Even if they were to drop wildly out of form? Nobody is above being dropped, look at Rooney. You're just advocating giving players even more unjustifiable power. Then calling it a no-brainer? Madness.
Contractual playing-time clauses (ex: Thiago)
- Thread starter ciderman9000000
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Even if they were to drop wildly out of form? Nobody is above being dropped, look at Rooney. You're just advocating giving players even more unjustifiable power. Then calling it a no-brainer? Madness.
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.
I object them too in principle, but as I said it should be depended on the case. If by allowing such a clause (while we all agree that it's principally wrong) improves greatly us and increases our chances to win the title and go far in Europe, then I think that we should allow that.
The Don
Metrosexual Candy Shagger
There's a lot of sanctimonious bullshit going on in this thread and spouting of ridiculous possible scenarios. When people say its a no brainer, I'm fairly certain they're talking about Thiago joining us specifically. A player who would immediately be one of our best players and would absolutely stroll into the team. There would be no problem giving him a clause that states he'll play the majority of games when fit because he would. In the very highly unlikely scenario that he turns from a professional mature young man into a stupid drunk, the clause would let us sell him for the money we paid. Nobody looses.
shaggy
Prefers blue over red, loathed by Spurs fans
Even if they were to drop wildly out of form? Nobody is above being dropped, look at Rooney. You're just advocating giving players even more unjustifiable power. Then calling it a no-brainer? Madness.
Even an off form Thiago would be miles better than what we currently have. Barring a highly unlikely cataclysmic loss of form or ability, he's in the side.
Even an off form Thiago would be miles better than what we currently have. Barring a highly unlikely cataclysmic loss of form or ability, he's in the side.
Be that as it may, ultimately it should be the manager's decision whether to pick a player or not. The manager should have the authority to play a player in only 50% of our games without having to worry about him being auto-sold.
Fergie's Man
Suffers Snails fetish
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2006
- Messages
- 3,230
No clauses welcome. These boys are getting paid ridiculous amounts of money and you have to earn playing time. In Moyes I very much trust.
He is a disciplinarian who will thrive amongst the quality he now has. I see a very long future ahead and I detest the wankers in here that have shot him down because we haven't yet signed a player that the Redcafe "transfer forum" have decided is right for the club. Let's get real here!
If the player is of the right mettle for this club and he wants to come, he will arrive. If either of these variables are not in place, it won't happen. If it doesn't, I will look forward to seeing Moyes' moves in the market regardless.
He managed to build a fabulous team and team spirit with no money, I am sure he will build on that success now that he has a few quid in his pocket.
He is a disciplinarian who will thrive amongst the quality he now has. I see a very long future ahead and I detest the wankers in here that have shot him down because we haven't yet signed a player that the Redcafe "transfer forum" have decided is right for the club. Let's get real here!
If the player is of the right mettle for this club and he wants to come, he will arrive. If either of these variables are not in place, it won't happen. If it doesn't, I will look forward to seeing Moyes' moves in the market regardless.
He managed to build a fabulous team and team spirit with no money, I am sure he will build on that success now that he has a few quid in his pocket.
Interval
Level
Its like no one can imagine the repercussions.
A year down the line, Adnan Januzaj asks the club for a minimum playing time clause in his new contract after he has just broken through to the first team. He has interest from Juventus and PSG and he thinks that he can get more playing time there. Moyes tell him not to hurry, he will be eased in but he in no way ready to be a regular first teamer. But he will be and United don't usually offer playing time promises. Januzaj says, 'but you offered it to Thiago. How am I different?' Put it in or I'm out to somewhere which will. He goes and Caf thinks United are no longer amongst the top tier of clubs and we suck.
Rinse and repeat. Again and again.
You don't set precedents like this. It doesn't matter if Thiago is better than any of our midfielders. All players think they'll be superstars. And you don't make exceptions for a few without the others wanting the same
A year down the line, Adnan Januzaj asks the club for a minimum playing time clause in his new contract after he has just broken through to the first team. He has interest from Juventus and PSG and he thinks that he can get more playing time there. Moyes tell him not to hurry, he will be eased in but he in no way ready to be a regular first teamer. But he will be and United don't usually offer playing time promises. Januzaj says, 'but you offered it to Thiago. How am I different?' Put it in or I'm out to somewhere which will. He goes and Caf thinks United are no longer amongst the top tier of clubs and we suck.
Rinse and repeat. Again and again.
You don't set precedents like this. It doesn't matter if Thiago is better than any of our midfielders. All players think they'll be superstars. And you don't make exceptions for a few without the others wanting the same
Had Kagawa demanded such a clause last summer then he'd be up for sale right now having only played 58% of United's minutes last season.
