Contractual playing-time clauses (ex: Thiago)

ciderman9000000

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
29,640
Location
The General
What do you lot make of it? There's somebody in the Thiago thread calling the club stupid if they've let Thiago go by refusing such a clause, but I'm don't think the issue is as black and white as that.

Personally I think clauses such as Thiago's with Barcelona can only lead to a decline in authority for the managers as chairmen and club owners put pressure on the coaches to meet whatever requirement would be needed to secure future sell-on value. Players shouldn't be allowed to dictate their way into a club's first team through the wording of a contact upon being transferred; such clauses should they become commonplace would represent a pretty drastic change in how teams are selected and how players are bought and sold in future.

If Manchester United has decided to refuse the offering our such clauses then I for one support that decision.
 
No brainer to give him the clause if he wanted it. We're desperate for a player of his quality, give him whatever the feck he wants. But it's 99% looking like he rejected us for Bayern anyway, so we just have to suck it up.
 
shaggy said:
No brainer to give him the clause if he wanted it. We're desperate for a player of his quality, give him whatever the feck he wants. But it's 99% looking like he rejected us for Bayern anyway, so we just have to suck it up.
Click to expand...

These clauses are no brainers? Really?

I think you're underestimating the impact this might have and you're just making a typical muppet snap decision.
 
I think it's a little ridiculous for him to have it in the Barcelona contract, but it wouldn't really matter if he had it here. Thiago would walk into our first team and there wouldn't be any problem in him getting his minutes, and if he didn't, then he'd be considered a flop probably and we'd do we'll to get €20 million for him IMO. I agree that they can become a big problem if too many players start using it.
 
I totally agree with you. Footballers should be picked on form, not because of a clause in their contracts.
 
I don't think these deals are ever as straight forward as they're reported to be. I think maybe the general framework of ''play X% or leave for £X" but there's no way there won't be exclusions, caveats and all the rest of it attached.

In principle I'd be against the idea at most clubs as the pressure would be exerted on the manager to play whomever necessitated the big investment in order to get value/return from it. At United I think maybe it could work as I don't think the owners would exert that kind of pressure on the manager.
 
What if the clause requested was 10 million, what if it was 5? What if percentage was higher than 60%, what if it was calculated based on all games, not just the ones he was eligible for?

Let's ignore all these ifs though, and go straight for the melodramatic conclusion that the club is being stupid over it.
 
It all depends how important we think that the player will be for us. If Thiago is the best possible signing we can make that will improve our midfield, and he'll cost as low as 18m then I think that it is ridiculous to not accept a similar clause to that he has at Barca.

- Best case scenario: Thiago plays the amount of available minutes (60% if it is similar to Barca's clause) and the clause becomes void.
- Worst case scenario: Thiago doesn't play those minutes, and he decides to leave for an amount of 18-20m (if it is similar to Barca's clause). We get the money we paid for a player who wasn't a starter for us.

Of course it isn't ideal, but if we believe that the player is that good that he'll improve us then not accepting such a clause does more harm than good.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
These clauses are no brainers? Really?

I think you're underestimating the impact this might have and you're just making a typical muppet snap decision.
Click to expand...


It's a no brainer to give a potentially world class midfielder a contract he is happy with. If that is a minimum game clause then so be it. Whose his competition? It would be different if we were buying a striker for instance, as we are stocked there, but we've well gone past dictating things on our terms when it comes to midfielders. We are desperate.
 
bosnian_red said:
I think it's a little ridiculous for him to have it in the Barcelona contract, but it wouldn't really matter if he had it here. Thiago would walk into our first team and there wouldn't be any problem in him getting his minutes, and if he didn't, then he'd be considered a flop probably and we'd do we'll to get €20 million for him IMO. I agree that they can become a big problem if too many players start using it.
Click to expand...

He's very young though and totally untested in the Premier League. What if Moyes wanted to ease him into the side for the first twelve months? That wouldn't be an option, yet that should be an option for a manager; managers should be able to pick their own teams.

Obviously if Thiago gets such a clause then every player is gonna want one in future. Don't you perceive that as a potential issue in regards to managers' team selections vs chairmens' wallets?
 
If a clause says that you release a player, at an agreed price, that would allow the player to move then I see no harm in it.

Let's say benchwarming Nani had a release clause of 25m? A couple of £m more than we paid, and indexed linked, or rising if he became an international, or including an allowance for games in the previous year, or for injuries, or whatever clauses we agreed.
Or benchwarming Anderson?
Or benchwarming anybody?

It's a matter of valuations, conditions and confidence, not a matter of principle.

