people will say 'he was shit' and it's a bit of a stupid comment considering he didn't play any games..

I'm being sucked back into an argument I didn't want to get into. I would rather have seen Tosic flop at United after having a run of games, that way it could categorically be seen he wasn't good enough.
 
SecondFig said:
Never considered that but it's an interesting point. If Fergie/coaches decided very early on that signing him was a mistake then that'd make sense. I was always surprised that he didn't even start the Carling Cup games. Nothing about the Ljajic deal made sense, so in all honesty I could believe the above easily enough.
Click to expand...

It's not interesting, it's complete nonsense, to the best of my knowledge, this is how add-ons work:

A team buys a player, pays a base fee and says the performance related bonuses will be paid out, if certain targets are met in the duration of the players initial contract with the team. If the player is then resold before his initial contract is up, the team will then have to pay all the performance related bonuses. Real Madrid had to pay Ajax around 6 million euros, when they sold him onto AC Milan, even though, he had not done enough, to meet those targets, but it has to be paid, if the player is sold on, during his initial contract.

It makes logical sense, because what's stopping a team from buying a promising youngster for a very small base fee, with the bulk of the fee in performance related bonuses, then just reselling him straight away before he can meet any of the targets?

So the theory that Tosic was benched as a money saving exercise is complete rubbish, because as his initial contract hadn't run out, we'd have defaulted on all his performance related bonuses that were owed to Partizan and would have had to pay them anyway when he was sold.
 
vuc said:
So basically I was right. The majority of people will say 'he was shit' and it's a bit of a stupid comment considering he didn't play any games..

I'm being sucked back into an argument I didn't want to get into. I would rather have seen Tosic flop at United after having a run of games, that way it could categorically be seen he wasn't good enough.
Click to expand...

Read my post above. You completely missed my point it seems.
 
vuc said:
Shit where? Shit in the reserves, where he scored goals? Shit in the games where he barely featured? Shit for Koln on loan?
Click to expand...

Shit wherever Ferguson has seen him presumably as he was not too keen on giving him any kind of a chance.
 
vuc said:
I'm a realist, economic situation over there is not what it is over here (clearly). Though one day should the situation change I would go. Doesn't need to stop me being patriotic, it's just the way I am.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised people think patriots cannot live outside their home nations. Good for you Vuc, that you are patriotic.
 
SecondFig said:
Never considered that but it's an interesting point. If Fergie/coaches decided very early on that signing him was a mistake then that'd make sense. I was always surprised that he didn't even start the Carling Cup games. Nothing about the Ljajic deal made sense, so in all honesty I could believe the above easily enough.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. I think there was more to this entire Ljajic-Tosic deal than what meets the eye..

Theory Mode:

I think we primarily got Tosic as a buddy for the gem that clearly was meant to be Ljajic (probably it was a sweetener in the Ljajic to united deal for Partizan) And we probably accepted to take a chance on whether Tosic might or might not make it.. As the greater good would mean that we would have an already settled mate of Ljajic by the time he joins us.. One who will help him settle in as and when he comes.. It seems like the entire deal went to the drain when we backed out of the Ljajic deal (the real reasons for which are still not clear)

Did he genuinely not get a work permit?
Was his progress not as per our expectations? (SAF said in November he couldn't wait for Ljajic to join us and In Jan he was deemed not good enough)
Were we broke?
Did we think the price we fixed was excessive? or
Did we simply back out because we thought we had better prospects in Cleverley & Obertan? or a mixture of the latter two?

Clearly Ljajic is talented enough to get a work permit under the special talent category.. Tosic too was talented enough to atleast warrant a single start in a Carling Cup game.. He proved he was good enough for Serbia and later on Loan at Koln.. Has the club done wrong with these two young players? Can we be blamed for attempting to damage their careers? feck knows?
 
Devil_forever said:
It's not interesting, it's complete nonsense, to the best of my knowledge, this is how add-ons work:

A team buys a player, pays a base fee and says the performance related bonuses will be paid out, if certain targets are met in the duration of the players initial contract with the team. If the player is then resold before his initial contract is up, the team will then have to pay all the performance related bonuses. Real Madrid had to pay Ajax around 6 million euros, when they sold him onto AC Milan, even though, he had not done enough, to meet those targets, but it has to be paid, if the player is sold on, during his initial contract.

It makes logical sense, because what's stopping a team from buying a promising youngster for a very small base fee, with the bulk of the fee in performance related bonuses, then just reselling him straight away before he can meet any of the targets?

So the theory that Tosic was benched as a money saving exercise is complete rubbish, because as his initial contract hadn't run out, we'd have defaulted on all his performance related bonuses that were owed to Partizan and would have had to pay them anyway when he was sold.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's as simple as that. You're describing it as if transfers come in a universal format, which they don't. The terms of the add-ons will vary from deal to deal, depending on what the two sides negotiate.
Additionally some add-ons are inherently not as you describe (for example payment of specified lump sums upon a certain number of appearances or starts).
Now I agree that this is all wild speculation and probably rubbish, but it is also entirely possible. There have been several well publicised cases of clubs not playing players because it'd trigger an add-on payment, for example Portsmouth in the FA cup final, as well as several other cases where players making a landmark appearance (e.g. 100 or 200) were dropped because they were leaving anyway in the summer and by not playing that 100th game the club wouldn't have to make a further payment.

Of course having an add-on triggered by just one single start seems very strange, but it is possible.
 
SecondFig said:
I don't think it's as simple as that. You're describing it as if transfers come in a universal format, which they don't. The terms of the add-ons will vary from deal to deal, depending on what the two sides negotiate.
Additionally some add-ons are inherently not as you describe (for example payment of specified lump sums upon a certain number of appearances or starts).
Now I agree that this is all wild speculation and probably rubbish, but it is also entirely possible. There have been several well publicised cases of clubs not playing players because it'd trigger an add-on payment, for example Portsmouth in the FA cup final, as well as several other cases where players making a landmark appearance (e.g. 100 or 200) were dropped because they were leaving anyway in the summer and by not playing that 100th game the club wouldn't have to make a further payment.

Of course having an add-on triggered by just one single start seems very strange, but it is possible.
Click to expand...

But what about Madrid and Huntelaar? I am obviously joking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.