Clunk wrote:
You added the last 2 lines.
Anyway, I was replying to your claim. Let's not turn this into yet another pointless pedantic argument about english.
My claim was something along the lines of "Inter have made a lot of loan-to-buy player transfers". I mentioned this in the other thread-
[font=Source Sans Pro]They have money but they don't have that much money. This makes them spend some money but over a much longer period so every year only so much money is used.[/font]
[font=Source Sans Pro]Right now they have loan to purchase obligations for- Dodo, Brozovic, Miranda (Deal agreed). Was the same with Shaqiri and now they look for the same in Imbula and Montoya.[/font]
Now where is Kondogbia among them? I didn't mention Kondogbia because he's a permanent transfer with no loan agreement.
Now your claim was that he was a loan-to-buy which is false and this is what I mentioned.
And when I mentioned this you made up another thing-
"It is in response to your claim that most of their deals are structured loan to buys. Why are you claiming that you are wrong?"
Just because they made many loan to buys that doesn't mean I mentioned Kondogbia is one. I never said when I mentioned specifically players that were loan-to-buys that Kondogbia was one of them.
There is nothing contradictory about statements that Inter made a lot of loan-to-buys and Kondogbia was a permanent deal without a loan provision. They are both true statements.
