Time for release clauses in EPL?

[Rado_N]

Nope, highest profile one i can think of was Kante to Chelsea last summer. Leicester would have demanded a shed load more had it not been in his contract. I think Vardy and Marhez also had them before they signed new deals.

Fellaini had one before joining us, but Moyes tried to be a Jedi so it expired and we paid more. Because Dave.

 

[Kostur]

Hence those clubs ask outright ridiculous prices for their players. It is something you see every year in the EPL and becomes worse and worse. You compare that to the Bundesliga and Bayern and Dortmund can sign any player they want from other bundesliga clubs for what we would call cut price deals. In Spain it is the same, not hard to see why that harms the bigger clubs and benefits the smaller ones.

What's stopping the almighty EPLEL clubs from buying players outside of EPL then?

 

[The red panther]

So we're meant to implement a system designed to stunt the growth of smaller clubs and help big clubs grow? Calm the hell down name that rhymes with play golf.

It is not designed to stunt the growth of smaller clubs it is designed to prevent clubs from acting like total douche bags in the market. If a player like VVD wants to move to a club like LFC and thinks it is the next best step in his career, he should be allowed to do that and the market mechanisme should make that possible. If LFC pays enough money for VVD the transfer should happen. The way Souton declines £60m for VVD is outright insane, it is so far from a fair valuation that it harms VVD and LFC in this. But the EPL is full of such cases, Everton wanting £100m for Lukaku, us spending £40m for Shaw couple of seasons back, Kane being nearly unbuyable in his current situation, £50m for Stones... The internal PL market has gone crazy because of this.

 

[The red panther]

What's stopping the almighty EPLEL clubs from buying players outside of EPL then?

Nothing but if we don't have easy access to the internal market it hinders our competitiveness compared to foreign clubs that do.

 

[Rado_N]

It is not designed to stunt the growth of smaller clubs it is designed to prevent clubs from acting like total douche bags in the market. If a player like VVD wants to move to a club like LFC and thinks it is the next best step in his career, he should be allowed to do that and the market mechanisme should make that possible. If LFC pays enough money for VVD the transfer should happen. The way Souton declines £60m for VVD is outright insane, it is so far from a fair valuation that it harms VVD and LFC in this. But the EPL is full of such cases, Everton wanting £100m for Lukaku, us spending £40m for Shaw couple of seasons back, Kane being nearly unbuyable in his current situation, £50m for Stones... The internal PL market has gone crazy because of this.

Why is what the player wants more important than what the current club wants?

 

[Kostur]

Nothing but if we don't have easy access to the internal market it hinders our competitiveness compared to foreign clubs that do.

But we do have an easy access to it, it's the prices and wages that are just higher in the EPL. You pay more, you get paid more too, works both ways for both small and big clubs. If the clubs like Liverpool want their Dijks they can also just expand their scouting network to the extent where they can fish out those pearls before clubs like SOTON who specialise in it. Nothing's stopping them, especially that they have bigger budget than SOTON or any midtable-to-top-3-4 clubs in any other league, nevermind the midtable clubs.

 

[The red panther]

Of course they're not mandatory, and they absolutely shouldn't be, but your original claim was that they were forbidden which is nonsense.

If a player wants a release clause in his deal he and his agent can negotiate for one when the deal is being agreed. If the club don't want to include one the player can either decline to join that club or agree to do without.

What you're suggesting is that smaller clubs should be kept small and under the boot of the bigger clubs who should be able to cherry pick their best players at will, whilst the smaller clubs have no say in the matter. It's ridiculous.

To be frank you're just speaking as a transfer muppet who's only interest is a fix. There's a bigger picture which is the benefit of the league as a whole, we should not be looking at the position in Spain as an example of what to aspire to.

For the smaller clubs that is indeed the best scenario for the bigger clubs it isn't. Spanish big clubs have been outperforming PL clubs for decades now in europe. It is good for competition between english clubs, it is bad for competition between the big clubs.

I think having mandatory buy-outs makes alot of sense. As it will prevent situations where a small club can just demand an outright refuse to sell a player even if the player wants to go and they are receiving fair value bids for him.

I also think the tv-money deal in PL is better than in spain and is more than enough as a means for the smaller clubs to stay competitive.

 

[shaky]

Given the amount of money that being a PL team is worth to Southampton over 5 years, I think they are completely justified in turning down £60m for VVD if he helps keep them away from relegation battles. Nobody forced him to sign a long contract, and just as Rooney is completely entitled to stay here and take his money for doing little, teams are perfectly entitled to expect players to see out their contracts if they so wish.