Likewise Phil Jones who only played 56% and especially Hernandez on 28%.
Likewise Phil Jones who only played 56% and especially Hernandez on 28%.
Had Kagawa demanded such a clause last summer then he'd be up for sale right now having only played 58% of United's minutes last season.
Did you count the game when he was injured? Anyway, we could have played a game more in the end and we shouldn't allow such a clause because he has Rooney to compete with him, while Thiago has Cleverley to compete with. As I said a lot of times, this things should go on individual cases, not for everybody. If the coach thinks that the player will very likely play more than 60% of minutes and will greatly improve us, then give the clause. If he thinks that the player will either not play 60% of minutes or won't greatly improve us then don't give the clause.
Did you count the game when he was injured?
Of course I didn't.
Interval
Level
Ugh! The clause isn't just for one season. Moreover, what if the person has come back from injury and struggling to find his form back? Do you play him because he has the clause?Did you count the game when he was injured? Anyway, we could have played a game more in the end and we shouldn't allow such a clause because he has Rooney to compete with him, while Thiago has Cleverley to compete with. As I said a lot of times, this things should go on individual cases, not for everybody. If the coach thinks that the player will very likely play more than 60% of minutes and will greatly improve us, then give the clause. If he thinks that the player will either not play 60% of minutes or won't greatly improve us then don't give the clause.
Its like no one can imagine the repercussions.
A year down the line, Adnan Januzaj asks the club for a minimum playing time clause in his new contract after he has just broken through to the first team. He has interest from Juventus and PSG and he thinks that he can get more playing time there. Moyes tell him not to hurry, he will be eased in but he in no way ready to be a regular first teamer. But he will be and United don't usually offer playing time promises. Januzaj says, 'but you offered it to Thiago. How am I different?' Put it in or I'm out to somewhere which will. He goes and Caf thinks United are no longer amongst the top tier of clubs and we suck.
Rinse and repeat. Again and again.
You don't set precedents like this. It doesn't matter if Thiago is better than any of our midfielders. All players think they'll be superstars. And you don't make exceptions for a few without the others wanting the same
You really think a precedent (provided it's the right one) would make a difference? If a player wants to leave for more playing time, or the promise of more playing time, or a contract that offers him more playing time or else a lower release clause - then they will. We aren't the only club in the market and if the actual option is a player leaves or signs a new, fair contract then is it really a matter of principle or just of hypothetical worries about poorly written clauses?
Maybe it's just an idea that doesn't fit in an era of Webster and Bosman clauses and free movement of labour in the EU? Spanish clubs have to have release clauses by law, Spanish players think release clauses are normal. So do Portuguese players. German players have them.
Want to buy in a global market? Players will expect the same safeguards they got back home. Gentleman's agreement? Too many non gentlemen, too many misunderstandings and too much money involved for that.
Had Kagawa demanded such a clause last summer then he'd be up for sale right now having only played 58% of United's minutes last season.
Likewise Phil Jones who only played 56% and especially Hernandez on 28%.
And we would have set prices in their contracts that we considered fair. In Spain that's traditionally market value + 50%, but can be much higher when the word "potential" is involved.
Thiago is an exception - because he's basically had this argument over playing time for the past three summers. The first two times Barca convinced him to stay on and pointed to the release clause as an insurance policy. That's why it was set low.
elmo
Can never have too many Eevees
If Thiago needs reassurance with regards to playing time in his contract when he's up against Carrick, Cleverley, Giggs, Anderson and Fletcher, he doesn't have the character that we look for in a signing.
Adzzz
Astrophysical Genius - Hard for Grinner
Even an off form Thiago would be miles better than what we currently have. Barring a highly unlikely cataclysmic loss of form or ability, he's in the side.
So therefore because of his undoubted quality, he overrides the decision of the manager in an officially binding contractual sense?
No thanks.
And we would have set prices in their contracts that we considered fair. In Spain that's traditionally market value + 50%, but can be much higher when the word "potential" is involved.
Thiago is an exception - because he's basically had this argument over playing time for the past three summers. The first two times Barca convinced him to stay on and pointed to the release clause as an insurance policy. That's why it was set low.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. What's the point in a player demanding a release clause linked to game-time if the minimum activated buyout fee is going to be at least 150% his actual value?
It's only beneficial for the player if the activated buyout fee is at or below his value, otherwise no clubs would be interested in him even in the case of the clause being activated - he'd be going nowhere no matter how many games he's played because who's gonna want to pay upwards of 150% market value for him?