The last "benchwarmer" we had who went for over 20m was RvN, who was our top scorer at the time.
 
shaggy said:
It's a no brainer to give a potentially world class midfielder a contract he is happy with. If that is a minimum game clause then so be it. Whose his competition? It would be different if we were buying a striker for instance, as we are stocked there, but we've well gone past dictating things on our terms when it comes to midfielders. We are desperate.
Click to expand...

It's not a no brainer, you've just not thought it through.
 
It's a scary precedence, but I don't see how it's problematic in this one instance.

If he's good enough, then he'll play every game he's fit for. If he's not, then there's no issue with moving him on. At Barca it was an issue because he wasn't likely to get in the first XI ahead of their wealth of central midfield talent, which wouldn't be the case at United.
 
Revan said:
It all depends how important we think that the player will be for us. If Thiago is the best possible signing we can make that will improve our midfield, and he'll cost as low as 18m then I think that it is ridiculous to not accept a similar clause to that he has at Barca.

- Best case scenario: Thiago plays the amount of available minutes (60% if it is similar to Barca's clause) and the clause becomes void.
- Worst case scenario: Thiago doesn't play those minutes, and he decides to leave for an amount of 18-20m (if it is similar to Barca's clause). We get the money we paid for a player who wasn't a starter for us.

Of course it isn't ideal, but if we believe that the player is that good that he'll improve us then not accepting such a clause does more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Try and think past Thiago though; this thread isn't really about Thiago but the clauses in principle.

What happens when everybody else demands a similar clause? That's what I find concerning. If it was only ever gonna be Thiago with such a clause then I'd say fine, accept it, but we all know that wouldn't be the case. For a club to set precedent by accepting such as clause is anything but a no brainer.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
He's very young though and totally untested in the Premier League. What if Moyes wanted to ease him into the side for the first twelve months? That wouldn't be an option, yet that should be an option for a manager; managers should be able to pick their own teams.

Obviously if Thiago gets such a clause then every player is gonna want one in future. Don't you perceive that as a potential issue in regards to managers' team selections vs chairmens: wallets?
Click to expand...

How do you come to that assumption? If we were well stocked in midfield the club might feel that such a clause is therefore not something we'd want to get into. We are in no position to be turning away players like Thiago based on a minimum game clause. I agree with the poster who said it would be total stupidity.
 
shaggy said:
How do you come to that assumption? If we were well stocked in midfield the club might feel that such a clause is therefore not something we'd want to get into. We are in no position to be turning away players like Thiago based on a minimum game clause. I agree with the poster who said it would be total stupidity.
Click to expand...

We're a desperate club are we? Nevermind principles, we're in no position to be turning away megastars such as Thiago Alcantara?

Does that sound like Manchester United to you?
 
snootyjim said:
It's a scary precedence, but I don't see how it's problematic in this one instance.

If he's good enough, then he'll play every game he's fit for. If he's not, then there's no issue with moving him on. At Barca it was an issue because he wasn't likely to get in the first XI ahead of their wealth of central midfield talent, which wouldn't be the case at United.
Click to expand...

Again, this thread isn't about Thiago but about setting a precedent which would give the term 'player power' a whole new meaning.

Try to think beyond Thiago Alcantara, if that's at all possible on the forum anymore.
 
It should simply be on a case to case basis. I dont know why Thiago would want such a clause after having known our midfield options but if he did, I'd have given him the clause. Similar would be the case for say a Ronaldo. Because these are players that would come in and take us to a different level considering the options we have in those positions. But I wouldnt give a similar clause to any player that asks for it. It should be for the very top level of players in positions you need to improve in.

It does set a dangerous precedence but if you only give it to the top players, I dont see a problem. I dont think a Fellaini would be dumb enough to ask for a similar clause if offered a contract. If they do, you tell them to feck off.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Try and think past Thiago though; this thread isn't really about Thiago but the clauses in principle.

What happens when everybody else demands a similar clause? That's what I find concerning. If it was only ever gonna be Thiago with such a clause then I'd say fine, accept it, but we all know that wouldn't be the case. For a club to set precedent by accepting such as clause is anything but a no brainer.
Click to expand...

I said that it isn't ideal but if we think that the player will greatly improve us, then we should have allowed a similar clause to that of Barca. Of course a clause that will say that he has to play 90% of available minutes shouldn't be allowed and I doubt that anyone would have asked for that or for a clause that allows Thiago to leave for less than what we paid for him.

If Zaha would have asked for a similar clause, then I think that we shouldn't have allowed tat, because I doubt that we expect that he'll improve us as much as one of the best young midfielders on the world. It all comes to how good the player in question is, and how important we think he'll be for us. If club doesn't rate him that much than fine. but if the club really thinks that he will greatly improve us but don't accept the clause because of the principles then I think it is wrong.
 
