Jump to content
IGNORED

Something smells


cheese

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, cheese said:

Evangelos Marinakis owns Forest and Olympiakos.

Forest wanted to sign Tachtsidis from Olympiakos.

Window closed before the deal was done.

Olympiakos terminates Tachtsidis' contract.

Forest sign Tachtsidis as a free agent.

Perfectly legal too. Maybe some new rules will be put in place to stop such shenanigans in the future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

Looking at the table. And I know it’s early. But doesn’t it feel good to look down on teams. Like villa and forest who’s fans think they should be in the premiership because of their past .And clubs like us are so inferior . Hope they both stay down .

Villa are the sorest losers aswell judging by all the social media posts on twitter and fb 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cheese said:

Evangelos Marinakis owns Forest and Olympiakos.

Forest wanted to sign Tachtsidis from Olympiakos.

Window closed before the deal was done.

Olympiakos terminates Tachtsidis' contract.

Forest sign Tachtsidis as a free agent.

The big question for the FA/EFL is when was Tachtsidis’s contract terminated.  If before 1st Sept, they’ve done nothing wrong in terms of the rules.  If after then he shouldn’t be allowed to be registered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
4 hours ago, Sturny said:

Villa are the sorest losers aswell judging by all the social media posts on twitter and fb 

Look at any Joe Bryan social media post, whatever the platform and you find salty jilted Villans in the replies, still ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love what's happening in the Championship at the moment. Unfortunately for Boro, Forest, Villa and Derby who have all spent big, at least one of them is going to miss out on getting promotion. The financial mess left behind for the one(s) that fail could be felt for many years afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
42 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

Really? Are they truly that bitter?

You have to see it from their point of view. Villa really are the greatest team the world has ever seen. That Joe was afforded the opportunity of playing for them, yet turned them down is completely at odds with their world view. This makes him more evil than ISIS. I laugh any time they lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ian M said:

You have to see it from their point of view. Villa really are the greatest team the world has ever seen. That Joe was afforded the opportunity of playing for them, yet turned them down is completely at odds with their world view. This makes him more evil than ISIS. I laugh any time they lose.

I am suprised they haven't drawn Hitler moustaches on pictures of him yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, it's quite common for clubs to terminate the contract of a player so they can move away.

Essentially, if a player signs for three years, and they are bought by another club after one, the player is still entitled to two years of payment from the first club. Clubs will usually say as part of a transfer "we'll sell you for x, but only if you accept this as a one-off payment instead of the remainder of your contract".

Some clubs will want to offload players, but a deal cannot be stuck in time between the player and the two clubs. Once the deadline is done, if the first team wants to get rid they'll get the second team to announce if the player agrees to a full termination of their contract (i.e. no payment whatsoever) so that player can sign for their new club.

Allegedly, a number of the deals you hear about a few hours after the deadline are a result of this. The paperwork for both options is drafted, and if a deal cannot be agreed in time then they switch from a direct transfer and payment to a termination. Since the paperwork is already done, it's a matter of a few calls, and within five minutes a player is out of contract, in contract with a new club, and is on their website/social media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

Apparently, it's quite common for clubs to terminate the contract of a player so they can move away.

Essentially, if a player signs for three years, and they are bought by another club after one, the player is still entitled to two years of payment from the first club. Clubs will usually say as part of a transfer "we'll sell you for x, but only if you accept this as a one-off payment instead of the remainder of your contract".

Some clubs will want to offload players, but a deal cannot be stuck in time between the player and the two clubs. Once the deadline is done, if the first team wants to get rid they'll get the second team to announce if the player agrees to a full termination of their contract (i.e. no payment whatsoever) so that player can sign for their new club.

Allegedly, a number of the deals you hear about a few hours after the deadline are a result of this. The paperwork for both options is drafted, and if a deal cannot be agreed in time then they switch from a direct transfer and payment to a termination. Since the paperwork is already done, it's a matter of a few calls, and within five minutes a player is out of contract, in contract with a new club, and is on their website/social media.

Get that, but the fact they are owned by the same person is a massive, massive conflict of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Get that, but the fact they are owned by the same person is a massive, massive conflict of interest.

Absolutely, although I can't see what legal avenue FIFA or UEFA could take to stop one person from owning two clubs that (in theory) aren't competitors. It's not all that different from Man City owning New York City FC, and using it to give academy products a quick visa into America and game time in a competitive league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EnderMB said:

Apparently, it's quite common for clubs to terminate the contract of a player so they can move away.

Essentially, if a player signs for three years, and they are bought by another club after one, the player is still entitled to two years of payment from the first club. Clubs will usually say as part of a transfer "we'll sell you for x, but only if you accept this as a one-off payment instead of the remainder of your contract".

Some clubs will want to offload players, but a deal cannot be stuck in time between the player and the two clubs. Once the deadline is done, if the first team wants to get rid they'll get the second team to announce if the player agrees to a full termination of their contract (i.e. no payment whatsoever) so that player can sign for their new club.

Allegedly, a number of the deals you hear about a few hours after the deadline are a result of this. The paperwork for both options is drafted, and if a deal cannot be agreed in time then they switch from a direct transfer and payment to a termination. Since the paperwork is already done, it's a matter of a few calls, and within five minutes a player is out of contract, in contract with a new club, and is on their website/social media.

What we don’t know is when the Olympiakos player was out of contract. 

Surely you can’t back date it?

I believe this is a different scenario to a transfer / Loan agreed before deadline but personal terms agreed afterwards...which is within the rules. A player must be under contract in this scenario and therefore registration still with the club. 

Has there been any more news / stuff re this deal and it’s validity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...