That's why I said "maybe we have?" right at the end of that post you quoted.
Ander Herrera is a Manchester United Player!
- Thread starter pocco
- Start date
- Status
Bilbao obviously stated they'd reject to make it look like they've done all they can to keep him at the club. It's portrays to the fans that you want the player to stay and that you've no intention of selling. They can't escape a buy-out clause, once it's been paid then that's it, but they have to save face and show the fans that this wasn't their choice. It's basically deflecting the heat from the club to the player, plus as jojojo said before, it's all political. Bilbao president has to look good for future elections, if he's seen as letting his best players go, then that damages his image.
Because they want to tell the whole world that they were forced to sell Herrera. Politics. Appeasing the fans. Whatever you want to call it.
Again, you are making a lot of very good sense to me.
IINM, they're not trying to renege on the deal. They're simply trying to make United pay for it. But that is for the Spanish Federation to decide. I think.
That seems to be the case.
yes, i get that.
my point was if it so cut and dry we have got his contract terminated, he has been at carrigton why hasn't he signed?
It isn't like that in this case. For all transfer in Spain, the club that had trained player when he was a youngster (in this case Real Zaragosa) receive 4% of the fee.
My only guess would be we've taken him to Carrington to show him round and have now put him up nearby for him to wait until it is ready to actually sign the contract.
It lets everyone know they aren't a selling club. They reject bids because they don't sell their players. If other clubs want to sign their players they have to go down the legal contract breaching route.
You're probably right!
1. This is a new low, managing to have a bid matching release clause rejected.
2. Athletic can go
themselves.
2. Athletic can go
themselves.i get what your saying.
but if i was a bilbao fan and i read that i woud be thinking great thier a chance he staying, and then would be dam pi$$ed that i'd be giving that hope just for it to be dashed a few hours later
Not saying it would happen but if he is buying out his contract and becoming a free agent, is there a theoretical risk we could be gazumped in that period where he is clubless? Even though we gave or loaned him the money to buy out the contract, presumably he wouldnt have a legal obligation to sign for us?
This is the main reason our non interest in the available Cesc Fabregas just beggars belief. Fine if an alternative is already in the pipeline but this pipeline will prob break or lead to the land of "way over the odds"!
Incidentally, just on a side note Zaragosa are desperate for money. They owe their players money. They're trying to renegotiate their tax debt repayment terms. They've got possible new investors if they can get their debtors to agree to new deals.
The 1.4m may well go directly to the tax office from the LFP.
The 1.4m may well go directly to the tax office from the LFP.
It's a buyout clause, not a release clause. They don't control the clause. If we wish to activate it we must turn up with the money and relevant documents at the LFP HQ in Madrid.1. This is a new low, managing to have a bid matching release clause rejected.
2. Athletic can go
Presumably because there are steps that need to be taken before he can sign for United? E.g. Approval by the Spanish Federation, etc?
In Spain it is mandatory. In other leagues like the BPL, it is not.
Well depends really. When the player is not proven Bilbao may twist his hands with a higher release clause - Herrera, Llorente, Martinez. In our case the price is way to steep, hence the 1 year and so stall in the transfer.Calm down. It's not a 100% done deal, but it's not dead in the water yet. So far all the fuss is that Bilbao rejected an offer that matched the clause. It is likely United are now going through the buy out clause path. Just relax, grab some popcorn and wait and see.
To me it is simple. Both the player and the club agree a buy out clause. That tells you all you need to know already. Bilbao might not accept offers, but they agree buy out clauses with players and these players aren't foolish enough to put silly money clauses. So both sides are happy because both sides have their needs met.
But if for example there is an incredibly talented basque player in the ranks like Rooney or Ronaldo for example he'd need 1 or 2 years to shine at top level to propel his career. In that case and with this policy I don't think they have shot with him. He'd much rather go to Sociedad(of course if they want him) or outside Basque province...
yeah im sure thier all kind of legal stuff he would have to sign in order to stop a situation like that from arising.
That's their choice isn't it. There are lots of players out there but they chose to operate this way.
Buy-Out & Release Clauses in Football Contracts: The Basics
This is a brief blog on the issue of buy-out and release clauses in football player contracts. There appears to be some confusion between the two concepts and the aim of this blog is to set out the basics with the aid of a few recent examples. For more detail on this topic, I would highly recommend Ian Lynam’s excellent blog on this topic.
What is a release clause?
It is a clause in a player’s contract that, subject to qualifying conditions (i.e. a particular transfer window or non-participation in the Champions League), automatically requires a club to accept an offer of a pre-determined contractual amount expressly set out in the contract from the offering club. If the minimum amount stipulated in the contract is triggered by a the purchasing club, the player will be entitled to speak to that club.