It only works if, like Thiago, the player negotiates a clause activated release fee related to game time which is well below his actual value; otherwise it's no incentive whatsoever to the club to get him playing games.
The player's basically saying, "Don't play me enough, you lose me for half my value!". Such a threat becomes entirely idle when it's rephrased as, "Don't play me enough, you lose me and receive double what I'm worth!".
Had Kagawa demanded such a clause last summer then he'd be up for sale right now having only played 58% of United's minutes last season.
Likewise Phil Jones who only played 56% and especially Hernandez on 28%.
Hernandez, Jones and Kagawa are squad players at United right now so none of them would demand such clause. Hernandez will probably remain exactly that for a few more seasons, Jones should be expecting a permanent first-team role in around 2-3 years. Only Kagawa will be expecting to feature at a regular basis soon because he's possibly good enough already.
Thiago is better than any midfielders we currently have. The reasom why he demanded such clause from Barcelona while extending his current deal was that he was afraid of being left without playing time at a crucial stage of his career - 22 isn't early youth anymore and he signed a deal until 2015 or 2016 if I remember correctly, if things didn't work out he'd have to wait until he's 25 to move because Barcelona would have wanted to keep him. He obviously wanted a clause in his deal to prevent himself from being left in a position where he doesn't play but can't leave and it turned out to have worked good for him because without it he'd probably be awaiting another season of 20-odd starts against lesser teams.
Hernandez, Jones and Kagawa are squad players at United right now so none of them would demand such clause.
They're exactly the players who'd demand such a clause, players who want more games! Thiago is a squad player at Barcelona!
So therefore because of his undoubted quality, he overrides the decision of the manager in an officially binding contractual sense?
No thanks.
No, he doesn't. His contract wouldn't say 'David Moyes has to play me at all times or else he's eaten by wolves'. It'd simply state that in case he's not played in the majority of United games next season, he'll be offered an escape route for a fair price - reasonable for an extremely talented youngster who feels he needs games at this age to develop. He wouldn't actually have to leave, if for example he was played in slightly less games due to poor form etc. but felt good at the club otherwise and saw his future here, he'd probably stay.
No he doesn't, clause doesn't mean that Moyes is forced to play him in 60% of minutes he's available. But he can leave if he doesn't play that amount of minutes for a minimum of what we paid for him. Does anyone expect that a bench warmer midfielder of United will cost more than 20m if we decides to sell him?So therefore because of his undoubted quality, he overrides the decision of the manager in an officially binding contractual sense?
No thanks.
Nope. Still 60% of minutes isn't that much, especially for a versatile player and when at United there aren't many good midfielders. There are other options of course, the clause could be void after he signs a new contract, but the clause in this case is just a guarantee that if we don't value him enough (60% of minutes) he may leave for a similar fee of what we paid for him. That doesn't mean that he will leave, he can decide to not leave if he thinks that we value him but he didn't play good. Or if he plays only for 58% of minutes but he played in all the big games, he can legally leave but likely he won't. In Barca he didn't start any of the big games and even in the last few games when the title was mathematically win he didn't played, so he can easily feel that he isn't valued enough.Ugh! The clause isn't just for one season. Moreover, what if the person has come back from injury and struggling to find his form back? Do you play him because he has the clause?
Simple, the clause is a way for him to change the clubs if the club doesn't appreciate him enough (60% of minutes he's available) for a reasonable fee (18-20m). Even if he doesn't have the clause at all, but he isn't a team regular he can make a transfer request and I doubt that there will be many clubs who will pay more than 20m for a midfielder who isn't regular at United.
No, he doesn't. His contract wouldn't say 'David Moyes has to play me at all times or else he's eaten by wolves'. It'd simply state that in case he's not played in the majority of United games next season, he'll be offered an escape route for a fair price.
Barcelona aren't getting a fair price.
He was hoping not to be one by now, or at least not be so far out on the fringes of the first team that he can't even get a game against a decent opposition. He was actually playing more a year or two ago than he was last season. You don't have to be a regular to play 60% of games, Kagawa and Jones didn't reach 60% because they were injured for a considerable amount of time last season if I remember correctly and obviously it's not counted toward that calculation, it's 60% of games that you're available for and both would have felt under this category I think.They're exactly the players who'd demand such a clause, players who want more games! Thiago is a squad player at Barcelona!
He was hoping not to be one by now, or at least not be so far out on the fringes of the first team that he can't even get a game against a decent opposition. He was actually playing more a year or two ago than he was last season. You don't have to be a regular to play 60% of games, Kagawa and Jones didn't reach 60% because they were injured for a considerable amount of time last season if I remember correctly and obviously it's not counted toward that calculation, it's 60% of games that you're available for and both would have felt under this category I think.