 

[Schmiznurf]

It is not designed to stunt the growth of smaller clubs it is designed to prevent clubs from acting like total douche bags in the market. If a player like VVD wants to move to a club like LFC and thinks it is the next best step in his career, he should be allowed to do that and the market mechanisme should make that possible. If LFC pays enough money for VVD the transfer should happen. The way Souton declines £60m for VVD is outright insane, it is so far from a fair valuation that it harms VVD and LFC in this. But the EPL is full of such cases, Everton wanting £100m for Lukaku, us spending £40m for Shaw couple of seasons back, Kane being nearly unbuyable in his current situation, £50m for Stones... The internal PL market has gone crazy because of this.

No, clubs sign contracts with players who agree to stay there for a set amount of time, if that player is important to them they can demand any fee and that's as fair as it comes.
Players are valued at what a club is willing to pay, that's how it is.

 

[hellohello]

I got to thinking recently about Southampton wanting £60m for VVD from Liverpool, and considering how much money the league has now they could essentially reject anything but their valuation because they're obviously not short of money anymore.

Problem is though that these players looking to progress and further they're career are clearly going to be blocked by the 'smaller' clubs wanting stupid money for their players, I'm not against smaller clubs wanting big money but it could harm the bigger English clubs in Europe, take VVD for example, he didn't want to stay at Southampton for the rest of his career when he left Celtic, he saw them as an in between and a shop window to showcase his talent on a bigger stage.

Read in the Press Gossip thread that Spurs are now demanding £60m for What! I don't think agents (who lets face it, want their clients to move) will be liking this, and I'm assuming they're going to start demanding release clauses in their clients contracts at reasonable fees as I just can't see this situation lasting much longer.

What ya'll think? Release clauses, yay or nay?

If Southampton accept an offer for 40m will they be able to replace him? The answer is most definitely no, they will be forced to take a chance on a player and hope he turns out to be as good, and if he does then will they then have to accept another offer for 40m? Clubs are full within their right to ask for top money for the players they already pay an extraordinary amount for, big clubs doesn't have a right to buy a player at a price that suit them and not the selling club. Clubs take a chance on players to become good, and sometimes when they aren't worth the investment they still sit there on huge contracts, but when they are the club has to sell to a big club and be in a position where they can't replace him? Silly and only sounds like you think clubs like United has a right to remain on top and buy players for whatever sum you think is reasonable.

 

[The red panther]

Why is what the player wants more important than what the current club wants?

If a player doesn't want to play for that club anymore, he should not be hold to ransom even if he entered into a contract with them. If I sign a contract to work at a company, I can also leave if I want to and the company can not hold on to me like I'am some slave they are entitled to.

 

[The red panther]

No, clubs sign contracts with players who agree to stay there for a set amount of time, if that player is important to them they can demand any fee and that's as fair as it comes.
Players are valued at what a club is willing to pay, that's how it is.

That is slavery with a fixed duration and a high salary

 

[Kostur]

If a player doesn't want to play for that club anymore, he should not be hold to ransom even if he entered into a contract with them. If I sign a contract to work at a company, I can also leave if I want to and the company can not hold on to me like I'am some slave they are entitled to.

The players can (presumably) read the contracts they sign and the things they agree to though, nevermind the incomparable parallel of money earned at company X and a football club, etc.

 

[Rado_N]

For the smaller clubs that is indeed the best scenario for the bigger clubs it isn't. Spanish big clubs have been outperforming PL clubs for decades now in europe. It is good for competition between english clubs, it is bad for competition between the big clubs.

I think having mandatory buy-outs makes alot of sense. As it will prevent situations where a small club can just demand an outright refuse to sell a player even if the player wants to go and they are receiving fair value bids for him.

I also think the tv-money deal in PL is better than in spain and is more than enough as a means for the smaller clubs to stay competitive.

The big clubs make more money from the same TV deal, if they want to take players from the smaller clubs it's right they they should have to pay what the smaller clubs deems as their worth. If they don't agree with the value they don't buy the player. Simple Simple.

You're proposing screwing the smaller clubs to benefit the big ones.

 

[Rado_N]

If a player doesn't want to play for that club anymore, he should not be hold to ransom even if he entered into a contract with them. If I sign a contract to work at a company, I can also leave if I want to and the company can not hold on to me like I'am some slave they are entitled to.

That is slavery with a fixed duration and a high salary

Jesus fecking Christ.

 

[The red panther]

But in the end it's the player who agreed to sign a new contract where he usually get's more money. So he just cant have both and it is clear that the clubs try to protect themselves

So negotiate a buy-out and make that mandatory for every contract.

Solves any and all argument.

 

[The red panther]

Jesus fecking Christ.

What ? Clubs should be allowed to keep a player even if he doesn't want to play there anymore ?

How is that not some form off slavery ?

 

[Schmiznurf]

Who do you support @The red panther ?

 

[Schmiznurf]

That is slavery with a fixed duration and a high salary

No, that's a legally binding contract ffs.

 

[Kostur]

What ? Clubs should be allowed to keep a player even if he doesn't want to play there anymore ?

How is that not some form off slavery ?

I think Rado's point is that calling this status 'slavery' is quite depreciatory to the term, it's origins and what it's usually connected to.

I'll take a punt and say you're not really interested in the whole 'modern slavery' stuff but just want the biggest clubs to get their players at the drop of a hat, FIFA style.

 

[Rado_N]

I think Rado's point is that calling this status 'slavery' is quite depreciatory to the term, it's origins and what it's usually connected to.

I'll take a punt and say you're not really interested in the whole 'modern slavery' stuff but just want the biggest clubs to get their players at the drop of a hat, FIFA style.

Bingo. On both counts. red panther is a transfer muppet of the highest order.

 

[Schmiznurf]

If I sign a contract stating I will give 20 English lessons a week for 1 year for 400 a week and then another company offers me 10 lessons a week for a year at 600 a week and decided I wanted the latter one instead but am forced to keep to the contract I signed, am I a slave or just someone who signed a contract and changed my mind once a better offer came?

 

[izec]

If a club/player wants, why not? I dont think it should be a necessity, more like a possibility. I dont care either way to be honest. In case of Van Dijk, you must be mad to sign for 6 years when you want to stay a year or two at maximum.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

At the rate transfer fees are rising, I think it's only a matter of time until a club breaks the gentlemen's agreement regarding the Webster ruling. If that happens the floodgates will open and transfer fees will plummet.

 

[hellohello]

It is not designed to stunt the growth of smaller clubs it is designed to prevent clubs from acting like total douche bags in the market. If a player like VVD wants to move to a club like LFC and thinks it is the next best step in his career, he should be allowed to do that and the market mechanisme should make that possible. If LFC pays enough money for VVD the transfer should happen. The way Souton declines £60m for VVD is outright insane, it is so far from a fair valuation that it harms VVD and LFC in this. But the EPL is full of such cases, Everton wanting £100m for Lukaku, us spending £40m for Shaw couple of seasons back, Kane being nearly unbuyable in his current situation, £50m for Stones... The internal PL market has gone crazy because of this.

Just interested, what do you think about Madrid and DeGea? Should they be allowed to buy him for what they consider a fair price?

Do you think Everton will become a better club from selling Lukaku? Or Southampton from selling VVD? They will need to try and find talent that might be as good, but it's far from certain. They will almost definitely be worse off next season so why shouldn't they demand money that is getting close to what they are losing? Similarly, there is no way Spurs can replace Kane, so why would the club be interested in selling?

In my eyes, the clubs doesn't want to rob you, they just doesn't want to sell their best players, and if they are forced to they will of course try to get a price so they can somewhat make up for what they lost.

 

[hellohello]

No, clubs sign contracts with players who agree to stay there for a set amount of time, if that player is important to them they can demand any fee and that's as fair as it comes.
Players are valued at what a club is willing to pay, that's how it is.

Only if the selling club wants to sell for that price.

 

[The red panther]

The players can (presumably) read the contracts they sign and the things they agree to though, nevermind the incomparable parallel of money earned at company X and a football club, etc.

Contracts should be fair for both parties. Both sides should have reasonable exit clauses.

I think the system in spanish football is better for that than the current system in english football.

And I haven't heard a single good argument to convince me otherwise.

You can easily say players should not sign contracts if they think they are unfair but it is a bit more complicated than that. Players can only sign what clubs are putting infront of them and the alternative of not signing might in many cases be alot worse. What clubs are allowed to put infront of players is a thing that needs to be regulated and is something that can be improved upon.

 

[Schmiznurf]

Only if the selling club wants to sell for that price.

