Declan Rice | signs for arsenal

[MadDogg]

Wrong. For that makes the unwarranted assumption Atletico Madrid Valued him higher than his release clause, yet no such evidence exists.

One must first understand Spanish clubs routinely and traditionally put release clauses significantly higher than what they value their players for in order to force interested parties to either:
i) negotiate reasonable fee they will benefit from ;
ii) to reap abnormal profit from an obviously over priced player;
iii) to chase off any potential suitors due to the blatant unreasonableness of the clause (especially to avoid things like european rivals snatching Figo and neymar for example)

Furthermore at the time Rodri was just breaking through. So its safe to infer his buy out clause was the highest possible value Atletico Madrid were willing to price his elite level talent at above his actual market value.

A release clause doesn't necessarily mean that a player would be more expensive without it, but it also doesn't mean that he would be cheaper without it (which is what you seem to be indicating). If the selling club is willing to sell a player for 60m, the fact that he has a release clause of 80m ultimately means nothing. Sure they'll postulate and point at the release clause to try to drive the price up, but that's no different than a club putting an extra high price on a player that doesn't have a release clause (what Spurs did with Kane for example). In both cases they ultimately will sell for 60m if that's the most they can get and they feel that is worth selling.

Basically a release clause puts a ceiling on his transfer fee. Really doesn't do anything for the floor.

 

[GoonerBear]

Wrong. For that makes the unwarranted assumption Atletico Madrid Valued him higher than his release clause, yet no such evidence exists.

One must first understand Spanish clubs routinely and traditionally put release clauses significantly higher than what they value their players for in order to force interested parties to either:
i) negotiate reasonable fee they will benefit from ;
ii) to reap abnormal profit from an obviously over priced player;
iii) to chase off any potential suitors due to the blatant unreasonableness of the clause (especially to avoid things like european rivals snatching Figo and neymar for example)

Furthermore at the time Rodri was just breaking through. So its safe to infer his buy out clause was the highest possible value Atletico Madrid were willing to price his elite level talent at above his actual market value.

You are really losing me here. Man City wanted Rodri. Atletico didn't want to sell. Man City tried to negotiate under the release clause price, Atletico weren't interested. So City went and paid the release clause because Atletico couldnt refuse that. It's an expensive way of doing it because release clauses get paid in 1 lump sum.

We did the exact same with Partey. We wouldn't do negotiate, Atletico had no interest in negotiating as they wanted to keep the player and were willing to give him a new contract that increased the release clause. We waited until the last day of the transfer window to see if they would relent, but they wouldn't, so we had no choice but to pay the release clause in 1 sum.

So explain to me, again, how without the release clause he would have been cheaper, as that's the thing I'm not getting?!

 

[MadDogg]

I insist. You have failed to demonstrate how I've contradicted myself let alone shown I don't grasp release clause as a concept.

Of course it DOES prove they didn't want to sell for less than the clause. Nothing I've stated in this thread till now contradicts it.

However it does not prove they didn't desire to sell at all. For if that were the case at all it would have been a clause of at least 90 -100m chasing off all suitors. You can't get release clauses and not know nor accept something that obvious.

The player themselves has a say in what that clause is when they sign the contract. It's not just something the club decides on randomly for themselves. During the negotiations between them the release clause will normally end up being something that is considered a bit overpriced but not ridiculously so (unless the player actively doesn't want to ever leave of course in which case they can put huge numbers there). If the club wants to put a significantly overpriced release clause then the player's agent will demand a higher wage to go along with it (or refuse to sign it at all if they actively do want to leave at some stage).

 

[cpresc]

The player themselves has a say in what that clause is when they sign the contract. It's not just something the club decides on randomly for themselves. During the negotiations between them the release clause will normally end up being something that is considered a bit overpriced but not ridiculously so (unless the player actively doesn't want to ever leave of course in which case they can put huge numbers there). If the club wants to put a significantly overpriced release clause then the player's agent will demand a higher wage to go along with it (or refuse to sign it at all if they actively do want to leave at some stage).

