Minimum fee release clause

Sheepy99

Do you think today's game, where the so called smaller clubs ALWAYS lose their best players in the end to the wealthy ones, would benefit if minimum fee release clauses were more widespread, particularly in England where they seem to be non-existent?

At least that way, clubs are guaranteed a big fee every time (unless they're silly enough to set it at a low amount relative to their potential) and it allows them to say bug-off in a nice way. I'd like to think it would work well if it became regular practice when giving a player their first senior contract. I mean it's not going to hurt anybody's hand or pocket to write the condition in a contract.

One recent example that springs to mind of a club who flat out did not want to sell their player is when Sociedad sold Illarramendi to Real for 32M. At this stage it's looking like great business, given that his career has stalled, as unlikely as it was that it would have nosedived as much as quickly, had he remained with Sociedad and kept his chance of regular football.

One negative aspect would be that a club would flat out refuse to sell a player even if his heart was completely set on a move. However footballers are paid well enough nowadays to get over something like that, plus the fact that in any other sort of employment, to be openly seeking a transfer would be laughable.

The Moldy Gowl

Yeah, to be always looking for a different challenge or job is laughable.

Captain Havoc

I don't see what you're saying, it's up to the player if he wants a minimum release clause or not and it's up to a club to take a risk if a player is worth a long term contract to stop him from going anywhere for a while.

CSF

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I don't see what you're saying, it's up to the player if he wants a minimum release clause or not and it's up to a club to take a risk if a player is worth a long term contract to stop him from going anywhere for a while.

Well it is upto the player if he wants a minimum release clause or not, but to say that players always hold the sway in contract negotiations wouldn't really be true, particularly for young players who would be happy to sign up for one for an extra thousand or 2 on their weekly pay.

Chancer3001

Every Spanish contract has to have a minimum release.

I see it as a personal preference for the player. Totally up to them and their agent

Blatter

Buy out clauses don't seem to hold much weight in England even when they are in a player's contract as seen by the Liverpool owners refusal to sell Suarez to Arsenal even though they activated the clause.

~Rebel~

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Do you think today's game, where the so called smaller clubs ALWAYS lose their best players in the end to the wealthy ones, would benefit if minimum fee release clauses were more widespread, particularly in England where they seem to be non-existent?

At least that way, clubs are guaranteed a big fee every time (unless they're silly enough to set it at a low amount relative to their potential) and it allows them to say bug-off in a nice way. I'd like to think it would work well if it became regular practice when giving a player their first senior contract. I mean it's not going to hurt anybody's hand or pocket to write the condition in a contract.

One recent example that springs to mind of a club who flat out did not want to sell their player is when Sociedad sold Illarramendi to Real for 32M. At this stage it's looking like great business, given that his career has stalled, as unlikely as it was that it would have nosedived as much as quickly, had he remained with Sociedad and kept his chance of regular football.

One negative aspect would be that a club would flat out refuse to sell a player even if his heart was completely set on a move. However footballers are paid well enough nowadays to get over something like that, plus the fact that in any other sort of employment, to be openly seeking a transfer would be laughable.

I don't really see what you mean...

How does it help the club to have a minimum release clause? That clause only stipulates the price at which the club MUST sell. Plenty of players get sold for below that price.

Take 2 players at clubs. One with a clause of 25m, the other with no clause. There's no reason the second one would be sold for less than 25m, it's quite the opposite - the second one can hold out for more if they so wish.

Calling it a minimum release clause doesn't really match what it is - it's just a release clause, it's the most you can get.

Chancer3001

Suarezs wasn't a release clause.

It was a nothing clause really.

The minimum fee clause only really works if it's a smallish amount, or an amount below what the player is valued at.

It has been used in England in the past. Craig Bellamy at Blackburn is one example I can think of off the top of my head

Blatter

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Suarezs wasn't a release clause.

It was a nothing clause really.

The minimum fee clause only really works if it's a smallish amount, or an amount below what the player is valued at.

It has been used in England in the past. Craig Bellamy at Blackburn is one example I can think of off the top of my head

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause

Henry is reported to have said. "He had a buyout clause of £40m. Arsenal, one of our prime rivals, offered £40m plus £1. What we've found … is that contracts don't seem to mean a lot in England – actually, in world football."

It certainly turned out to be effectively a nothing clause alright!

Chancer3001

His wasn't a sell clause though, it was some silly clause that he had to be informed of bids over a certain amount

Blatter

Chancer3001 wrote: »

His wasn't a sell clause though, it was some silly clause that he had to be informed of bids over a certain amount

I don't think so, that was just an ill informed narrative at the time. There are quotes there from Henry which state he had an actual buyout clause.

CSF

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I don't really see what you mean...

How does it help the club to have a minimum release clause? That clause only stipulates the price at which the club MUST sell. Plenty of players get sold for below that price.

Take 2 players at clubs. One with a clause of 25m, the other with no clause. There's no reason the second one would be sold for less than 25m, it's quite the opposite - the second one can hold out for more if they so wish.

Calling it a minimum release clause doesn't really match what it is - it's just a release clause, it's the most you can get.

Well now, in Spain, it isn't so much whether the release clause exists, its for how much, which is where the contract negotiation part kicks in.

bucketybuck

CSF wrote: »

Well it is upto the player if he wants a minimum release clause or not, but to say that players always hold the sway in contract negotiations wouldn't really be true, particularly for young players who would be happy to sign up for one for an extra thousand or 2 on their weekly pay.

And what would be the difference with minimum fee releases clauses? That young player still has no bargaining power so the clause gets set at a value that suits the club, what problem is this solving?

CSF

bucketybuck wrote: »

And what would be the difference with minimum fee releases clauses? That young player still has no bargaining power so the clause gets set at a value that suits the club, what problem is this solving?

Prevents the club getting taken for a ride, when the young player eventually meets potential. I believe something like this is happening Dortmund this summer with Reus.

Obviously we're talking in a hypothetical world where Minimum fee release clauses become the norm like they are in Germany (to an extent) and Spain. Obviously the club would be in a better position if they're tied to nothing.

~Rebel~

I can't see any way in which this helps the club. Without a clause, the club can say absolutely any price they want. They own the players contract. They're in the position of power.

A release clause only benefits the player, as it allows a way for an outside party to break the players contract with the club.

AdamD

Blatter wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause



It certainly turned out to be effectively a nothing clause alright!

I reckon this is just Henry looking for some cheap goodwill with the Liverpool fans.

Blatter

AdamD wrote: »

I reckon this is just Henry looking for some cheap goodwill with the Liverpool fans.

I doubt it seeing as there was a lot of talk at the time that Suarez was considering legal action over the whole debacle.

~Rebel~

Blatter wrote: »

I doubt it seeing as there was a lot of talk at the time that Suarez was considering legal action over the whole debacle.

Certainly seems like there was a clause which was badly worded in its terms, making it easy to not have to let him go.

Shanotheslayer

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I can't see any way in which this helps the club. Without a clause, the club can say absolutely any price they want. They own the players contract. They're in the position of power.

A release clause only benefits the player, as it allows a way for an outside party to break the players contract with the club.

Lot's of players go cheaper then what they are worth, the club could value a player higher than what they think. EG- Sterling/Barkley bright england prospects could set a minimum release of 60Mil. Over value them. As aomeone else said Illra going for 35mil. He's barely getting a game atm and wont sell again for near that imo

Liam O

CSF wrote: »

Prevents the club getting taken for a ride, when the young player eventually meets potential. I believe something like this is happening Dortmund this summer with Reus.

Obviously we're talking in a hypothetical world where Minimum fee release clauses become the norm like they are in Germany (to an extent) and Spain. Obviously the club would be in a better position if they're tied to nothing.

But Dortmund surely then took Gladbach for a ride then when buying Reus if we go by that. The minimum clause means nothing really, it's just the minimum amount that must be accepted. The club can still sell for less.

~Rebel~

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Lot's of players go cheaper then what they are worth, the club could value a player higher than what they think. EG- Sterling/Barkley bright england prospects could set a minimum release of 60Mil. Over value them. As aomeone else said Illra going for 35mil. He's barely getting a game atm and wont sell again for near that imo

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.

CSF

Liam O wrote: »

But Dortmund surely then took Gladbach for a ride then when buying Reus if we go by that. The minimum clause means nothing really, it's just the minimum amount that must be accepted. The club can still sell for less.

I know, it was the OP who was making out like these are to the benefit of the selling club, not me.

The only way the selling club benefits in the situation is when they get a higher minimum fee release clause than the player's agent wanted, and aren't later condemned to a cheap transfer.

Chancer3001

They are of no benefit to the club.

They are if a bit of value to a player.

Clubs can make them meaningless if they want by having the buyout figure insanely high.

I think Christians is about 1 billion

bucketybuck

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Lot's of players go cheaper then what they are worth, the club could value a player higher than what they think.

But again, whats the difference even with minimum release fees? In Spain where they have them, players still go cheaper than what they are worth.

Chancer3001

Some people don't seem to understand what they are.

elefant

If anything they are worse for selling clubs.

Valencia were forced to sell Isco for €6million euro to Malaga because of a minimum fee release clause he had in his contract since he was probably 16 or 17 in the club's youth sides. Two years later he moved to Madrid for 5 times that amount. How does that help the club?

I don't see how they benefit anyone except the super-rich clubs who can just snap up anyone they want without the smaller club having any say in whether the player can go or not.

Chancer3001

They benefit the player

CSF

Chancer3001 wrote: »

They benefit the player

Well moreso the buying club, but yeah to an extent.

Captain Havoc

CSF wrote: »

Well moreso the buying club, but yeah to an extent.

They benefit the player, min release is triggered and he needs a new improved contract with his current club or he gets a better contract at a new and probably bigger club.

keane2097

CSF wrote: »

Prevents the club getting taken for a ride, when the young player eventually meets potential.

It does the opposite. You have a young player and give him a release clause of 25M, then he has a Bale-style blossoming and becomes a monster worth 40M+ you are now forced to take 25M for him.

You don't seem to understand this at all. This clause sets an artificial maximum $ value on the amount a club can get for a player, and is entirely a manner in which they can ensure they get rode if one of their players excels unexpectedly.

CSF

keane2097 wrote: »

It does the opposite. You have a young player and give him a release clause of 25M, then he has a Bale-style blossoming and becomes a monster worth 40M+ you are now forced to take 25M for him.

You don't seem to understand this at all. This clause sets an artificial maximum $ value on the amount a club can get for a player, and is entirely a manner in which they can ensure they get rode if one of their players excels unexpectedly.

Yeah I know I was getting confused by the OP's post. I know how it works. I've clarified a number of times in thread after that.

Edit - Wait a sec, youve completely taken my post out of context. There's a paragraph after that explaining exactly what I mean and youve left that out for some bizarre reason

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.

AdamD

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.