Yeah, I meant to add that in.

 

[The red panther]

Just interested, what do you think about Madrid and DeGea? Should they be allowed to buy him for what they consider a fair price?

Do you think Everton will become a better club from selling Lukaku? Or Southampton from selling VVD? They will need to try and find talent that might be as good, but it's far from certain. They will almost definitely be worse off next season so why shouldn't they demand money that is getting close to what they are losing? Similarly, there is no way Spurs can replace Kane, so why would the club be interested in selling?

In my eyes, the clubs doesn't want to rob you, they just doesn't want to sell their best players, and if they are forced to they will of course try to get a price so they can somewhat make up for what they lost.

If DDG wants to go, I think he should be allowed to and it should be for a fair price as long as United can also get its targets for a fair price that is.

Obviously Souton and Everton don't want to sell their best players. But that should not mean those players can not make a step up or change clubs if they want to. Obviously clubs should be fairly compensated but I think the demands they make are far above fair compensation.

 

[SwansonsTache]

Just interested, what do you think about Madrid and DeGea? Should they be allowed to buy him for what they consider a fair price?

Not what they consider a fair price (not like the buying club will be objective), but rather for what is a fair price for the best player in his position in the world.

With the market being as it is, say £90m?

Might seem excessive but if you went after the best cb\mf\am\st in the world you would get fleeced for three digits in pounds.

 

[Kostur]

Contracts should be fair for both parties. Both sides should have reasonable exit clauses.

I think the system in spanish football is better for that than the current system in english football.

And I haven't heard a single good argument to convince me otherwise.

You can easily say players should not sign contracts if they think they are unfair but it is a bit more complicated than that. Players can only sign what clubs are putting infront of them and the alternative of not signing might in many cases be alot worse. What clubs are allowed to put infront of players is a thing that needs to be regulated and is something that can be improved upon.

No, the whole point of 'players can only sign what clubs are putting in front of them' is simply not true. They can negotiate their contracts with the club, even including the release clause inclusion. If players don't want to be locked by their contracts and their length, they don't have to sign them, but they do so because most of the time each new contract comes with a salary increase. Even if for some reason the clauses were to become a mandatory practice here, the clubs would still put ridiculous prices on those clauses (as the wages, prices of players and money pumped into EPL is ridiculous).

 

[The red panther]

I think Rado's point is that calling this status 'slavery' is quite depreciatory to the term, it's origins and what it's usually connected to.

I'll take a punt and say you're not really interested in the whole 'modern slavery' stuff but just want the biggest clubs to get their players at the drop of a hat, FIFA style.

I'm calling it slavery for the lack of a better word. My only point it that I think the spanish system overall is more fair for all parties involved compaired to the current system. And I think Souton wanting more than £60m for VVD and Everton wanting more than £100m for Lukaku is unfair towards the player and towards the clubs interested in buying them. If you want to call that FIFA style than so be it.

 

[John Johnson]

What a shit thread. Reeks of arrogant entitlement like the TV money rant
Smaller clubs have ambitions aswell

 

[The red panther]

No, the whole point of 'players can only sign what clubs are putting in front of them' is simply not true. They can negotiate their contracts with the club, even including the release clause inclusion. If players don't want to be locked by their contracts and their length, they don't have to sign them, but they do so because most of the time each new contract comes with a salary increase. Even if for some reason the clauses were to become a mandatory practice here, the clubs would still put ridiculous prices on those clauses (as the wages, prices of players and money pumped into EPL is ridiculous).

Ok so what, you can not complain about the release clause being too high if you agreed on it when signing the contract. The thing is when someone like VVD was signed up from Celtic, Souton couldn't have even dreamed about getting £60m or more for him, so the negotiated fee in that contract would typically be lower. At the time you would say, nobody will pay that for him but when he improves over time that can change and now clubs are willing to pay £60m for him but Souton is saying no and that is harming VVD because he has no exit clause except doing out his contract. If there were an agreed upon fee to exit his contract, a club would pay that if they think he is worth it and that would be the end of it. It is how it usually goes in Spain aswell, the insane fees are only part of the contracts for the untouchables like Ronaldo, Messi, Neymar etc. And even then it offers some perspective to exit the contract if you would find a club willing to pay that.

