I think they're saying, if you agreed terms in March, when the release clause was 200, you owe us 200.
Transfer Tweets - 2019/20 | Check the OP for blacklisted sources before posting
- Thread starter KM
- Start date
- Status
Barca are only paying the release clause now..
If there is any way to prove that they offered Griezman a contract in March, it'll be tapping up.. It isnt allowed. It used to be a big deal 10 years ago. No one seems to care anymore, but it still isnt allowed.
So if Madrid can prove it, Barca are fecked.. Unless they claim they intended to trigger the release clause, which at that time was 200m.
Basically, if Madrid have any proof, they could negotiate up with Barca..
Most likely, nothing happens, it gets settled behind closed doors.
If there is any way to prove that they offered Griezman a contract in March, it'll be tapping up.. It isnt allowed. It used to be a big deal 10 years ago. No one seems to care anymore, but it still isnt allowed.
So if Madrid can prove it, Barca are fecked.. Unless they claim they intended to trigger the release clause, which at that time was 200m.
Basically, if Madrid have any proof, they could negotiate up with Barca..
Most likely, nothing happens, it gets settled behind closed doors.
I haven’t been following this at all but was the release clause dropping public knowledge?
Yes.
I fail to see the issue at hand. It's always been public that Griezmans release clause would go down, it was known from the minute he signed the contract. The release clause means he's always available on the market. The contract extension was signed, increasing his release clause to an obscene level to avoid him leaving for a certain period of time, then lowering it to a more acceptable level where they knew they'd risk losing him. As far as i know, there's no need to ask for permission to speak to the player, it's not like the club can refuse to sell him.
My sentiments exactly. He was a bang average footballer for us and never a starter for me.
Utter nonsense. Why do people always imagine these ridiculous legal arguments?
He could agree to join any club at any time he likes. The release clause figure is only valid once it’s activated. Griezmann could pay the clause today and walk away from football if he could afford it and wanted to.
You can't talk with player before his club allows it. In this case Barca needed to trigger clause. If they start talking with him while clause was 200mil then they must pay 200mil. Or they can be accused for tapping up player which will bring them transfer ban.
This situation is not simple in many ways. I am so glad that this happened to Barca.
Bollox.
Fantasy.
It's not nonsense, Barca were tapping up Griezmann last year and were warned they would be reported.
Barca already went through a transfer ban, how is any of this nonsense? This could be disasterous for Barca.
What and why? You know that clubs can't talk with players without permission of selling club? So to get that you must make offer. Offer then was 200mil. What is here that you don't understand?
Its true, you need to inform the club, usually the club is informed and they allow you to speak with the player in leu of negotiating a price after agreeing with the player is normal, but the club always has to be informed.
If Barca agreed with Griezzman without letting Atletico know they were speaking to him, then it could be a grey area. Prob will still be ok, but don't think the rules are clear in that situation.
The whole idea that they have to pay what the release clause was at the time of agreeing a future deal is utter rubbish.
It’s beyond nonsense.
People are just desperate for this to be true, however.
You don't have to make any offer, but you do need the clubs permission.
Yes I would and the mods have asked for less speculative posts many times on here.
It's a release clause. You either activate it or you don't, there's no offer.
You can always try to haggle with the club, but the stance is usually quite simply "sod off or activate the clause", and activating the clause means signing the player.
Yeah, i meant that. Offer which club will accept with which you get permission or at least inform selling club to allow you to speak with the player.
This thing with 120 or 200 is grey zone but tapping up is not. So i reckon that Barca can either pay 80 mil more to calm Atletico or stick with 120 but then will get transfer ban.
Apparently it's actual signed documents that's in play which is why they're able to date it.
Atletico publically ordered Barca to stop tapping up Antoine last year or they would be taken up on it and obviously Barca didn't back off. Its idiotic from them and could make this more hassle than its worth.
But you must activate it before talking with player. Activation= offer. Bloody hell....
Madrid will have a hard time proving Griezmann signed a contract in March.
So you have to deposit €200m at the offices of La Liga before asking the player if he wants to have his legally compulsory release clause activated?
OK.
Since when ? Activating the release clause means paying up at the sports association's headquarters. The entire point of the release clause is that the player is always available on the market
As with Manchester City and Rodri "“La Liga has informed Atletico de Madrid that Rodrigo Hernandez, through his lawyer, and representatives from Manchester City, paid the player's release clause at the sports association's headquarters on Wednesday, July 3. Manchester City has paid the buyout clause on behalf of the player."
Every player in Spain has release clause. So by your logic, every club can talk with player first and then activate clause.
It would be tapping up el dorado there then.
It's a fecking release clause, there's nothing to negotiate.
Read up on it.
Even go back to Neymar sodding off to PSG. Barcelona were livid over it.
They can.
This happens time and again in football. Club wants to play Billy big bollòcks and refuses offers after setting a ridiculous price tag on a player that wants to move. 1 year later, club is eager to offload for a cut price deal.
The lack of of business sense in football is staggering sometimes.
West Ham did exactly the same with Payet. Knocked back £50m. Year later he’s gone for £25m.
we had to get Herrera to pay his clause due to tax laws, how did we do that without speaking to him first?
I didn't disagree buddy, I was talking about the rules on tapping up players. Not sure what you're telling me to read up on... maybe you should read the full comment
and also the tapping up rules.I didn't disagree buddy, I was talking about the rules on tapping up players. Not sure what you're telling me to read up on... maybe you should read the full comment
Footballers in Spain have the same rights as all other employees by royal decree, essentially meaning that they can sod off at any time they want without consent from their club, by forking out the cash for the remaining time of their contract (wages). This is why they have release clauses put into their contracts, to ensure a fixed fee if the player wants to sod off. No consent whatsoever is needed from their current club, the player is always available. Tapping players up is a problem related to contracts where the club is under no obligation to sell the player at a fixed fee, where they actually need permission to sign the player.
If anyone struggles to understand the concept, just look at the Neymar to PSG deal. Barcelona tried everything they could in order to block it.
Of course that we spoke with him. In reality every club first talk with the player( via his agent) about his desire for transfer. But the thing is that it is nearly impossible to find a proof for that and clubs always reach an agreement. It is like " we all do it so lets not talk about it".
But in this case Atletico allegedly have proof (and they didn't want to sell, they are pissed on Barca and they want more money) so they will play hard ball.
Last year Saints accused Liverpool for tapping up Van Dijk and then Liverpool payed what Saints wanted and all was good.
You couldn't find a worse example by any chance ? Southampton were under no obligation to sell him. Liverpool tapped him up and as a result, Van Dijk did what he could in order to force Southampton to accept an offer, in the end it delayed the entire transfer because Southampton were furious with Liverpool. This has absolutely nothing to do with release clauses.
Unfortunately I expect we will end up doing the same with Pogba.
Every player has a buy out clause, most have a release clause because it's convenient due to the first one. A buy out clause means that the player unilaterally breaks his contract, it's not "activated" but purchased through the LFP.
Van Dijk was related for other thing. Regarding this topic i will repeat; release clause doesn't mean that you can speak with the player without permission. But you believe what you want
- Status