Examples of release clauses
Only a few Premier League transfers have been reported to have included release clauses. This was the case with the Demba Ba transfer from Newcastle to Chelsea and Joe Allen from Swansea to Liverpool In the case of Allen, reports were that the bid could only trigger the release clause if it came from one of five clubs that included Liverpool.
What is the difference between buy-out and release clauses?
Buy-out clauses are prevalent in Spain and are somewhat different to a release clause. They are a mandatory element of most Spanish contracts and are usually set at a very high figure which is not necessarily the true market value of the player. The player has to literally ‘buy out’ his contract at the stipulated amount, though in practice, it is the purchasing club who pays the amount via the player. This can be a complicated process because of the practical tax logistics of a purchasing club transferring the ‘buy-out’ fee to the player who will in turn buy out his contract. We saw this with Manchester United’s reported failed bid with Anders Herrera and Javi Martinez’s successful transfer to Bayern Munich.
One such example of what the Court of Arbitration for Sport called a ‘buy-out clause’ but may be in fact closer to a ‘release clause’ became publically available in the case of Matuzalem (CAS 2008/A/1519) – at paragraph 70 which stated:
“The relevant part of clause 3.3 of the employment contract between Player and Shakhtar Donetsk reads as follows: “During the validity of the Contract, the Club undertakes – in the case the Club receives a transfer offer in amount of 25,000,000 EUR or exceeding the some [recte: sum] above the Club undertakes to arrange the transfer within the agreed period.”
What happened with Luis Suarez?
During the summer transfer window, the PFA reported that the contractual provision in Suarez’s contract with Liverpool was a ‘good faith’ release clause rather than an automatic release clause. The two are quite different. With an automatic release clause, player ‘y’ must be allowed to speak to purchasing club ‘x’ if the minimum release amount is offered. A ‘good faith’ clause means the parties are required to negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. Importantly, a good faith clause does not automatically trigger the selling club to accept the offer.
The PFA were reported to have been arbitrating between the player and the club, and explaining to the player the likelihood of the clause standing up to a robust legal examination. As such, it was considered by the PFA that the clause was not an automatic release clause.
Are release clauses meaningless?
I do not believe release clauses have ever been tested from a European law, restriction of trade perspective but they are included in contracts for a specific reason. If an automatic release amount is triggered, a club will be contractually bound to accept the amount offered.
If the club who has the player’s registration refuse to release him, then it is likely an arbitration process would follow between the two clubs to assess the validity of the release clause. In the case of a dispute between two Premier League clubs, if a Premier League tribunal viewed the contractual provision as an automatic release clause, the potential purchasing club would be allowed to speak to the player and proceed with the transfer. The only way there may be an issue with a release clause in the UK would be if the clause was so high that it was far beyond the market value of the player. A player may argue that the he would be restricted from moving to another club because the release fee was too extortionate.
Is there scope for release clauses in future?
There may well be instances where a player is willing to move down the football ladder to get more visibility and playing time in the short term, on the condition that a release clause is inserted into his contract, so that if he plays well a bigger club can then trigger the predetermined release clause.
This is a brief blog on the issue of buy-out and release clauses in football player contracts. There appears to be some confusion between the two concepts and the aim of this blog is to set out the basics with the aid of a few recent examples. For more detail on this topic, I would highly recommend Ian Lynam’s excellent blog on this topic.
What is a release clause?
It is a clause in a player’s contract that, subject to qualifying conditions (i.e. a particular transfer window or non-participation in the Champions League), automatically requires a club to accept an offer of a pre-determined contractual amount expressly set out in the contract from the offering club. If the minimum amount stipulated in the contract is triggered by a the purchasing club, the player will be entitled to speak to that club.
Examples of release clauses
Only a few Premier League transfers have been reported to have included release clauses. This was the case with the Demba Ba transfer from Newcastle to Chelsea and Joe Allen from Swansea to Liverpool In the case of Allen, reports were that the bid could only trigger the release clause if it came from one of five clubs that included Liverpool.
What is the difference between buy-out and release clauses?
Buy-out clauses are prevalent in Spain and are somewhat different to a release clause. They are a mandatory element of most Spanish contracts and are usually set at a very high figure which is not necessarily the true market value of the player. The player has to literally ‘buy out’ his contract at the stipulated amount, though in practice, it is the purchasing club who pays the amount via the player. This can be a complicated process because of the practical tax logistics of a purchasing club transferring the ‘buy-out’ fee to the player who will in turn buy out his contract. We saw this with Manchester United’s reported failed bid with Anders Herrera and Javi Martinez’s successful transfer to Bayern Munich.
One such example of what the Court of Arbitration for Sport called a ‘buy-out clause’ but may be in fact closer to a ‘release clause’ became publically available in the case of Matuzalem (CAS 2008/A/1519) – at paragraph 70 which stated:
“The relevant part of clause 3.3 of the employment contract between Player and Shakhtar Donetsk reads as follows: “During the validity of the Contract, the Club undertakes – in the case the Club receives a transfer offer in amount of 25,000,000 EUR or exceeding the some [recte: sum] above the Club undertakes to arrange the transfer within the agreed period.”
