Outfox the Fox Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 I was at a (Journalism) Awards Ceremony last night and speaking to a colleague from the Portsmouth Evening News. We talked about Marko Futacs and his sale to City. I was intrigued to learn that Pompey put in a number of financial 'add on' clauses in the contract - one of which, was that City would have to pay a, "significant sum" (he thought about £500k) when Futacs made his first FULL APPEARANCE for CIty - ie started a game. I always thought it very strange that Futacs is/was never picked to start a match - this perhaps makes it clear. Presumably NP doesn't really rate him and doesn't want/need to pay a large sum for that opportunity. My colleague has also heard that City are now contacting League clubs, to say they would consider his Loan/Sale in the January window. Not a surprise I guess?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfanazer Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 This would make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwan is a Welshman Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Interesting. Odd clause to agree to though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Year Of The Fox Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Interesting. Odd clause to agree to though. Especially on a first appearance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tielemans63 Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Weird clause. Would make sense of his non-appearances though. Got to feel a bit sorry for the player as it seems we've wasted his time by bringing him here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 If that's true, why on earth did we sign him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiv Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 That's obviously not true seeing as we signed him on a free transfer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hankey Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 The fact is Pearson got his tactics wrong against Cardiff as he should have brought Futacs on as we were crying out for some height up front and he could well have gotten an equaliser or even a winner for us given the amount of possession we had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetintedspecs Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Strange clause but it all seems to fit with that information! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 The fact is Pearson got his tactics wrong against Cardiff as he should have brought Futacs on as we were crying out for some height up front and he could well have gotten an equaliser or even a winner for us given the amount of possession we had. Anyone "could have" nobody can know what" would have" so it's a pointless argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5waller5 Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Seems a very odd clause .... was he injured when we signed him?? That seems to be the only logical explanation for a clause like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenfox Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 As far as I'm aware he was a free agent so Portsmouth would have no day whatsoever in any clauses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwan is a Welshman Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 That's obviously not true seeing as we signed him on a free transfer... This is a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelcfc Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 I thought he was still contracted by Pompey, but because of their financial situation we agreed to pay a nom. fee, to take him off their books, which would mean their could be that clause. (I may be wrong though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnup Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 It's horse shit. I do feel bad for the lad though, he's capable from what I've seen and hope he gets a move and a chance for someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiv Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 I thought he was still contracted by Pompey, but because of their financial situation we agreed to pay a nom. fee, to take him off their books, which would mean their could be that clause. He was out of contract I think, but as he's under the age of 24 we probably still had to pay some form of compensation. Still highly unlikely there are any clauses with Pompey. Edit: Just had a look on wiki and it says he was only on a one year contract at Pompey. He had the option to extend but chose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tielemans63 Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 I thought he was still contracted by Pompey, but because of their financial situation we agreed to pay a nom. fee, to take him off their books, which would mean their could be that clause. That's what I thought was the case too. He was 'free to go' as it were because of a clause in his contract but it didn't make him a free agent as he was still under contract?* *Just seen Shiv's post. Fee can't be that much can it? No more than £250k surely? NP must think he's absolutely gash if he's not prepared to pay that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5waller5 Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Maybe he was "free" to go with some clauses in case he came good. The fact there was no initial fee has no bearing on the likelihood of any clauses being added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filbert_Ross Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 http://m.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/story.html?aid=16535627 Reading all that I can't see it being true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelcfc Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Another thought, while i don't think it would be anywhere near 500k, it is possible that the 'clause' is one in his contract, as opposed to being from Pompey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolhandfox Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyleolly Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Is there such a paper as the "Portsmouth evening news?" Always thought it was called "the news" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Never belive what you read in the papers or hear from the people that write the stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfcsnow Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Ten appearances would be more realistic, as he hasn't done anything to warrent a start yet but would explain his lack of sub appearances even when he did ok in the previous game. I guess we'll find out today as he's made 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmo1987 Posted 29 December 2012 Share Posted 29 December 2012 Didnt he start against burton in the cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.