Obviously I took that into account when doing the calculations. They played under 60% of league games they were available for. Hernandez was fit all season and only got 28%; how would you feel if City were able to buy him for £10m right now?
Barcelona aren't getting a fair price.
Nope, purely because the quality of other midfielders and the inability of Tito to rotate meas that he didn't played that much. If Thiago plays only the same amount of minutes as he played at Barca then I think 18-20m is as fair as you can get.
On the other side Barca weren't fair enough to Thiago, he played more than a thousands minute more in 2011-2012 than last season.
Well, it's because going by his past and the fact that there was a realistic chance that Barca would refuse to use him ahead of Iniesta, Xavi, Fabregas, Busquets and the rest for a considerable period of time he probably wanted the clause to be slightly lower. Besides, €18m isn't really that shocking for a player who plays in slightly more than 40% of your games. Not many players who are being neglected so much go for that sort of money. And you also need to remember that the clause was put there long before his performances at U21 Euro, €18m was probably considered around fair at the time.Barcelona aren't getting a fair price.
Nope, purely because the quality of other midfielders and the inability of Tito to rotate meas that he didn't played that much. If Thiago plays only the same amount of minutes as he played at Barca then I think 18-20m is as fair as you can get.
On the other side Barca weren't fair enough to Thiago, he played more than a thousands minute more in 2011-2012 than last season.
He played more than Jones, Kagawa, Hernandez etc. did for United this season. Would you be fine seeing them go off on the cheap this summer?
Obviously I took that into account when doing the calculations. They played under 60% of league games they were available for. Hernandez was fit all season and only got 28%; how would you feel if City were able to buy him for £10m right now?
I'd feel we were stupid if we offered such clause to a player who is obviously nothing more than an impact player mostly used from the bench.
As for Kagawa and Jones, fair enough for taking everything into consideration. they were very close though. Besides in both cases they'd have probably stayed clause or no clause as both seem to be happy at United.
I'd feel we were stupid if we offered such clause to a player who is obviously nothing more than an impact player mostly used from the bench.
As for Kagawa and Jones, fair enough for taking everything into consideration. they were very close though. Besides in both cases they'd have probably stayed clause or no clause as both seem to be happy at United.
Well I guess everything's rosey then. It's not no-brainer. Hand out all the clauses! What could possibly go wrong?
For anyone interested, here's a rundown of Thaigo's playing time with Barca last season which I compiled last week some time:
Barcelona played 60 competitive games for a total of 5,400mins of normal time football in the 12/13 season.
Here are Tiago's playing stats:
- Took part in 36 games: 60%
- Started 20 games: 33%
- Played 90mins in 12 games: 20%
- Played >30mins in 21 games: 35%
- Played 1,909mins: 35%
- Injured for 11 games: 18%
- Took part in 73% of games when fit
- Started 41% of games when fit
- Played 90min in 24% of games when fit
- Played >30mins in 43% of games when fit
- Played 43% of total minutes when fit
He played more than Jones, Kagawa, Hernandez etc. did for United this season. Would you be fine seeing them go off on the cheap this summer?
Nope. I said last season many times that both Kagawa and especially Hernandez were treated unfairly (played less than they deserved). Van Persie was the Xavi of Barca, playing even in the meaningless games ahead of players who didn't played that much. So, if Chicha had such a contract last season and he didn't played because SAF didn't rotate Van Persie, then while I wouldn't like to lose him, still I would have wished him all the best in his career if he decided to leave. You are only looking about the interest of the club, I think that even players have a right in their career, especially when they aren't anymore young players. The other part is that Chicha and Kagawa had to compete with RVP and Rooney. Thiago has to compete with Cleverley. So giving that clause to them wouldn't be the smartest ever decision, giving the clause to Thiago would be a very non-risk decision.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. What's the point in a player demanding a release clause linked to game-time if the minimum activated buyout fee is going to be at least 150% his actual value?
It's only beneficial for the player if the activated buyout fee is at or below his value, otherwise no clubs would be interested in him even in the case of the clause being activated - he'd be going nowhere no matter how many games he's played because who's gonna want to pay upwards of 150% market value for him?
It only works if, like Thiago, the player negotiates a clause activated release fee related to game time which is well below his actual value; otherwise it's no incentive whatsoever to the club to get him playing games.
The player's basically saying, "Don't play me enough, you lose me for half my value!". Such a threat becomes entirely idle when it's rephrased as, "Don't play me enough, you lose me and receive double what I'm worth!".
