Mitroglou back to Olympiakos

[Greek]

Seems Fulham still owe Olmpiakos lots of money for this player. I can see it happening - either that or Italy I can imagine. Saw a bit of him in Greece's game vs portugal on Saturday. He looked terrible. Unfit and slow. Maybe he is saving everything for the WC.

http://www.fulham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=360276

[Lighthouse]

As we have never seen the player other than as a slow, out of touch, part timer. I can only think the injury he suffered was enough to destroy his career. I just cannot see him managing to come close to the player we were told he was. The World Cup may change that but somehow I doubt it.

A mistake by everybody involved.

[Greek]

I agree. I have never seen him this slow and damaged in his career. He is unrecognizable. The injury has completely destroyed the player. WC will be very interesting.

I think most likely is Italy, simply because Olympiakos are close to Alfred Finnbogason - the kind of player your staff should have been looking last winter..

[God The Mechanic]

I agree. I have never seen him this slow and damaged in his career. He is unrecognizable. The injury has completely destroyed the player. WC will be very interesting.

I think most likely is Italy, simply because Olympiakos just bought Alfred Finnbogason - the kind of player your staff should have been looking last winter..

From some rumours we were looking at him as a last minute alternative to Mitroglou, but his club wouldn't even consider it as it was RIGHT at the last minute and they wouldn't be able to replace him.

[Nero]

Do you think  Olympiakos would take him back!!! We would want our money returned for sure I don't think they would want to do that.

[General]

As we have never seen the player other than as a slow, out of touch, part timer. I can only think the injury he suffered was enough to destroy his career. I just cannot see him managing to come close to the player we were told he was. The World Cup may change that but somehow I doubt it.

A mistake by everybody involved.

If that is the case then i can't imagine olympiakos wanting to buy him back knowing he's damaged goods. That said it was only last season that he was destroying man utd in the champions league... Maybe it's a combination of injury whilst realise the mistake he had made by coming to Fulham and now finding himself in England's second tier having hardly played... That's quite a fall to go from champions league hero for the best team in Greece and making a difference against man utd, even helping olympiakos to a lead in the first leg, to being in the championship and nowhere near Europe.

The life of a footballer is very short and i wouldn't begrudge him a move away to resurrect his mental health and career.

[Greek]

Well said.

Personally I think Italy is the most likely destination simply because Olympiakos are looking at buying good  strikers atm and if they had the resurrection of Mitroglou in mind, they would not bother - as there is too much money involved in Mitrogou.

[MasterHaynes]

As I understand it we paid £6m upfront and the rest was based on his appearances, so I doubt we owe any money on him at the moment. At £6m he would be a cheap buy for anyone, a bargain for Olympiakos who have not as yet got a replacement who would likely cost a lot more. Hopefully he stays and plays and we are happy to pay the agreed instalments to Olympiakos

[Riversider]

He is in line for the same set up as Loic Remy, a season long loan, with Fulham keeping everything crossed that he recovers and starts scoring so that this time next year we can look to get our money back.
No way on earth, is he ever going to play for Fulham again, no way whatsoever, Felix will want his own man.

[Macedo]

As I understand it we paid £6m upfront and the rest was based on his appearances, so I doubt we owe any money on him at the moment. At £6m he would be a cheap buy for anyone, a bargain for Olympiakos who have not as yet got a replacement who would likely cost a lot more. Hopefully he stays and plays and we are happy to pay the agreed instalments to Olympiakos

According to Sky Sports the other day we owe a substansial amount
of the fee..But what do they know.

[Baszab]

 090.gif

[Luka]

Do you think  Olympiakos would take him back!!! We would want our money returned for sure I don't think they would want to do that.

I would just give him back and call it quits !!

[Mitroglol]

Yeah, I was hoping that he would be fine given some time but it seems that this injury may prove career ending for him.
Really sad.

[blingo]

By bye bubble  9739.gif

[westcliff white]

As I understand it we paid £6m upfront and the rest was based on his appearances, so I doubt we owe any money on him at the moment. At £6m he would be a cheap buy for anyone, a bargain for Olympiakos who have not as yet got a replacement who would likely cost a lot more. Hopefully he stays and plays and we are happy to pay the agreed instalments to Olympiakos

According to Sky Sports the other day we owe a substansial amount
of the fee..But what do they know.

