Sascha Riether

[FFCByTheRiver]

Is it even possible for him to move again if he's already signed with us?

Yeah, I think it is.

I don't think he'll go though. The doom mongering from a lot of Fulham fans on Twitter isn't helping though. Like someone else said, it's all noise from Schalke's end. We have no obligation to sell.

[Bassey the warrior]

I think there's no doubt he'll go if we accept a bid, who wouldn't? They're playing Champions League football. He's definitely good enough to start for them. Even if he doesn't start a regular he'll feel he could win that position.
So hopefully it doesn't progress that far as I'll be absolutely gutted to lose him. More so than the two D's.

[RaySmith]

After his impressive time with us his reputation has suddenly risen. The same happened with Dembele, and even Dempsey. Well they both had been with us a bit, but they seemed to rise to another level and both had impressive seasons which drew attention to them.
Who says Jol doesn't bring the best out of players?

Riether , as a pro, will also, I think be likely to take the opportunity to advance his career at a bigger club if he ges the chance. I doubt if he feels he owes Fulham anything - if his performance declined they would soon get rid of him, and the fans would also fall out of love.

But I hope he stays, of course.

[The Enclosurite]

If there is no truth in this then a simple statement from the club denying all rumours would quickly put this one to bed.  I think also the fact that there hasn't actually been an 'official' announcement of his signing is not helping the paranoia.

[Berserker]

I think this could be a Dembele type dissappointment. Sorry to be gloomy but over the last few years i've thought 'oh it's just rumours' then they prove to be true :-(

[TheManOnTheBus]

No - but I can read:

http://www.fulhamfc.com/the-teams/first-team/sascha-riether

you can obviously read into things aswell. where does it say on there that a 2 year deal with the player was agreed? the bit i read just said we had an option to acquire the player. we also have an option to acquire messi (if we meet his buy out clause) doesnt mean he agreed to a 10 year contract 2 decades ago though

No the word "option" means (legally) that it is a one-sided ability to get something.  Once SR has agreed to it (in 2012), and we exercise it, he has no choice.

The messi example is different - if we can meet the 150Million buy out or whatever it is, it simply means that Barca cannot prevent Messi leaving. However, it still needs Lionel himself to see the delights of living in London over Barca. 

[Bassey the warrior]

No - but I can read:

http://www.fulhamfc.com/the-teams/first-team/sascha-riether

you can obviously read into things aswell. where does it say on there that a 2 year deal with the player was agreed? the bit i read just said we had an option to acquire the player. we also have an option to acquire messi (if we meet his buy out clause) doesnt mean he agreed to a 10 year contract 2 decades ago though

No the word "option" means (legally) that it is a one-sided ability to get something.  Once SR has agreed to it (in 2012), and we exercise it, he has no choice.

The messi example is different - if we can meet the 150Million buy out or whatever it is, it simply means that Barca cannot prevent Messi leaving. However, it still needs Lionel himself to see the delights of living in London over Barca. 

No. The option was with the club. We agreed a fee. Nothing was agreed with Sascha.

[EJL]

Is it even possible for him to move again if he's already signed with us?

Yeah I think so. He hasn't technically played for any team this season. I believe that's what the multi-transfer rule depends on: how many different clubs you play for in a season; not how many clubs you sign for. Not sure, though...

[TheManOnTheBus]

No - but I can read:

http://www.fulhamfc.com/the-teams/first-team/sascha-riether

you can obviously read into things aswell. where does it say on there that a 2 year deal with the player was agreed? the bit i read just said we had an option to acquire the player. we also have an option to acquire messi (if we meet his buy out clause) doesnt mean he agreed to a 10 year contract 2 decades ago though

No the word "option" means (legally) that it is a one-sided ability to get something.  Once SR has agreed to it (in 2012), and we exercise it, he has no choice.

The messi example is different - if we can meet the 150Million buy out or whatever it is, it simply means that Barca cannot prevent Messi leaving. However, it still needs Lionel himself to see the delights of living in London over Barca. 

No. The option was with the club. We agreed a fee. Nothing was agreed with Sascha.

No. Any player whether a permanent transfer or a loan signing has to agree to the move.  Are you really saying that Cologne imposed the Fulham move onto Sasha and he didn't agree (both to the one-season loan or the option for Fulham to extend)? 

You might be right, but I thought slavery in fact was abolished many years ago.

[FFC1987]

He still had to agree personal terms prior to activating the release clause. He could have chose not to. The clause states that fulham would basically get first refusal on the player if we met the valuation. hence why I think this story is ultimately grossly exaggerated and misleading. Definitly think there is interest but I really doubt Reither is desperate for a move.

[cebu]

No - but I can read:

http://www.fulhamfc.com/the-teams/first-team/sascha-riether

you can obviously read into things aswell. where does it say on there that a 2 year deal with the player was agreed? the bit i read just said we had an option to acquire the player. we also have an option to acquire messi (if we meet his buy out clause) doesnt mean he agreed to a 10 year contract 2 decades ago though

No the word "option" means (legally) that it is a one-sided ability to get something.  Once SR has agreed to it (in 2012), and we exercise it, he has no choice.

The messi example is different - if we can meet the 150Million buy out or whatever it is, it simply means that Barca cannot prevent Messi leaving. However, it still needs Lionel himself to see the delights of living in London over Barca. 