I think in Spain it's slightly different though where contracted players must have a release fee clause - so these fees are typically much higher. Whereas clauses in the UK are more intended to release the player.

 

[Mainoldo]

My answer remains unchanged. He won't exchange a player who has spent 6 months to a year learning how to play his kinda ball for even a superior one who has never done so.


Ow please. First West Ham get their "evaluation" from City buying Jack Grealish who was Villa star player.. Has nothing all to do with anything Rice can
actually do.
Second, If Rice were at City right now instead of Phillips, he'd also be stuck on the bench just like Phillips in this his first season. Because he wouldn't be ready to play the pivot nor midfield roles in Pep ball yet either on any consistent basis ....


Its hilariousl you actually believe a Phillips isn't playing much at City
currently because he supposedly isn't compatible with a Rodri...rather than because he simply isn't ready to yet.

You just don’t like him. But I tried.

I haven’t forgot you compare him to McTominay Chief.

 

[GoonerBear]

I insist. You have failed to demonstrate how I've contradicted myself let alone shown I don't grasp release clauses as a concept which is why I think you are confused. Rather than rude to be fair.

I think it's the following
statement that's confusing everyone.

Not at the time. He was just breaking through. His buy out clause in actual fact was the over pricing because he was an elite 6 type talent. His real figure wouldn't have been that high without it.

It looks as if you are saying his fee wouldn't have been as high if he didn't have the release clause, and that's what's confusing people.

 

[Giggsy13]

No thanks.

 

[nakpodiareuben]

So Declan will become a backup to casemiro? It's a bad biz please

 

[711]

The player themselves has a say in what that clause is when they sign the contract. It's not just something the club decides on randomly for themselves. During the negotiations between them the release clause will normally end up being something that is considered a bit overpriced but not ridiculously so (unless the player actively doesn't want to ever leave of course in which case they can put huge numbers there). If the club wants to put a significantly overpriced release clause then the player's agent will demand a higher wage to go along with it (or refuse to sign it at all if they actively do want to leave at some stage).

Well put.

 

[Grande]

I insist. You have failed to demonstrate how I've contradicted myself let alone shown I don't grasp release clauses as a concept which is why I think you are confused. Rather than rude to be fair.

Of course it DOES prove they didn't want to sell for less than the clause. Nothing I've stated in this thread till now contradicts it.

However it does not prove they didn't desire to sell at all. For if that were the case at all it would have been a clause of at least 90 -100m chasing off all suitors. You can't get release clauses and not know nor accept something that obvious.

This sounds wrong. A release clause is not an expression of the club’s desire. It is an expression of the player’s interest. No club would want a release clause, asit is hhere to protect the player’s right to leave under certain circumstances. It protects nothing for the club.

If Atletico were allowed, they would have no release clause. When forced to, they would gladly have had it at 300m€, but Rodri would of course never sign such a contract.

Maybe they would have sold at 90mwithout a release clause, maybe at 120m, we will never know. But the fact that there was one, does not prove they would have accepted any particular fee.

Equally obvious, any club in the world will sell any player in the world if the fee is high enough, so there are no clubs that ‘will not sell at any price’.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

I would take him in a heartbeat. While some will say "he's overrated because he's English", I actually think the opposite is true. I think people tend to underrate him because he's English. This guy is quality and is the natural successor to Cassemiro. To start, he can play along side him, but in a couple years that #6 role can be all his. It will likely cost a little more than we paid for Antony. Difference is, there is absolutely no risk to this signing other than United supporters putting unreasonable expectations on his shoulders...

 

[Judas]

He’ll be a great signing for Arsenal.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

This sounds wrong. A release clause is not an expression of the club’s desire. It is an expression of the player’s interest. No club would want a release clause, asit is hhere to protect the player’s right to leave under certain circumstances. It protects nothing for the club.

This would be correct outside of Spain. That's why it "sounds wrong'

In Spain release clauses are mandatory for ALL playing contracts in La Liga. So release clauses are largely set to protect the playing club from losing a player they ideally want to sell or wouldn't want to sell thanks to a termination clause they can't affect for fees that are pitiful. Or a meha disruption to their long term plans.