We would owe a substantial fee if he were to play all of the games left on his contract, that would be 6.4 million left to pay. I believe the same as Master Haynes, that we have paid 6 million up front and then they get a certain amount every 10 games or so after he is selected (as he must be fit to be selected) in the match day 18 , and this runs over the duration of his contract to a maximum of 6.4 million. The only complication is if we decided to sell, then I believe we would be due to pay almost all of the remaining value. Therefore to say we have a substantial amount outstanding would be correct all though not so if we keep him.

[PokerMatt]

So we'd still have to pay the appearance fees without any appearances?

Is there any point in that clause then? Why not just pay the rest in instalments rather than appearances if his not playing doesn't mean squat?

[westcliff white]

Pokermatt, if you sign a player and add clauses to say we will pay x after every so many games, then you would have to settle that amount up. It is standard practice in these type of deals I am led ot believe. We agreed 12.4 paid 6 and now owe 6.4 base don appearances to a maximum of 12.4, surely no one would think you are allowed then to sell the player and make money that way, I think that would be almost illegal as you could sell him the next day without paying any additional.

In fact you could agree to buy a player for 12.4 million and say we will give you the .4 now and pay the rest in 12 equal monthly installments, if they agree to that you could then sell him in the next month for 12.4 and make a nice 12 million profit while the other club loses 12 million, surely that cant be right can it?

[Craven Mad]

Pokermatt, if you sign a player and add clauses to say we will pay x after every so many games, then you would have to settle that amount up. It is standard practice in these type of deals I am led ot believe. We agreed 12.4 paid 6 and now owe 6.4 base don appearances to a maximum of 12.4, surely no one would think you are allowed then to sell the player and make money that way, I think that would be almost illegal as you could sell him the next day without paying any additional.

In fact you could agree to buy a player for 12.4 million and say we will give you the .4 now and pay the rest in 12 equal monthly installments, if they agree to that you could then sell him in the next month for 12.4 and make a nice 12 million profit while the other club loses 12 million, surely that cant be right can it?

Are you sure you're correct? Conditional clauses tend to be just that - conditional.

I understand about your theory about buying for £6mil+addons, then sell for £12m - but the add ons are conditional on the assumption the player will reach that value but isn't yet, so it's unlikely another club would offer a full £12m upfront.

Non-conditional clauses, such as a buy-back or payment in installments, can be bought-out. An example of this was Gareth Bales contract with Tottenham; there was a non-conditional clause allowing Southampton a % of future sale amount (apparently quite a large %), that Spurs bought out for £2m. A big mistake by Southampton to sell.

My understanding is that appearances, goals, int. caps, etc, being conditional, tend not to need "paying off" if the player never reaches that total. But I'm no Sports Lawyer, so would happily concede if wrong!

[Admin]

We still owe Olymiakos another 6m for Kostapacket, have a feeling this is why Kasami is going the other way, maybe?

[westcliff white]

Pokermatt, if you sign a player and add clauses to say we will pay x after every so many games, then you would have to settle that amount up. It is standard practice in these type of deals I am led ot believe. We agreed 12.4 paid 6 and now owe 6.4 base don appearances to a maximum of 12.4, surely no one would think you are allowed then to sell the player and make money that way, I think that would be almost illegal as you could sell him the next day without paying any additional.

In fact you could agree to buy a player for 12.4 million and say we will give you the .4 now and pay the rest in 12 equal monthly installments, if they agree to that you could then sell him in the next month for 12.4 and make a nice 12 million profit while the other club loses 12 million, surely that cant be right can it?

Are you sure you're correct? Conditional clauses tend to be just that - conditional.

I understand about your theory about buying for £6mil+addons, then sell for £12m - but the add ons are conditional on the assumption the player will reach that value but isn't yet, so it's unlikely another club would offer a full £12m upfront.

Non-conditional clauses, such as a buy-back or payment in installments, can be bought-out. An example of this was Gareth Bales contract with Tottenham; there was a non-conditional clause allowing Southampton a % of future sale amount (apparently quite a large %), that Spurs bought out for £2m. A big mistake by Southampton to sell.

My understanding is that appearances, goals, int. caps, etc, being conditional, tend not to need "paying off" if the player never reaches that total. But I'm no Sports Lawyer, so would happily concede if wrong!

Like you craven I am no sports lawyer my understanding on most of what you say is the same but with appearances my understanding is the opposite, generally as i understand is that you insert that clause when ap layer is signing either injured or has injury history so you agree to pay a certain fee every set amount of games if selected in the final match day squad and therefor payment is due of the remained if you sell before the initial (and only the initial) contract term expires