A few of today's papers are running the story with a single-line quote from Milan that Robert has been in fact brought in on loan for one year with the option to sign him on for a couple more afterwards if he does well. Whilst you can appreciate the sense behind that decision since it gives us a bit of insurance if he cops a strop or turns out to be "not all that", it does seem rather odd considering that it was widely reported he was a permanent signing already.
Having said that, the papers reporting this are The News of the World, The People and The Mirror. You no doubt recall that all three of these are banned from Fratton Park and the training ground, so quite how they got this quote is another thing altogether.
Peter Storrie is also quoted as saying, "It was never in our interest to do a loan deal for Robert because it restricts our movement in the transfer market because you are only allowed to bring two players on loan", whilst Newcastle refused to comment. But the whole thing does seem a little odd - The Mirror reckon that we've paid £500,000 so far, if he's any good we'll sign him for the remaining two years when his contract expires next summer and if we qualify for the Champions League, Newcastle get another £500,000.
Hold on a second.
If his contract is expiring and we sign him, why should we have to pay Newcastle anything? He's a free agent.
And why would he want to come on loan when he could've just gone to Bolton for more money and a definite two year spell, rather than just one year here definitely here, and then he could find himself in the wilderness?
The plot thickens, but it all seems like a load of rubbish to me. (Now wait a couple of days and it'll turn out to be completely true, thus condemning me to yet another incorrect prediction).