Picture the scene:

It's towards the end of the season and a young new signing has nearly met his contractual quota of games. He goes out on the piss though and misses a couple of training sessions. The manager wants to drop him as punishment, but doing so will mean he can leave the club for half his actual value.

It's hardly a no-brainer situation.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Picture the scene:

It's towards the end of the season and a young new signing has nearly met his contractual quota of games. He goes out on the piss though and misses a couple of training sessions. The manager wants to drop him as punishment, but doing so will mean he can leave the club for half his actual value.

It's hardly a no-brainer situation.
Click to expand...


Which is why you dont offer such a clause to any young player that asks for it. You tell them to feck off.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Picture the scene:

It's towards the end of the season and a young new signing has nearly met his contractual quota of games. He goes out on the piss though and misses a couple of training sessions. The manager wants to drop him as punishment, but doing so will mean he can leave the club for half his actual value.

It's hardly a no-brainer situation.
Click to expand...


What's the actual value of a player who isn't playing enough games and goes out on the piss?

Put the correct numbers in the contract and it won't matter.
 
Revan said:
If Zaha would have asked for a similar clause, then I think that we shouldn't have allowed tat, because I doubt that we expect that he'll improve us as much as one of the best young midfielders on the world. It all comes to how good the player in question is, and how important we think he'll be for us. If club doesn't rate him that much than fine. but if the club really thinks that he will greatly improve us but don't accept the clause because of the principles then I think it is wrong.
Click to expand...

And if Zaha had said: If I'm not in the team in two years time and I'm unhappy and don't want another chance to make it at United, then I want to be able to leave for 20m.

Why would we want to force him to stay? It's a matter of numbers, not of principle. You can talk about market values, but what sets them? Do we have any bidding wars underway for our benchwarmers?
 
jojojo said:
What's the actual value of a player who isn't playing enough games and goes out on the piss?

Put the correct numbers in the contract and it won't matter.
Click to expand...

Here's what the manager thinks: though I'm confident it's just a blip and this kid has genuine quality, the player needs dropping nevertheless to teach him a lesson.

Here's what the chairman thinks: there's no way he's getting dropped, he's worth at least £30m, I'm not letting him go for £15m!

A no-brainer situation?

This is but one example of the kind of conflict any club which accepts such contracts might come to expect. Is this something United should enter into lightly because simply because OMG IT'S SUPERSTAR THIAGO ALCANTARA COCKS OUT!
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Here's what the manager thinks: though I'm confident it's just a blip and this kid has genuine quality, the player needs dropping nevertheless to teach him a lesson.

Here's what the chairman thinks: there's no way he's getting dropped, he's worth at least £30m, I'm not letting him go for £15m!

A no-brainer situation?

This is but one example of the kind of conflict any club which accepts such contracts might come to expect. Is this something United should enter into lightly because simply because OMG IT'S SUPERSTAR THIAGO ALCANTARA COCKS OUT!
Click to expand...


I'd ask the chairman why he put a 15m clause in the contract of a player he believes is worth 30m
 
Depends on the clause. If say, the clause is about playing, say, at least 28 games or he can buy himself out the contract or move on for an agreed amount, then I don't have a problem with it. It's his career after all.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
What do you lot make of it? There's somebody in the Thiago thread calling the club stupid if they've let Thiago go by refusing such a clause, but I'm don't think the issue is as black and white as that.

Personally I think clauses such as Thiago's with Barcelona can only lead to a decline in authority for the managers as chairmen and club owners put pressure on the coaches to meet whatever requirement would be needed to secure future sell-on value. Players shouldn't be allowed to dictate their way into a club's first team through the wording of a contact upon being transferred; such clauses should they become commonplace would represent a pretty drastic change in how teams are selected and how players are bought and sold in future.

If Manchester United has decided to refuse the offering our such clauses then I for one support that decision.
Click to expand...

It's the pinnacle of player power, no doubt concocted by an agent. Even the dimmest player must know that he has to play well to be considered for a first team spot, especially at a top club like United. So a player suffers a loss of form and is dropped. Does that mean the club is in breach of contract? fecking nuts if you ask me.
 
