Mitroglou back to Olympiakos

[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!

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

Fair enough. I'm happy to put my hands up and say I don't know!  093.gif

Thanks for the clarification.

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

I hadn't thought if it like that, but could make sense.

Unfortunately, at this point, it would seem Olympiakos are getting the better end of the deal (£6m+ and Kasami for a crocked 26 year old..).

[westcliff white]

CM i am not sure I am right just saying how I understand it. The whole thing with contracts is very complicated, and with this Mitro deal seems even more so.

[Mitroglol]

Glimpse of his old self yesterday against Nigeria.
Huh, apparently can't link to specific time, go to 4:23.

Ελλάδα - Νιγηρία 0-0 Greece vs Nigeria HD {4/6/2014}

[PokerMatt]

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

Fair enough. I'm happy to put my hands up and say I don't know!  093.gif

Thanks for the clarification.

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

I hadn't thought if it like that, but could make sense.

Unfortunately, at this point, it would seem Olympiakos are getting the better end of the deal (£6m+ and Kasami for a crocked 26 year old..).

My problem with all this, then, is why bother with conditions if you'll always end up paying the full amount?

Surely such deals are negotiated with the buying club not committing as much just in case a player isn't good enough or doesn't play enough?

If we owe them another £6m regardless, we might as well have just agreed to pay them in yearly instalments or whatever as that amounts to the same thing.

[westcliff white]

PM your right to a degree, but if you put in yearly or monthly installments you have to pay whether he is fit or not, in our case we opted to insure we only paid when he was fit enough for the match day squad, quite sensible as we would never have to pay the 12.4 million so to speak, he was always bound to miss a game through a niggle or two. Just the way it is I am afraid.

On the upside if he stays and plays he could be lethal in the Championship, and if he leaves we should not lose to much, if anything at all, if he has a decent world cup. If he has a poor world cup would anyone want him anyway

[Neil D]

Re. the video clip: Fetfatzidis looked much better.

[Logicalman]

PM, Westcliffs description does bear out if you think about it. If a player's worth is placed at 12.4 M and you agree to pay 50% up front and the rest in installments, whatever the conditions placed on those installments, then matter not whether the player stays or is sold, you still owe that money to the originating club. I would wonder, however, whether the installment clause also included a termination date, e.g., all installments are provided a due date for final payment, or upon sale.

As mentioned above, I am in the same (not a sports contract lawyer) state as the rest of us here so its always going to be supposition without either club releasing actual contract agreement & clause details.

[PokerMatt]

PM, Westcliffs description does bear out if you think about it. If a player's worth is placed at 12.4 M and you agree to pay 50% up front and the rest in installments, whatever the conditions placed on those installments, then matter not whether the player stays or is sold, you still owe that money to the originating club. I would wonder, however, whether the installment clause also included a termination date, e.g., all installments are provided a due date for final payment, or upon sale.

As mentioned above, I am in the same (not a sports contract lawyer) state as the rest of us here so its always going to be supposition without either club releasing actual contract agreement & clause details.

I do see where Westcliff is coming from and have no reason to doubt what is said. My issue is that why are there even conditions? I assumed the appearances clause would be a buffer in case he hardly plays, which would alleviate some of the hefty fee should the worst happen.

I've always read such clauses as "rising to 12.4m, depending on appearances" and not "you're playing flipping £12.4 however you sugar coat it".

Guess what I'm trying to say is why make such stipulations at all if at the end of the day you pay the same regardless of his performances. If it was just to stagger the payment, then just do a monthly or yearly thing.

[westcliff white]

Logicalman, usually on straight installments (i.e. 50% upfront then monthly either over length of contract or an earlier date which is agreed upon) you would have a termination date where the remainder has to be paid (agreed date usually) by and then if you sell early you pay the remainder so to speak.

PM The clause for installments on games is to protect us so we do not have to pay the full 12.4 million over the length of his contract if he stays with us, if we sell him then Olympiakos have the right to the full 12.4 million as we have not let him see out that initial contract.

All very convoluted and as i said earlier needlessly complicated.

[FFC1987]

PM, Westcliffs description does bear out if you think about it. If a player's worth is placed at 12.4 M and you agree to pay 50% up front and the rest in installments, whatever the conditions placed on those installments, then matter not whether the player stays or is sold, you still owe that money to the originating club. I would wonder, however, whether the installment clause also included a termination date, e.g., all installments are provided a due date for final payment, or upon sale.

As mentioned above, I am in the same (not a sports contract lawyer) state as the rest of us here so its always going to be supposition without either club releasing actual contract agreement & clause details.

Unless I'm misreading this, I don't think thats correct. By stating paying in installments, it makes it seem that the additionals which are only paid if terms are met, would be owed regardless. IE if the conditional parts of the contract aren't fulfilled it would need to be paid. So if you sell the player and they haven't met certain criteria, you owe the full amount. In normal business contracts this wouldnt be the case, you'd usually refer to another clause of the contract if such an occurance were to arise. If there isn't one, its not owed. The criteria weren't met.

Like most business contracts with criteria, I imagine the outcome would be a further clause that identifies further payments based on transfer amounts being paid as a percentage. Having not seen the contract I don't know but if Fulham signed a contract that specified if we sold when/if relegated we owed the full contents of the criteria, the initial fee and further buy on clauses then other people at Fulham deserve the sack because quite frankly, thats absurd.

[JBH]

Apparently he has a relegation clause in the contract and the selling club have first refusual to buy him back for the down payment we paid to them and then the rest of the money owed is null and void

[cmg]

Apparently he has a relegation clause in the contract and the selling club have first refusual to buy him back for the down payment we paid to them and then the rest of the money owed is null and void

Hey! Fantastic! That makes perfect sense to me. (So it must be wrong!)

We pay a 'deposit'. If he scores a truckload of goals and we stay up, we gladly stump up the full whack and everyone lives happily ever after. In the event he doesn't and we don't. So he goes back to Greece and we get our money back. Sounds like a smart deal - at least for us - as long as Olympiakos want him back! We might have regrets if he turns out to be brilliant after all, but at least we've still got the £12m to squander invest elsewhere.

What have I got wrong?

[Logicalman]

Apparently he has a relegation clause in the contract and the selling club have first refusual to buy him back for the down payment we paid to them and then the rest of the money owed is null and void

Hey! Fantastic! That makes perfect sense to me. (So it must be wrong!)

We pay a 'deposit'. If he scores a truckload of goals and we stay up, we gladly stump up the full whack and everyone lives happily ever after. In the event he doesn't and we don't. So he goes back to Greece and we get our money back. Sounds like a smart deal - at least for us - as long as Olympiakos want him back! We might have regrets if he turns out to be brilliant after all, but at least we've still got the £12m to squander invest elsewhere.

What have I got wrong?

You're forgetting this was a Fulham deal - it cannot be that good for us!!

[Logicalman]

Logicalman, usually on straight installments (i.e. 50% upfront then monthly either over length of contract or an earlier date which is agreed upon) you would have a termination date where the remainder has to be paid (agreed date usually) by and then if you sell early you pay the remainder so to speak.

PM The clause for installments on games is to protect us so we do not have to pay the full 12.4 million over the length of his contract if he stays with us, if we sell him then Olympiakos have the right to the full 12.4 million as we have not let him see out that initial contract.

All very convoluted and as i said earlier needlessly complicated.

Sorry, I know I'm being dense here (shut up you lot in the cheap seats agreeing with me!!), but when you say it protects us to NOT have to pay the full 12.4M if he stays with us, then the installments must be never ending, notwithstanding however many games he plays. Is that not round the wrong way?

As I said, bear with me, I'm obviously not getting the pointy end of the stick with this.

[westcliff white]

logicalman - the idea is that over the initial period of the contract we pay a set fee every x amount games he makes the match day squad (i.e. is fit enough to play), up to a maximum total of 6.4 million. Therefore if he was only in the match day squad for half of the available games we would only pay 3.2 million or that's how i understand it.

I can see everyones confusion, took me a wile when it was explained to me, could not see why a selling club would agree to it personally.

[Logicalman]

I see, so if he stays with us and is picked for the requisite number of matches, say 13, then we would pay for example half a mill a match, so after 13 matches he is fully paid for.

If we sell him prior to fulfilling the requisite match count then we are in the bucket for the full 12.4, unless it is back to whence he arrived from.

That actually makes good business sense, as the selling club can ask a lot more money that any club is willing to stump up front, and guaranteed all payments due, and the buying club can spread the cost of purchase out over a period of time. They call it rent-to-buy over here I believe.