No. The option was with the club. We agreed a fee. Nothing was agreed with Sascha.

This is nonsense. An option is always a complete package including the former club's fees AND the player's terms and conditions. It puts the buying club in the driver's seat. And it's meant to!

[FFC1987]

No - but I can read:

http://www.fulhamfc.com/the-teams/first-team/sascha-riether

you can obviously read into things aswell. where does it say on there that a 2 year deal with the player was agreed? the bit i read just said we had an option to acquire the player. we also have an option to acquire messi (if we meet his buy out clause) doesnt mean he agreed to a 10 year contract 2 decades ago though

No the word "option" means (legally) that it is a one-sided ability to get something.  Once SR has agreed to it (in 2012), and we exercise it, he has no choice.

The messi example is different - if we can meet the 150Million buy out or whatever it is, it simply means that Barca cannot prevent Messi leaving. However, it still needs Lionel himself to see the delights of living in London over Barca. 

No. The option was with the club. We agreed a fee. Nothing was agreed with Sascha.

This is nonsense. An option is always a complete package including the former club's fees AND the player's terms and conditions. It puts the buying club in the driver's seat. And it's meant to!

Sorry. That's simply not correct. It's gives the clubs the advantage to sign quickly and get then off/on a wage bill quickly but very rarely are personal terms for loanees agreed before signing. Not sure where you read that but it's a fact that they aren't unless its a loan and sign back agreement. Loans only take time negotiating over wage terms, not on personal terms which may or may not be used/needed.

[TheManOnTheBus]

That's ok then (if you are right). Sasha will have agreed personal terms only last month (having had the opportunity to say no I want to go elsewhere) so then he won't want to leave.

:yay:

[Enter the Frei]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/martin-jol-insists-hes-happy-as-fulham-secure-permanent-signing-of-sascha-riether-8621251.html

The Jol quotes are from after the Liverpool game. We have signed him, no argument.

[FFCByTheRiver]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/martin-jol-insists-hes-happy-as-fulham-secure-permanent-signing-of-sascha-riether-8621251.html

The Jol quotes are from after the Liverpool game. We have signed him, no argument.

Can't believe this is even up for debate. It wouldn't have hurt for the club to just do something to halt the growing unease unamongst the more insecure of our fanbase though would it.

[Bassey the warrior]

No it isn't. Just an agreed fee in this case.
No - but I can read:

http://www.fulhamfc.com/the-teams/first-team/sascha-riether

you can obviously read into things aswell. where does it say on there that a 2 year deal with the player was agreed? the bit i read just said we had an option to acquire the player. we also have an option to acquire messi (if we meet his buy out clause) doesnt mean he agreed to a 10 year contract 2 decades ago though

No the word "option" means (legally) that it is a one-sided ability to get something.  Once SR has agreed to it (in 2012), and we exercise it, he has no choice.

The messi example is different - if we can meet the 150Million buy out or whatever it is, it simply means that Barca cannot prevent Messi leaving. However, it still needs Lionel himself to see the delights of living in London over Barca. 

No. The option was with the club. We agreed a fee. Nothing was agreed with Sascha.

This is nonsense. An option is always a complete package including the former club's fees AND the player's terms and conditions. It puts the buying club in the driver's seat. And it's meant to!

[FFCByTheRiver]

Wrote this regarding the situation: http://ffcme.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/a-quick-word-on-the-sascha-riether-situation/

[rusty shackleford]

Heldt expects to reach an agreement with Riether: "Sascha would like to join us, but Fulham have not taken the option to sell it.

[Zu-Meister]

this sounds a tad more promising:http://www.myheimat.de/gelsenkirchen/sport/schalke-04-cedric-soares-statt-sascha-riether-d2527389.html

FC Schalke 04 is still looking for a new full-back. After desired player Sascha Riether must not move from his current club Fulham after the last stand, Horst hero looks around for alternatives. He seems to find anything in Portugal. Cedric Soares from Sporting Lisbon even has roots in Gelsenkirchen.

Schalke 04 could have found an alternative for the position of legal counsel. After the Fulham FC has vetoed and will probably not let the desire player of Schalke Sascha Riether retire, manager Horst Heldt has continued to look around in Europe's top leagues and is apparently able to find in Portugal.
How fussballtransfers.com reported today, Cedric Soares moved from Sporting Lisbon in the focus of the miners. The 21-year-old Portuguese would fit well to FC Schalke not only because of his ancestry.
Soares speaks fluent German

Should the transfer of Sascha Riether the Royal Blues not materialize, Cedric Soares would be a good alternative. The Portuguese, who was born in Gelsenkirchen, would like to leave Portugal towards Bundesliga. But besides Schalke 04 and Olympique Lyon has expressed interest in the 21-year-olds. Because of its roots Soares likely but rather tend to FC Schalke, especially since he is fluent in German. However, the miners would have to pay a reasonable transfer fee, as the Portuguese still has contract with Sporting until 2016. A change would still make for both parties sense since it Lisbon financially is not too good at the moment and will be dependent on the release. Click here for more transfer rumors from the Bundesliga.

[FFCByTheRiver]

Good on the club if this now doesn't happen.