This is the reason why sweeping statements about precedents and principles, and why hypothetical worst cases in which the player turns into a monster to get himself sold cheaply don't tell the story.
A clause like Thiago's isn't supposed to give the club an incentive to play him, it's supposed to give him a way out if they don't.
The idea is that if something goes wrong, and in the case of a foreign player that could be anything from homesickness to failure to adapt to a new league, the two sides have agreed on a fair way out. Now you can argue that 18m isn't fair on Barca, but he was ready to leave two years ago and they used it to keep him. If we were still negotiating with Thiago and a "playing time activated release clause" was a sticking point then I hope it would be because his side were intent on setting it too low, not because it's a thing that foreign clubs do and we don't.
Well I guess everything's rosey then. It's not no-brainer. Hand out all the clauses! What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not advocating putting such clauses in, it'd be stupid in 90% of the cases. I can understand how a highly rated player might want to secure his future by preventing himself from being left on the fringes for 2 or 3 seasons straight at a crucial stage of his career.
For example if Jones demanded such clause in his next contract in a year or two, with Ferdinand probably already gone and Vidic nearly finished at 33, I'd probably understand his motives.
Nope. I said last season many times that both Kagawa and especially Hernandez were treated unfairly (played less than they deserved). Van Persie was the Xavi of Barca, playing even in the meaningless games ahead of players who didn't played that much. So, if Chicha had such a contract last season and he didn't played because SAF didn't rotate Van Persie, then while I wouldn't like to lose him, still I would have wished him all the best in his career if he decided to leave. You are only looking about the interest of the club, I think that even players have a right in their career, especially when they aren't anymore young players. The other part is that Chicha and Kagawa had to compete with RVP and Rooney. Thiago has to compete with Cleverley. So giving that clause to them wouldn't be the smartest ever decision, giving the clause to Thiago would be a very non-risk decision.
Is Cleverley our only midfielder now?
This is the reason why sweeping statements about precedents and principles, and why hypothetical worst cases in which the player turns into a monster to get himself sold cheaply don't tell the story.
A clause like Thiago's isn't supposed to give the club an incentive to play him, it's supposed to give him a way out if they don't.
The idea is that if something goes wrong, and in the case of a foreign player that could be anything from homesickness to failure to adapt to a new league, the two sides have agreed on a fair way out. Now you can argue that 18m isn't fair on Barca, but he was ready to leave two years ago and they used it to keep him. If we were still negotiating with Thiago and a "playing time activated release clause" was a sticking point then I hope it would be because his side were intent on setting it too low, not because it's a thing that foreign clubs do and we don't.
Well if these players are happy to set their release clauses at £100m then, fine, wheel them in. Obviously they're not gonna want to do that though, they're gonna want to set them low, or else how is it an escape clause exactly?
Nope, but he's about the only one who can play in the role Thiago would be playing, i.e. next to Carrick. Obviously we can count Anderson but we know the story with him.Is Cleverley our only midfielder now?
Vasey20|13
Full Member
If the clause literally says '£Xm if Player is fit and available for selection and doesn't play X number of games.' Then it's wrong.
You shouldn't feel pressured into possibly losing a good player who's under contract purely because he wasn't good enough to be selected.
You shouldn't feel pressured into possibly losing a good player who's under contract purely because he wasn't good enough to be selected.
Nope, but he's about the only one who can play in the role Thiago would be playing, i.e. next to Carrick. Obviously we can count Anderson but we know the story with him.
Well let's hope the manager agrees. In fact, let's make him contractually obliged to agree for the duration of Thiago's contract. It's foolproof, a no-brainer; how can United have been so stupid not to have gone for it?!
Well if these players are happy to set their release clauses at £100m then, fine, wheel them in. Obviously they're not gonna want to do that though, they're gonna want to set them low, or else how is it an escape clause exactly?
I don't see the point in talking hypotheticals - it's like saying we pay all our players the same money at the same age, we don't. In Thiago's case, if he wanted to bring his 60% of games/30 minutes a game clause forward I'd see nothing wrong with us offering him that clause at 20m in his first year, and rising after that. I probably wouldn't be happy to see it set at 2m. But now we're haggling over the price and not the principle and I'm happy with that.
Well let's hope the manager agrees. In fact, let's make him contractually obliged to agree for the duration of Thiago's contract. It's foolproof, a no-brainer; how can United have been so stupid not to have gone for it?!
Agree with what? That we have no midfielders apart from Carrick, Anderson and Cleverley? It's a fact.
Is Cleverley our only midfielder now?
Cleverley is his most serious competitor for that place, unless you count the always injured Ando.
Share: