Minimum fee release clause

klose

What happened the time when bayern bought maritnez from athletic bilbao? Iirc there was something to do with release clauses and there was a bit of a ****storm over it.

Shanotheslayer

I could be wrong, but the club doesn't have to accept the minimum release? Is that not just to open up talks? The player could then refuse?

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I could be wrong, but the club doesn't have to accept the minimum release? Is that not just to open up talks? The player could then refuse?

The club has to accept (although there was confusion around the wording of Suarez's seemingly) but the player can refuse.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

The club has to accept (although there was confusion around the wording of Suarez's seemingly) but the player can refuse.

So the club can just refuse?

I.e Bid in for Barkley he has a buy out for 50mil, a long come City and say right heres 50mil. Barkley and Martinez could sit down with Barkley and his agent and say 'Right Ross, i think we can get more here etc etc' Thus refusing to accept the 50mil and holding out for higher offer?

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

So the club can just refuse?

I.e Bid in for Barkley he has a buy out for 50mil, a long come City and say right heres 50mil. Barkley and Martinez could sit down with Barkley and his agent and say 'Right Ross, i think we can get more here etc etc' Thus refusing to accept the 50mil and holding out for higher offer?

No, the club has to accept.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

No, the club has to accept.

Sorry mis-read last post. Player could refuse tho and ask for more tho? Which would benefit his club/himself?

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Sorry mis-read last post. Player could refuse tho and ask for more tho? Which would benefit his club/himself?

Ask for more wages yeah, not really much reason for the player to care about the transfer fee.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Ask for more wages yeah, not really much reason for the player to care about the transfer fee.

They get 10% of it no?

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

They get 10% of it no?

If they don't hand in a transfer request they get a portion of it yeah, but in reality the buying club can pass on that same amount of money easily to the player without having to pay more to the selling club anyway, the player would be looking it in terms of the gross financial package they receive, so the transfer fee itself wouldn't really matter.

Chancer3001

I can't believe this is taking so long to explain.

As for the 10% of the fee! it completely varies! contract by contract.

Most contracts these days would receive zero of the transfer fee.

Agents instead, look for signing on fees and loyalty bonuses.

ASOT

Everyone should just play football manager and there you go itl be explained sharpish.

Sheepy99

~Rebel~ wrote: »

A buyout doesn't help get more money for the club - having a clause means absolutely nothing in terms of a lowest sale price. A 60 million buy out does not mean you can't buy him for less than that - it simply means you have to let him go for that. You can't negotiate, he's just gone if he agrees terms with the other club. If there's no buyout, you have full control to simply reject all offers.

Most Spanish transfers (where buyout clauses are mandatory) are agreed at a price lower than the buy out clause stipulated. The buyout is the Max you can pay - not the minimum. It's a failsafe for the player, not the club.

If Liverpool or Everton don't want to sell Sterling or Barkley, they don't have to, regardless of the offer. Having a buyout clause removes that option.

That's why it's called a 'minimum fee release'. The minimum to be paid to guarantee the owning club releases his playing rights.
I think some people are missing what was being implied. As was mentioned in another post, the aim is to set the release fee very high, that way you can say "we're not going unless we get that, don't waste your time". It's meant to give a bit of leverage so that they can ignore anything else coming from the club with the intention of buying. When Madrid bought Illarramendi, he was not worth 32M, more about 15M, but Sociedad flat out refused to sell him.
At least by the end of it, they wern't hard done by. He won't go for a fee such as that again.

bucketybuck

Sheepy99 wrote: »

As was mentioned in another post, the aim is to set the release fee very high, that way you can say "we're not going unless we get that, don't waste your time". It's meant to give a bit of leverage so that they can ignore anything else coming from the club with the intention of buying. .

Again, what is stopping the club doing that anyway? They don't need a formal minimum release fee to simply tell the bidding club they don't want to sell.

Chancer3001

These release clauses have to be in every Spanish contract.