If Atletico were allowed, they would have no release clause. When forced to, they would gladly have had it at 300m€, but Rodri would of course never sign such a contract.

There is ample evidence to the contrary. Players in Spain sign contracts with clauses a high as €1B. To them its simply a message to the player and their agents how highly their employing club values them. Nothing more! It has no bearing on whether they can't ever be sold because in the right circumstance Spanish clubs can negotiate down a buy out fee if a player truly wants out and a suitable buyer truly wants him and can pay a fee the contract holder would be willing to accept below the termination clause. In other nations where they are NOT mandatory no player would sign a contract that makes it impossible to ever leave if they could. On that such we agree.

 

[giorno]

There is ample evidence to the contrary. Players in Spain sign contracts with clauses a high as €1B.

at Madrid and Barcelona, where they get paid more than anywhere else. Atletico is not those clubs, Rodri was never signing for them with an out-of-market release clause. Both Madrid and Barcelona had shown serious interest in him as well. He saw Atleti as a stepping stone

 

[LordSpud]

We don't do anything in the market until there's more clarity on the ownership anyway

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

A release clause doesn't necessarily mean that a player would be more expensive without it, but it also doesn't mean that he would be cheaper without it (which is what you seem to be indicating).

In Spain it does. Release clauses are mandatory there so its the employing club that sets it based on two factors, contract length and their own percieved evaluation of the importance of the player to their club. The players input is not manadatory because the clause doesn't come with a never sell at anything buy that price gurantee. Its simply protection for the negotiation position of the holder of the player's playing contract. Nothing more.


This is why I do not believe its possible A.M. valued Rodri higher than they release clause they sold him at. For repeatedly any Spanish club that views a player as uber important in value to them always set largely prohibitive buy out clauses forcing suitors to the negotiation table. Rather than to ensure they never come again.

In other nations where the fees are not mandatory players have to be consulted for they won't allow a club to hold their contract to ransom with a ridiculous termination clause.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

at Madrid and Barcelona, where they get paid more than anywhere else. Atletico is not those clubs, Rodri was never signing for them with an out-of-market release clause. Both Madrid and Barcelona had shown serious interest in him as well. He saw Atleti as a stepping stone

yes he could have. An out of market clause would have only allowed A.M to get a fair fee for a player they valued high from their two biggest rivals and any continental suitors. It wouldn't have made him unbuyable. A.M were always going to sell him down the line.


If what some of you are claiming were true there wouldn't be a single player in Spain signing a release clause above 4Om pounds at smaller clubs.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

It looks as if you are saying his fee wouldn't have been as high if he didn't have the release clause, and that's what's confusing people.

It shouldn't confuse anyone. He was just breaking out of the A.M academy. If they valued him higher his clause would have been like 80-90m to force ALL suitors, even moneyed ones to negotiate if they wanted him. The fact they put it at 63m pounds is proof they were comfortable with the possibility of losing him at that fee, even to Real or Barca without negotiation. Which indicates to me the market value they saw him at as a saleble asset.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

You are really losing me here. Man City wanted Rodri. Atletico didn't want to sell. Man City tried to negotiate under the release clause price, Atletico weren't interested. So City went and paid the release clause because Atletico couldnt refuse that. It's an expensive way of doing it because release clauses get paid in 1 lump sum.

We did the exact same with Partey. We wouldn't do negotiate, Atletico had no interest in negotiating as they wanted to keep the player and were willing to give him a new contract that increased the release clause. We waited until the last day of the transfer window to see if they would relent, but they wouldn't, so we had no choice but to pay the release clause in 1 sum.

So explain to me, again, how without the release clause he would have been cheaper, as that's the thing I'm not getting?!

put it this way:
Without the release clause a Rodri more thank likely have been sold closer to his ACTUAL market value. Because he could kick up a stroo and force a move if the club dared play hard ball.

