Gustavo Puerta reportedly agrees to Nottingham Forest move and one-season Olympiacos loan

Gustavo Puerta of Colombia looks on prior to the international friendly match between Jordan and Colombia at Snapdragon Stadium on June 07, 2026 in San Diego, California. (Photo by Mike Nowak/Getty Images)

For several days, Gustavo Puerta has looked like the perfect example of Olympiacos running into the limits of the Greek transfer market. They found the player. They were prepared to spend. They met the financial threshold and the player still preferred Benfica.

That should have been the end of it. Instead, Evangelos Marinakis appears to have changed the question.

Not: “Will you sign for Olympiacos?”

But: “Will you sign for Nottingham Forest and spend one season at Olympiacos?”

That distinction may have changed everything. Pipe Sierra now reports that the answer is yes. A verbal agreement has reportedly been reached for Puerta to become a Nottingham Forest player and then move immediately to Piraeus on loan.

This is the first report that changes the player’s status, not merely the clubs’ intentions

The previous Forest story was strategically interesting but still speculative. Marinakis wanted Puerta. Forest could provide the purchase vehicle. Olympiacos could provide the minutes. The player still had to agree. That was the biggest obstacle from the beginning.

Today’s report claims that obstacle has now been cleared. That is why this update matters. Sierra does not simply say discussions continue. He describes a verbal agreement. If accurate, the Puerta saga has moved from persuasion to execution.

The Forest route solves the exact problem Marinakis publicly identified

Marinakis himself previously explained that Olympiacos were willing to pay the €1m clause but Puerta wanted Benfica. That was unusually revealing. Olympiacos could compete financially. They could not compete with the player's perception of his career path. The Forest solution attacks that problem directly. Puerta would not be making a long-term commitment to the Greek league.

He would be becoming the asset of a Premier League club. His year at Olympiacos would then function as:

European exposure,

regular senior minutes,

adaptation to a new team,

and preparation for a potential Premier League future.

From the player’s perspective, that is a much easier career narrative to accept.

This is what multi-club ownership looks like when used aggressively

There has been plenty of theoretical discussion about cooperation between Nottingham Forest, Olympiacos and the wider Marinakis football structure. Puerta would be one of the clearest practical examples.

Forest gets a valuable 23-year-old Colombian midfielder. Olympiacos gets immediate access to a player it could not convince to sign directly. Puerta gets Europa League football and a Premier League contract. All three interests can be aligned.

That does not automatically mean the arrangement is optimal for Olympiacos. But it demonstrates the strategic leverage of controlling more than one club in different markets.

Olympiacos gain the footballer but lose the resale upside

That is the trade-off. If Olympiacos had completed their original direct purchase, they would own Puerta.

An excellent season in Greece and the Europa League could significantly increase his market value. Under the reported Forest arrangement, that economic upside belongs primarily to Forest.

Olympiacos receive the sporting benefit. Forest receives the asset appreciation. From an Olympiacos-only balance-sheet perspective, that is less attractive. But if the alternative was not having Puerta at all, the calculation changes.

Mendilibar needs midfield quality now. The club appears willing to sacrifice direct ownership in order to acquire that quality.

And Puerta's profile fits what this team needs

Olympiacos’ midfield already contains players capable of competing physically and pressing aggressively.

Puerta adds another layer. He can carry possession forward. He can survive contact. He can receive under pressure.

He has the athletic range to participate in Mendilibar’s transition-heavy football. And at 23, he should still have considerable development ahead of him. That combination explains why Olympiacos were prepared to reach the €16m level in the first place. This was never a casual target. He appears to have been the priority.

Benfica remain the uncomfortable loose end

Until contracts are signed, Benfica cannot simply be erased from the story. Portuguese reporting previously described Puerta as having reached a personal agreement with Benfica, with the move partially dependent on space being created in their midfield.

If Sierra’s new report is correct, Marinakis has succeeded in changing the player's decision before Benfica completed the deal. That would be a notable recruitment reversal. But verbal agreements are not registrations.

The final documents matter.

The Olympiacos denial is still part of the story

There is also no responsible way to ignore what happened overnight. Olympiacos briefed Greek media that the Puerta reports did not correspond to reality. Now, only hours later, Sierra is reporting a verbal agreement. Several possibilities exist. The negotiations may have accelerated after the denial. The denial may have referred narrowly to the absence of an agreement at that particular moment.

Or one side's information may simply be wrong. We do not yet know. What we do know is that the new report is specific enough that it will be resolved very quickly. A medical. A Forest contract. A Racing Santander announcement. An Olympiacos loan confirmation. Any one of those would transform the story.

If this completes, Olympiacos have won the player without winning the original negotiation

That may be the most interesting part of all. Olympiacos failed to convince Puerta to sign directly. Instead of abandoning the player, Marinakis apparently redesigned the transaction. That is not traditional transfer-market persistence.

It is structural leverage and the advantage of a football group. If Puerta ultimately arrives in Piraeus wearing red and white, Olympiacos will have found a way around the very limitation Marinakis publicly complained about only days earlier. The difference is instead of a long term investment Olympiacos now have a stop-gap in the midfield that they will again have to solve next summer. Unfortunately, at this time in the transfer window and following a lost title(with 1 title in 4 years, unacceptable by Olympiacos standards) there cannot be nitpicking with quality this season. The club must get it however it can and focus on winning the league and securing Champions League football next summer.