Time for release clauses in EPL?

[The red panther]

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.

The small clubs make more money than the big clubs from the tv deal if you compare it to the amount of viewers each club brings in.

United attracts alot more viewers than for example Souton. Hence they bring in more tv money. Pooling that money into one big pot and dividing it more evenly amoungst the clubs benefits the small clubs.

 

[Zlatattack]

Yeah that's another big bear! I know players have too much power these days, but holding a player and asking a stupid amount of money, because let's face it, £60m for VVD is crazy and unfair on the player if he wants to play in the Champions League!

Let's say Liverpool pay the £60m to get him and he does really well in the Champions League and then Real Madrid want him, how much would Liverpool demand then?

He's not captive. He could put in a transfer request, he hasn't.

 

[Rado_N]

The small clubs make more money than the big clubs from the tv deal if you compare it to the amount of viewers each club brings in.

United attracts alot more viewers than for example Souton. Hence they bring in more tv money. Pooling that money into one big pot and dividing it more evenly amoungst the clubs benefits the small clubs.

So small clubs make more than big clubs if you completely redefine the word more.

The TV deal is structured the way it is so as to prevent the league having become a 4 way playoff every season years ago. We should not be trying to make life as easy as possible for the big teams at the expense of the small ones, it would destroy those clubs and by extension the league.

 

[The red panther]

So small clubs make more than big clubs if you completely redefine the word more.

The TV deal is structured the way it is so as to prevent the league having become a 4 way playoff every season years ago. We should not be trying to make life as easy as possible for the big teams at the expense of the small ones, it would destroy those clubs and by extension the league.

Iam not against the tv deal but I think the mandatory release clause proposal would balance things more.

Also the spanish league isnt exactly dead. Nor has the structure of the EPL really allowed a small club to leapfrog in the league aswell.

 

[Rado_N]

Iam not against the tv deal but I think the mandatory release clause proposal would balance things more.

Also the spanish league isnt exactly dead. Nor has the structure of the EPL really allowed a small club to leapfrog in the league aswell.

It would do the exact opposite of that. It would tilt things enormously in favour of the wealthiest clubs.

 

[JPRouve]

Aren't release clauses part of the agreement between club and player?

A lot of young players in Germany have them in their contracts - but that costs them wage.

You are right on both accounts. The problem in the PL is that plenty of players joins because of the "easy" money, they can't complain when their clubs make it difficult when it comes to sales.

 

[Ravelation]

Nope, players should sign shorter term contracts if they think they'll want to move on.

Exactly, the reason why smaller clubs demand expensive transfer fees is because they signed long contracts, if a player like VVD is on a smaller contract, out of fear of loosing the player on a free you are forced to sell for cheaper, it's just a part of the valuation of any given player.

Besides, the vast majority of football clubs are not Super-clubs, to want the creation of a rule which favors the 1 percent is simply wrong. If a smaller club has invested in a player, signed for the long term, it's only right that they are hold the super clubs to ransom over sale price; as anyone at United could tell you, selling a star performer and continuing your success is never easy, even when the transfer fee received is ridiculously high.

Whereas I do think players and agents should take into account release clauses, I do not think it's crucial for equality or fairness in football; it quite simply doesn't really add much.

 

[Ødegaard]

Honestly, it's up to the players.
If they have ambitions of playing for bigger teams, they'll accept a paycut to get in a release clause.

 

[Escobar]

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

Solves any and all argument.

Does not really. If the buy out clause is so high (similar to signing a 6 year contract) other clubs are priced out and the player is stuck again

 

[The red panther]

It would do the exact opposite of that. It would tilt things enormously in favour of the wealthiest clubs.

Yea well in the EPL i think the balance is now tipping over in favor of the smaller clubs who are through the tv deal getting very rich on the back of the big clubs. I have no problem that they earn alot of money but I do mind the fact the use their increased wealth to make it difficult if not to say near impossible for the big clubs to sign any of their good players.

In any other competition it is natural good players stepping up from smaller clubs to bigger clubs without having to pay wordclass player money for any half good player. The prices smaller EPL clubs are demanding for half decent players is excessive and harms the interests of the bigger clubs who cant find good players in their own league anymore and it also harms the players for whome it becomes more difficult to make a step up within the PL.

Making release clauses mandatory instead of optional would prevent smaller clubs from being overly excessive in their demands without harming their ability to be fairly compensated and making enough money to remain competitive.

Hence restoring the balance a bit.

 

[The red panther]

Does not really. If the buy out clause is so high (similar to signing a 6 year contract) other clubs are priced out and the player is stuck again

But than he accepted that ridiculous fee in his contract. It seems more reasonable to me to negotiate a reasonable realse clause especially if it is mandatory to have one than to negotiate shorter term deals as many seem to suggest as an option. Shorter term deals wont happen as it is in often in the interest of the player and club to have a long term deal. The problem being that those interestd can change over the duration due to circumstances which cant always be anticipated from the start.

 

[Nick7]

It would probably cripple the clubs outside of the top 6. It would be beneficial for the top clubs, in that they could put obscene release clauses in contracts.