The release clause was always mandatoty imposed but purposed inflation on his actual market value. To allow ATM abnormal profits for any forced early sale of a valued sellable asset they planned to sell later when its value had grown.


In Partey's case he was a sellable asset at close to peak actual market value. There was no way A.M was selling him below the evaluation they had set for him for that entails them losing out on his actual value as a sellable asset. They were thus always either going to keep him by extending and increasing that evaluation clause or selling him strictly at the stated release clause. That is why Arsenal had no choice but to pay it and were given zero hope of negotiation. Which in my view isht comparable to Rodri's situation

 

[giorno]

In Spain it does. Release clauses are mandatory there so its the employing club that sets it based on two factors, contract length and their own percieved evaluation of the importance of the player to their club. The players input is not manadatory because the clause doesn't come with a never sell at anything buy that price gurantee. Its simply protection for the negotiation position of the holder of the player's playing contract. Nothing more.

this is incorrect. The release clause is part of the contract, a contract the player has to agree with and sign

 

[giorno]

If what some of you are claiming were true there wouldn't be a single player in Spain signing a release clause above 4Om pounds at smaller clubs.

and there aren't, generally speaking. The only exception is Athletic Bilbao, for a relative version of smaller, and with them there's the strong sense of Basque identity justifying it. And still they don't set untouchable clauses either

 

[giorno]

It shouldn't confuse anyone. He was just breaking out of the A.M academy

They signed him from Villarreal

 

[DJ_21]

This guy would be insane for us I think. He’d allow us to rest Casemiro and even play them together against tougher opposition. I think he’s going either Chelsea or arsenal though.

 

[MadDogg]

In Spain it does. Release clauses are mandatory there so its the employing club that sets it based on two factors, contract length and their own percieved evaluation of the importance of the player to their club. The players input is not manadatory because the clause doesn't come with a never sell at anything buy that price gurantee. Its simply protection for the negotiation position of the holder of the player's playing contract. Nothing more.


This is why I do not believe its possible A.M. valued Rodri higher than they release clause they sold him at. For repeatedly any Spanish club that views a player as uber important in value to them always set largely prohibitive buy out clauses forcing suitors to the negotiation table.

In other nations where the fees are not mandatory players have to be consulted for they won't allow a club to hold their contract to ransom with a ridiculous termination clause.

The fact that it's mandatory doesn't mean that the player doesn't have any say in it. Hell, technically I believe it's not even mandatory. It's just that not having a buy-out clause gives the player the legal ability to cancel his contract at any moment so of course it's something that every contract will include.

The club doesn't get to unilaterally decide what value the buy-out clause is set to. It gets agreed between the player and the club and is included in the contract when it's signed. That's as true with the buy-out clauses in Spain as it is with the release clause in other countries.

No release or buy-out clause in any country comes with a 'never sell at anything but that price guarantee'. Players move all the time for less money than what the clause states, but only if the selling team is willing to sell for less than that. If they aren't willing to sell for less than that, then they also wouldn't be willing to sell for less than that if there was no clause in the first place.

 

[Tincanalley]

I miss Woody. He’d know what to do.

 

[Nicoseth]

Zero chance we sign Rice.

 

[croadyman]

Please no. He is too limited and would be way too expensive.

Yeah I can't help thinking we need like a Casa & Caicedo type partnership in big games,however in games where we see more of the back need someone to control tempo

 

[croadyman]

Arsenal want both.

Now that would really hurt us but with the ownership situation could easily see both gone by the time it's sorted which is annoying

 

[Grande]

This would be correct outside of Spain. That's why it "sounds wrong'

In Spain release clauses are mandatory for ALL playing contracts in La Liga. So release clauses are largely set to protect the playing club from losing a player they ideally want to sell or wouldn't want to sell thanks to a termination clause they can't affect for fees that are pitiful. Or a meha disruption to their long term plans.



There is ample evidence to the contrary. Players in Spain sign contracts with clauses a high as €1B. To them its simply a message to the player and their agents how highly their employing club values them. Nothing more! It has no bearing on whether they can't ever be sold because in the right circumstance Spanish clubs can negotiate down a buy out fee if a player truly wants out and a suitable buyer truly wants him and can pay a fee the contract holder would be willing to accept below the termination clause. In other nations where they are NOT mandatory no player would sign a contract that makes it impossible to ever leave if they could. On that such we agree.

I guess in a way we’re both right.

I know the release clauses are obligatory in Spain. This stems from Spanish law protecting players (not clubs) under regular employment laws, which happened in the eighties. Players were allowed the right to buy themeselves out of their contract based on the level of their wages. The clubs agreed to release clauses as a way to protect themselves from players buying out their contracts for peanuts, and thus to have the same security that contracts give to PL clubs for instance - up to the agreed upon sum. Therefore, it is a negotiation: Clubs will want to have imaginary sums as buy-outs (like 1bn€), wich will make the able to do as Levy does with Kane. Players would ideally want to have a fiver and a bag of chips as buy-out sum, to have a Bosman situation. If the clause is too low, a club won’t riak investing in the player, if it’s too high, the player forfeits his leverage when seeking to change clubs. If a release clause is ever triggered, it is evidence that it is lower than the club would have wanted it to be, because it gives them no leverage to have an acheivable clause, there are no pros with it.

If Rodri’s clause was 70m€, it was what Atletico accepted in the negotiations. They would still be able to sell him for 68m if they wanted the money, but they could never get 72m, unlike if they had a clause of, say 250m. If City were willing to pay 70m, though, there is a very good chance they would have been willing to pay 72 as well - maybe even 75 or 78? So it stands to reason that Atletico lost out on accepting that particular clause. Now, maybe they thought it was a ridiculous fee compared to Rodri’s sell-on potential, that he would never be worth it? Or maybe they thought he could be worth more, but accepted it because it was the only deal he would sign, they way Dortmund thought with Haaland. But I think it is extremely likely that the sum would have been higher if Atletico could have it the way they wanted.

 

[DJBillRemfry]

The player wants to stay in London with his partner and young child near their families.

He is, of course, ambitious and wants to win trophies.

He has one year on his contract plus a one year option.

Arsenal are the closest to winning the PL, but it's twenty years since they actually did it.

Spurs is a no-go for all manner of reasons.

It's long been assumed that Chelsea would come for him, but the wheels have fallen off there in terms of trophies and even european football next year. Boehly may well still throw money at it.

There seems to be an imperative among the press to sell him, but he's only 24, and is understood to be open to the possibility of staying put for another 12 months depending on what happens in the coming weeks. West Ham are in the middle of a potential ownership change.

If he wants to win big trophies - he only has two destinations currently - Manchester City and Liverpool. Consequently, a year waiting to see how things develop might suit him if being in London (and potentially going to Chelsea) is his preference.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I guess in a way we’re both right.

I know the release clauses are obligatory in Spain. This stems from Spanish law protecting players (not clubs) under regular employment laws, which happened in the eighties. Players were allowed the right to buy themeselves out of their contract based on the level of their wages. The clubs agreed to release clauses as a way to protect themselves from players buying out their contracts for peanuts, and thus to have the same security that contracts give to PL clubs for instance - up to the agreed upon sum. Therefore, it is a negotiation: Clubs will want to have imaginary sums as buy-outs (like 1bn€), wich will make the able to do as Levy does with Kane. Players would ideally want to have a fiver and a bag of chips as buy-out sum, to have a Bosman situation. If the clause is too low, a club won’t riak investing in the player, if it’s too high, the player forfeits his leverage when seeking to change clubs. If a release clause is ever triggered, it is evidence that it is lower than the club would have wanted it to be, because it gives them no leverage to have an acheivable clause, there are no pros with it.

If Rodri’s clause was 70m€, it was what Atletico accepted in the negotiations. They would still be able to sell him for 68m if they wanted the money, but they could never get 72m, unlike if they had a clause of, say 250m. If City were willing to pay 70m, though, there is a very good chance they would have been willing to pay 72 as well - maybe even 75 or 78? So it stands to reason that Atletico lost out on accepting that particular clause. Now, maybe they thought it was a ridiculous fee compared to Rodri’s sell-on potential, that he would never be worth it? Or maybe they thought he could be worth more, but accepted it because it was the only deal he would sign, they way Dortmund thought with Haaland. But I think it is extremely likely that the sum would have been higher if Atletico could have it the way they wanted.

Fair enough. I just feel though A.M. made a trade off for any losses on future profits of selling a talent like Rodri early if he didn't have a buy out clause or had a crazy high one. Mainly because they are still a selling club. That is why I've always felt they priced him higher than his then market value but not too high to discourage suitors all together....

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

The fact that it's mandatory doesn't mean that the player doesn't have any say in it. Hell, technically I believe it's not even mandatory....

Mate in Spain it's mandatory. That is why every club there has to put one in EVERY player contract they make. So it strictly ends up being a way for a club to protect its investment in player contracts, strengthening their negotiating position. It never makes a player unsellable.

The club doesn't get to unilaterally decide what value the buy-out clause is set to. It gets agreed between the player and the club and is included in the contract when it's signed. That's as true with the buy-out clauses in Spain as it is with the release clause in other countries.

No. In Spain because they are mandatory the onus is on the club to protect it's investment in their contract. In nations where they are not the onus is on the player to ensure they are not trapped by a club's whims. That is why in Spain most players and agents tend to simply understand a buy out clause as an indication of how much the club sees their importance to the set up, and the understanding the exorbitant ones are always up for negotiation. Not as a release clause out of a contracts like in other nations.

 

[Abraxas]

As fascinating as this release clause stuff is, Declan Rice doesn't have one so it has absolutely no bearing on anything to do with his prospective sale. Besides, in practice it doesn't work that whatever X player goes for it immediately becomes a reference point, whether it's Rodri, Tchouameni, Bellingham.

The only thing that matters is what Club A will sell at, and whether there are potential buyers at that price. This transfer saga is one of the best demonstrations of how the market forces actually work, because West Ham have been steadfast with their valuation which has previously precluded any sale despite interest, and now the potential buyers appear to be giving every indication they will do business this summer. Hence he will go.

I just don't think they care that he's overpriced on some arbitrary scale, they're looking at value as much as price and they're often two different things. Experience at a young age, full visibility of his development as a PL footballer which reduces his risk, good personality, they are all appealing qualities and that's in addition to his ability.

 

[MadDogg]

Mate in Spain it's mandatory. That is why every club there has to put one in EVERY player contract they make. So it strictly ends up being a way for a club to protect its investment in player contracts, strengthening their negotiating position. It never makes a player unsellable.

I'm finding conflicting reports over whether it is actually mandatory. Some sources say it is, some say it technically isn't. And the most official reports that I can find that are written by literal lawyers who work with the players and clubs on the contracts say it's the latter (unless things have changed in the last five years). I'm happy to be shown otherwise but it doesn't really make much difference. As I said in my previous post if they didn't have a buy-out clause the player can legally get out of their contract at any time for very cheap so that is why EVERY player contract has it.

No. In Spain because they are mandatory the onus is on the club to protect it's investment in their contract. In nations where they are not the onus is on the player to ensure they are not trapped by a club's whims. That is why in Spain most players and agents tend to simply understand a buy out clause as an indication of how much the club sees their importance to the set up, and the understanding the exorbitant ones are always up for negotiation. Not as a release clause out of a contracts like in other nations.

The buy-out clause in Spain is literally due to their laws protecting workers rights. They became the way to balance the rights of the individual players being able to get out of their contracts if they wished while also recognising that players are a large investment so the club is due compensation.

Please show me any source that says that clubs can unilaterally pick what the buy-out clause is without the player having a say. Hell, it doesn't even make sense because if that were the case they could change it at any time and we'd never see the hostile signings like Neymar and Figo. In reality they are tied to the player's contract, and has to be agreed with the player at the time of signing that contract. The fact that they are effectively mandatory in Spain doesn't change how they actually work (in terms of from the selling clubs side). Either way, whether it's a player in Spain where a buy-out clause is 'mandatory' or a player in England/Italy/Germany where the player actively required that a release clause was included, the end result is still the same. It puts an absolute upper limit on what a selling club can decline for a player they really do not want to sell, but if it's a player that they are willing to sell for less then they will still accept that lower figure if that's all the buying club will offer. You saying otherwise for that last bit is what bought on this entire conversation, stating that Atletico would have accepted less if it weren't for the buy-out clause. That simply doesn't make sense.

 

[atkar83]

Is Declan Rice what Ole thought McTominay was? Or is he a better version of McTominay? Because we need MF depth and a (much) better version of McT would be ideal.

 

[Waynne]

--------------- Rice -------- Rabiot ------------------

OR

------------- Rabiot -------- Casemiro -----------

Keen to hear from fellow Caf memebrs which would provide a midfield combo in front of the back 4.

 

[Mainoldo]

--------------- Rice -------- Rabiot ------------------

OR

------------- Rabiot -------- Casemiro -----------

Keen to hear from fellow Caf memebrs which would provide a midfield combo in front of the back 4.

Both solid. Rice is more athletic than Cass but Cass is obviously still the better player now.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I'm finding conflicting reports over whether it is actually mandatory. Some sources say it is, some say it technically isn't.

Its a Royal decree that was made about workers rights. Trust me on this its mandatory

Please show me any source that says that clubs can unilaterally pick what the buy-out clause is without the player having a say. Hell, it doesn't even make sense because if that were the case they could change it at any time and we'd never see the hostile signings like Neymar and Figo.

You are conflating two things that have naught to do with each other. A club having the unilateral right to pick the buy out clause protecting their contract with a player. Doesn't at the same grant them the right to unilaterally change it at whim any time they please. Contracts and contract laws can never work like that any where on the planet.


I also find it strange y'all keep insisting on "proof" of what I'm arguing. Yet you are aware there are several players in Laliga with buy out clause above 500m. If what you claim is true? And its not merely a way for clubs to a) protect their contract with a player and b) show a player how much they are of value to their project and is instead "a fee both parties must agree on". And 'players won't ever agree to sign deals with exhorbitant clauses"...

Why DO players as young as Fati, Pedri, Vinicius jr to name juat sign release clauses of close to or up to €1B? Do you think them all stupid?

Rather what doesn't make sense is insisting buy out clauses in Spain operate like they do every where else. All the arguments yall put forth work every where else correctly. Not in Spain where EVERY player contract, has a termination clause. With a legally mandatory clause, if only signing a contract with a clause entirely depended on the player's satisfaction with the clause, Spanish teams would never be able to stay afloat with enough players let alone run a sustainable footballing enterprise. That much should be obvious.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

--------------- Rice -------- Rabiot ------------------

OR

------------- Rabiot -------- Casemiro -----------

Keen to hear from fellow Caf memebrs which would provide a midfield combo in front of the back 4.

Both combos IMHO would be equally as good. An 8 partnered with a 6 . if In being honest if we also bagged a player like a Rabiot or Tielemanns on a free, If we decided to spend on Rice. I'd be chuffed. We'd have the perfect midfield blend of two elite 6s (Rice and Casemiro) a robust 8 and a silky one who are both elite passers (Rabiot/Tielemanns and Eriksen) and Bruno as the main 10. Perhaps backed by a Sancho.

 

[Member 109996]

Both combos IMHO would be equally as good. An 8 partnered with a 6 . if In being honest if we also bagged a player like a Rabiot or Tielemanns on a free, If we decided to spend on Rice. I'd be chuffed. We'd have the perfect midfield blend of two elite 6s (Rice and Casemiro) a robust 8 and a silky one who are both elite passers (Rabiot/Tielemanns and Eriksen) and Bruno as the main 10. Perhaps backed by a Sancho.

Have you watched Tielemans in the last 18 months? I'd rather keep McT and Fred if Tielemans is all there is.