Moriarty said:
It's the pinnacle of player power, no doubt concocted by an agent. Even the dimmest player must know that he has to play well to be considered for a first team spot, especially at a top club like United. So a player suffers a loss of form and is dropped. Does that mean the club is in breach of contract? fecking nuts if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Often players suffer dips in form, especially young players in a new league, it doesn't mean they're not good enough for the club or they're not worth their projected value. It's essential for the manager to have the right to drop players should he deem it necessary. These clauses discourage that from happening; they remove to an extent the ability of the manager to pick his own team.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Exactly. Often players suffer dips in form, especially young players in a new league, it doesn't mean they're not good enough for the club or they're not worth their projected value. It's essential for the manager to have the right to drop players should he deem it necessary. These clauses discourage that from happening; they remove to an extent the ability of the manager to pick his own team.
Click to expand...

If the clause meant that he has to play for 60% of the minutes, then he can get dropped for other 40%. No-one is saying that the club should have accepted a clause that say that he can never get dropped. We are desperate for a good midfielder, he is cheap and if a similar clause to that he had for Barca broke the deal, then I think that we were wrong. If he asked to never get dropped than he can feck off, of course, but I doubt that it was the case.
 
It's just yet another way of indiscreetly implying we are so much better than other clubs out there.

"We are Manchester United, we don't offer these clauses."
"We are Manchester United, we don't offer young players big wages." (bye bye Hazard, Pogba, Lucas)
"We are Manchester United, our transfer policy is so dignified and considerate of other clubs."
"We are Manchester United, players don't reject us, we just choose not to buy them."

@ciderman these clauses are extremely rare anyway, I don't think they are going to be a problem at all. Maybe if all the young talents out there started demanding them in contracts it would be an issue but I don't see that happening. How many players currently have minimum game clauses in the premier league? Can't think of any.
 
Revan said:
If the clause meant that he has to play for 60% of the minutes, then he can get dropped for other 40%. No-one is saying that the club should have accepted a clause that say that he can never get dropped. We are desperate for a good midfielder, he is cheap and if a similar clause to that he had for Barca broke the deal, then I think that we were wrong. If he asked to never get dropped than he can feck off, of course, but I doubt that it was the case.
Click to expand...
Is it minutes or games played? If it's games played, does a game he missed through injury count towards the percentage or not?

It's really not hard to think of reasons for the clause to be activated, beyond him not proving to be good enough.
 
shaggy said:
It's a no brainer to give a potentially world class midfielder a contract he is happy with. If that is a minimum game clause then so be it. Whose his competition? It would be different if we were buying a striker for instance, as we are stocked there, but we've well gone past dictating things on our terms when it comes to midfielders. We are desperate.
Click to expand...


Seriously, it's anything but a 'no-brainer' and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. Undermines the logic inherent in having a manager picking a team on form.
 
Moonwalker said:
Is it minutes or games played? If it's games played, does a game he missed through injury count towards the percentage or not?

It's really not hard to think of reasons for the clause to be activated, beyond him not proving to be good enough.
Click to expand...

At Barca it was 60% of available minutes, which means that games when he was injured doesn't count as available. Dunno what would have happened if he was dropped from the club because of the discipline.

The bold part is spot on, and if that was the case 18-20m is as good as we can hope to get from his fee.
 
shaggy said:
@ciderman these clauses are extremely rare anyway, I don't think they are going to be a problem at all. Maybe if all the young talents out there started demanding them in contracts it would be an issue but I don't see that happening. How many players currently have minimum game clauses in the premier league? Can't think of any.
Click to expand...

I'd like to keep it that way.
 
Adzzz said:
Seriously, it's anything but a 'no-brainer' and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. Undermines the logic inherent in having a manager picking a team on form.
Click to expand...


If a player is good enough they'll play enough. Putting a minimum game clause in Thiago's contract would be like putting a minimum game clause on RvP's contract. Both walk into our first team and stay there barring injury.
 
shaggy said:
If a player is good enough they'll play enough. Putting a minimum game clause in Thiago's contract would be like putting a minimum game clause on RvP's contract. Both walk into our first team and stay there barring injury.
Click to expand...

Unless he has a slow start, such as young players in new leagues are prone to doing. It doesn't mean they're not good enough.
 
Revan said:
At Barca it was 60% of available minutes, which means that games when he was injured doesn't count as available. Dunno what would have happened if he was dropped from the club because of the discipline.

The bold part is spot on, and if that was the case 18-20m is as good as we can hope to get from his fee.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm always glad when someone agrees with me, even if it's for the wrong reason.
 
Revan said:
Even if that means we'll continue playing Giggs, Anderson, Fletcher, Cleverley and Jones in midfield?
Click to expand...

I'm objecting to the clauses in principle, but obviously if every other club is offering them then we'd have no choice but to follow suit. I don't see why we should set the precedent though if the club thinks the issue can be avoided. Barcelona have already suffered for it and I don't see why we should be the next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.