What happened with Luis Suarez?
During the summer transfer window, the PFA reported that the contractual provision in Suarez’s contract with Liverpool was a ‘good faith’ release clause rather than an automatic release clause. The two are quite different. With an automatic release clause, player ‘y’ must be allowed to speak to purchasing club ‘x’ if the minimum release amount is offered. A ‘good faith’ clause means the parties are required to negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. Importantly, a good faith clause does not automatically trigger the selling club to accept the offer.
The PFA were reported to have been arbitrating between the player and the club, and explaining to the player the likelihood of the clause standing up to a robust legal examination. As such, it was considered by the PFA that the clause was not an automatic release clause.
Are release clauses meaningless?
I do not believe release clauses have ever been tested from a European law, restriction of trade perspective but they are included in contracts for a specific reason. If an automatic release amount is triggered, a club will be contractually bound to accept the amount offered.
If the club who has the player’s registration refuse to release him, then it is likely an arbitration process would follow between the two clubs to assess the validity of the release clause. In the case of a dispute between two Premier League clubs, if a Premier League tribunal viewed the contractual provision as an automatic release clause, the potential purchasing club would be allowed to speak to the player and proceed with the transfer. The only way there may be an issue with a release clause in the UK would be if the clause was so high that it was far beyond the market value of the player. A player may argue that the he would be restricted from moving to another club because the release fee was too extortionate.
Is there scope for release clauses in future?
There may well be instances where a player is willing to move down the football ladder to get more visibility and playing time in the short term, on the condition that a release clause is inserted into his contract, so that if he plays well a bigger club can then trigger the predetermined release clause.
If we were Manchester City we probably would.
which is my point, if the deal hasn't been approved, so he is still a bilbao player, so shouln't be at our traing ground without thier permission
This. It'll be that Bilbao want 100% of the fee and not want to shell out to Zaragoza.
By making it public that they've not accepted a bid and that Ander has bought his contract out, they'll be hoping this gets them round having to pay it.
If we sold someone for that amount of money there would be some excitement about who we were going to buy. Bilbao fans must just be thinking, who the hell can we buy?
van Gaal obviously feels we need a player like Herrera more than a player like Fabregas, which is understandable.
This is too far gone for it not to happen. Herrera has had his medical, which suggests he has burnt his bridges at the club. A few technical hitches holding this back. Just a matter of time.
I'm not sure if I am correct here but he's planning on breaching his contract so it wouldn't really matter.
I dont even want to think about the carnage in the Woodward thread if that happened.
I didn't read until then.
Just speeded my way through it as I'm at work. Sorry.No it doesn't really. The news that the rejected bid matches the buy out clause already hints that United are willing to pay the buy out, which already tells the fans that there is no hope. So there really is no false hope being peddled here. Just clarifying that it was the player who forced the transfer. Not the club.
I doubt that. I'm sure everything would be covered by the lawyers with paperwork already. Failing that, no one in their right mind would pull off a stunt and hope to get away with it. FIFA sure as hell wouldn't either.
In all fairness, the Bilbao fans won't be stupid. They'll have read the papers and know what route United are taking.
This is all just a ploy by the club to show the fans that this wasn't their call. They didn't want to sell, they had no intentions of selling, but they can't stop the clause being used. If there was nothing from the club to give the impression they wanted to keep the player, then there would be a few eyebrows raised amongst the fans that the club weren't doing all they could to keep him at the club. I think both Athletic Bilbao and their fans know it's only a matter of time before Herrera becomes a Man United player, but they want the heat directed at Herrera and Manchester United, rather than their own club, so they're openly saying they rejected a bid of €36m, which is what his clause is valued that, effectively saying we, as a club, do not want to sell.
This is the point. Its a PR piece for their fans - they can point towards the clause and say "we couldnt do anything".
The fact is we are talking about 1.4m euros in add-on's to zaragoza....this aint an issue to get worried about.
This is pretty much spot on.
Where are the pictures and concrete proof he's had a medical? Smells fishy.
yes it is thier choice. and whether you agree with it or not dosn't change the fact that is how they operate.
so they are doing their best to make the most of it, and that means doing thier up most to hang on to their best players.
We were willing to overpay for him before the rejected bid, I see no reason why we won't go higher.
Hard to catch every word on this mile a minute crash course in buy out clauses.I didn't read until then.
Exactly, I don't want it to fall through for his sake. Bilbao have created so much bad feeling with their posturing it would be awful for him to have to go back there.
Are you for real? He's been in Manchester since approx. 2pm yesterday. All the local journos have confirmed that.
- Status