In England they are rare unless a player equestrian one cos they think they deserve a bigger club

~Rebel~

Sheepy99 wrote: »

That's why it's called a 'minimum fee release'. The minimum to be paid to guarantee the owning club releases his playing rights.
I think some people are missing what was being implied. As was mentioned in another post, the aim is to set the release fee very high, that way you can say "we're not going unless we get that, don't waste your time". It's meant to give a bit of leverage so that they can ignore anything else coming from the club with the intention of buying. When Madrid bought Illarramendi, he was not worth 32M, more about 15M, but Sociedad flat out refused to sell him.
At least by the end of it, they wern't hard done by. He won't go for a fee such as that again.

Except that that's not what it actually does at all in practice. Not having it doesn't stop you from doing exactly the same thing. It being there is only a negative for the selling club.

How did that release clause help Sociedad in any way? Why would they have had to sell for less if it wasn't there? As it was, they were completely allowed to sell for less if they choose anyway - this only mean that 32 was the limit they could get. Perhaps they could have pushed for more without it, or even actually kept the player. The clause took those options out of their hands.

Also, with that first thing where you talk about "minimum" - minimum implies that they figure could be higher. The clause means that it cannot. it's the most that a club will ever have to pay to get the player.

Sheepy99

~Rebel~ wrote: »

How did that release clause help Sociedad in any way? Why would they have had to sell for less if it wasn't there? As it was, they were completely allowed to sell for less if they choose anyway - this only mean that 32 was the limit they could get. Perhaps they could have pushed for more without it, or even actually kept the player.

They didn't want to sell. The player in question was worth nowhere near that much. Without the clause the player would've been constantly whinging all summer until he got his move. Nobody said that they would've had to sell for less, but everyone knows that so called small clubs buckle under the pressure to sell these days, between the buying club feeding stories to newspapers, the player's agent doing the same and the player himself releasing statements saying that they'll strike if the transfer doesn't go through.

My opinion is that if used correctly, the release clause has the ability to be of benefit to clubs who don't need to sell one or two of their better players each summer and who are looking to build something in the long term. Southampton could be used as an example. They didn't need to sell from a financial point of view(i'm pretty sure) last summer, but Lallana was pretty insistent from reports, as was Lovren and Lambert would've done anything to join the team he supported. Schneiderlin too was desperate for a move. They seem to be doing nicely for themselves at the minute, that all could change with the run of games coming up, but if it wasn't for some shrewd dealings from Koeman and setting his team up well, then they could be off fighting relegation as most had predicted in the predictions thread.

I'll agree that in some cases, in practice it is not a good idea but i'll also say that in the majority of cases it's not being used correctly by most clubs. Most of Madrid's players have release fees of about 70, 80, 90m. Not the players who were bought for crazy sums. If the club ever decides that they don't need them, then sure sell them for 15, 20, even 30m. But if those players end up being key players in the team, better than had been expected and Madrid have to sell for some reason, whether it be FFP or to fund another transfer then they think to themselves "Oh right, he's worth about 60M, you guys(buying club) are desperate for him, the ball is in our court. We want his release fee.(could be 70 or 80m)". That's the situation where it works out.

inforfun

Release clauses are dubious.
Henke Larsson was sold from Feyenoord to Celtic for under €2 million.
Wim Jansen was in charge at the time at Celtic and was in charge at Feyenoord when Larsson signed the contract with that fee in it.

Same happened when Feyenoord sold Gullit to PSV. Guy signing him for Feyenoord moved on to PSV and knew exactly how high the buy out fee for Gullit was in his contract. Gullit did cost PSV Dfl 750.000 and sold him on for Dfl 18 million 3 years later.

Same thing with Thiago to Bayern, Pep knew about a certain clause in his contract which allowed him to be released for a certain fee if he didn't play X number of minutes during the season which he did not.

CSF

The manager shouldn't really have final say over the implementation of such clauses anyway. The people who decide how much a club should be willing to pay for a player and how much they should be willing to let that player go for should not be the same ones that decide which player to go for and which ones to get rid of.

As for knowing about the clauses. I reckon the agents make these things abundantly clear to potential buyers anyway.