 

[Kostur]

Ok so what, you can not complain about the release clause being too high if you agreed on it when signing the contract. The thing is when someone like VVD was signed up from Celtic, Souton couldn't have even dreamed about getting £60m or more for him, so the negotiated fee in that contract would typically be lower. At the time you would say, nobody will pay that for him but when he improves over time that can change and now clubs are willing to pay £60m for him but Souton is saying no and that is harming VVD because he has no exit clause except doing out his contract. If there were an agreed upon fee to exit his contract, a club would pay that if they think he is worth it and that would be the end of it. It is how it usually goes in Spain aswell, the insane fees are only part of the contracts for the untouchables like Ronaldo, Messi, Neymar etc. And even then it offers some perspective to exit the contract if you would find a club willing to pay that.

Likewise you cannot complain about the lack of thereof if you agreed on it when you sign the contract, eh?

 

[hellohello]

If DDG wants to go, I think he should be allowed to and it should be for a fair price as long as United can also get its targets for a fair price that is.

Obviously Souton and Everton don't want to sell their best players. But that should not mean those players can not make a step up or change clubs if they want to. Obviously clubs should be fairly compensated but I think the demands they make are far above fair compensation.

With the money around, 100m and 60m is not unfair prices imo. Everton and Southampton is also dealing with this same market and 40m won't replace VVD, nor will 70m or whatever replace Lukaku. You can't make demands on the market, it is what it is because of the money, supply and demand, and this is how it's been for a while.

I'm calling it slavery for the lack of a better word. My only point it that I think the spanish system overall is more fair for all parties involved compaired to the current system. And I think Souton wanting more than £60m for VVD and Everton wanting more than £100m for Lukaku is unfair towards the player and towards the clubs interested in buying them. If you want to call that FIFA style than so be it.

Rich clubs can't complain about a free market and then be annoyed that players are too expensive, it's a sport, and if you want to take away a priced asset from a competitor you can't expect it to be only for your benefit. Similarly, players are paid money normal people can't dream of, I'm finding it hard to feel sorry for them, and if they wanted to 'fulfill' an ambition they should have negotiated a different deal for themselves, might get less money on the contract in return for a more 'flexible' contract.

What a shit thread. Reeks of arrogant entitlement like the TV money rant
Smaller clubs have ambitions aswell

100% agree

 

[The red panther]

Likewise you cannot complain about the lack of thereof if you agreed on it when you sign the contract, eh?

If the player has a realistic choice than yes you are right. But in many cases they dont. Often early in a players career they arent in a position to negotiate one and in England most clubs wont include one because the amount they can put in is regulated. Making it mandatory would be an improvement in that respect.

 

[The red panther]

What a shit thread. Reeks of arrogant entitlement like the TV money rant
Smaller clubs have ambitions aswell

Nobody is saying small clubs can't have ambition.

 

[Kostur]

If the player has a realistic choice than yes you are right. But in many cases they dont. Often early in a players career they arent in a position to negotiate one and in England most clubs wont include one because the amount they can put in is regulated. Making it mandatory would be an improvement in that respect.

Then the players are obviously free to try other leagues where the practice of a compulsory buy out clause is a common practice. If I don't agree with shop's X policy, I don't go there.

 

[RU Devil]

It really is incumbent on all parties to negotiate what's best for them, especially when it comes to release clauses. A club will do it's best to protect their interests, whether that is inserting a high clause or lowering the wage in lieu of a lower clause. If a player really believes in himself, he'll be willing to forgo a bit of salary for his current contract to get a reasonable release clause, while the agent should do his best to get that release clause as low as possible in case his client blows up. Of course, it's quite possible the agent actually works against his self-interest since a lower clause probably affects his fees (i.e. lower clause means a smaller amount from the transfer fee). That football agents are basically not monitored or sanctioned by FIFA makes it hard to know if the agent is truly working for his client instead of boosting his coffers at the expense of his client's wishes.

Of course, this assumes each player really knows their potential or ceiling. It seems clubs like BVB do a good job of getting high potential players and keeping their wages in check, probably by agreeing to reasonable release clauses or maybe gentleman's agreement to accept a reasonable offer at a certain time. A team like BVB can offer a lot as a selling club, while still being ambitious & successful enough to challenge for trophies. I don't think non-big 6 EPL teams can do the same (no CL, etc), hence higher wages plus higher release clauses/selling prices. They get a few gems that are really precious to them and can't easily let them go, while BVB/Sevilla/Monaco/etc is ready to reload. It does seem Soton is becoming very good at reloading but can't break through to the next level.