Guest ttfn Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 No, you are incorrect. £20m was the MAXIMUM Vardys agent was prepared to accept as a release fee. If the club had INSISTED a higher amount, say £30m then the agent/Vardy would've simply declined the new deal. The release fee on his previous contract would have been around £5m, which is why the club HAD to renegotiate a new deal to protect themselves. The player was always in a stronger position than the club, since if necessary Vardy could've remained on the old deal - but would have been pretty confident that competing offers would come in from other clubs over the summer since his original release clause was so low. If the original clause was so low why didn't he leave in January? If it was out of a sense of loyalty to help us win the league then it doesn't tally with the idea that if Vardy wasn't given a new contract he was just going to chuck away everything he'd worked so hard for by sulking for half a season. In any event does anybody really think that Jamie Vardy, a guy who basically ran himself into the ground for this club (moreso before his new contract I'd say) would throw a wobbly and refuse to try because he didn't get double pay for 4 months (probably a total of £700k difference) between the start of February and the start of June? Would he bollocks. All of the evidence suggests that we had all the cards and we just handed them over.
Viva Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 If the original clause was so low why didn't he leave in January? If it was out of a sense of loyalty to help us win the league then it doesn't tally with the idea that if Vardy wasn't given a new contract he was just going to chuck away everything he'd worked so hard for by sulking for half a season. In any event does anybody really think that Jamie Vardy, a guy who basically ran himself into the ground for this club (moreso before his new contract I'd say) would throw a wobbly and refuse to try because he didn't get double pay for 4 months (probably a total of £700k difference) between the start of February and the start of June? Would he bollocks. All of the evidence suggests that we had all the cards and we just handed them over. What evidence do you have?
Guest ttfn Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 You can't just look at it in simple terms though as i've said before. We don't know what happened in the negotiations of the contract and whether Vardy was pushing for a move or not. If the £20m clause meant that we kept him in January then it was well worth it. The club would know the true value of players and wouldn't put low figures without reason. Kante for example supposedly has a £20m clause, which also seems low. If we had not put that in though, he might have not signed for us. £20m for Kante seems low now, but at the time he signed the contract his market value was about £5.6m (I.e what we signed him for). As such the release clause we put in was prohibitively high relative to his value at the time, which is standard practice.Vardy's value was already well in excess of £20m when he signed the new contract. Throw in the fact that if the club knows it's only going to see 3/4 of it because of a sell-on clause, then it should be inflated even further to protect the club's interest. The only thing anybody seems confident of here is that Vardy has a release clause which would appear to be very low. Absolutely everything else is supposition on your part and I'd certainly think it was a lot more likely that a staff not used to handling big contracts for star names got taken to the cleaners by a smart agent than Jamie Vardy was actually going to down tools and cost us a league title we ended up winning by 10 points. What evidence do you have? The fact that there's a release clause, as reported by every major news outlet. Everything else is your supposition.
Jonezy Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 The price of succes. It does look like we are mugs when Vardy and Kante can go for far under their market price. When Kante's contract was made, no one could know that he would turn into a worldie (well apart from the genius Walsh). Nobody knows why Vardy got such a low release clause in february, but the guys at club are no mugs, so there must be a reason for it. But hey Dilly Ding Dilly Dong, we just won the frickin Premier League!! Whatever happens next can never take that away from us!
Viva Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 £20m for Kante seems low now, but at the time he signed the contract his market value was about £5.6m (I.e what we signed him for). As such the release clause we put in was prohibitively high relative to his value at the time, which is standard practice. Vardy's value was already well in excess of £20m when he signed the new contract. Throw in the fact that if the club knows it's only going to see 3/4 of it because of a sell-on clause, then it should be inflated even further to protect the club's interest. The only thing anybody seems confident of here is that Vardy has a release clause which would appear to be very low. Absolutely everything else is supposition on your part and I'd certainly think it was a lot more likely that a staff not used to handling big contracts for star names got taken to the cleaners by a smart agent than Jamie Vardy was actually going to down tools and cost us a league title we ended up winning by 10 points. The fact that there's a release clause, as reported by every major news outlet. Everything else is your supposition. The fact that there is a release clause is indeed the only thing we know. We know nothing about who had the power in the talks in Jan, what was in Vardy's old contract, what interest if any came in Jan and what Vardy wanted to do. So everyone suggesting they know better than the people who know all the facts is just a bit silly really.
m4DD0gg Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 The price of succes. It does look like we are mugs when Vardy and Kante can go for far under their market price. When Kante's contract was made, no one could know that he would turn into a worldie (well apart from the genius Walsh). Nobody knows why Vardy got such a low release clause in february, but the guys at club are no mugs, so there must be a reason for it. But hey Dilly Ding Dilly Dong, we just won the frickin Premier League!! Whatever happens next can never take that away from us! Yes but usually a league win is capitalised on and built on not dismantled.
Jonezy Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 Yes but usually a league win is capitalised on and built on not dismantled. We are not the normal kind of league winners though are we...?
Sir Shep Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 We can't be the only team with release clauses so let's start tapping up other teams players.
Gerard Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 So you would have preferred to save on wages, take a bigger fee, but probably lose the league? Think about that again and let me know your answer. You're making a huge assumption that the board had huge faith in Vardy to deliver the title and that without the new contract Vardy would have downed tools if he wasn't given a "blank cheque" to fill out his own contract. Up until January Vardy had just turned 29 and had one huge stand out half a season after being relatively mediocre up to this point in his career. Vardy couldn't afford to down tools nor is that in his character. If Vardy had faded away the second half of this season his first half season would be considered a flash in the pan and whilst he may have got his move it wouldn't be to a club like Arsenal on 130k a week for the next four years. Unless Vardy had a release fee on his previous contract then giving him a low one on his new contract is a monumental fuck up. I don't buy this theory you're spouting that he had to be kept 100% happy to keep performing, he could easily have been told that the release clause wasn't happening or it would be £30m+ and doubling his money to £80k a week still would have made him happy. Vardy on £40k a week, 29 years old and 2.5 years left on his current deal was in no position to be calling the shots.
Gerard Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 I doubt Vardy was looking to leave when the last contract was negotiated. However his agent would quite rightly have wanted the OPTION of him leaving if the right offer came in (and remember from their perspective the right offer is the package, not the selling price). Players always have release clauses in their contracts and it's always in their interest to have these as low as possible since it effectively allows them to opt out of lengthy contracts that actually provide them with great protection. Clubs on the other hand want high release clauses since it protects their interests (since effectively binds the player to the duration of the agreement) - so what happens is both sides haggle until they reach a compromise. People shouldn't blame the club. They got the highest release clause the player was prepared to accept. You'll probably find that the previous release clause from his first Leicester contract was £5m. THATS why the club was so disparate to give him a new contract a few months back. Wow, you really believe he had a £5m release clause in his previous contract and no one activated it in January?
Webbo Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 Does anyone seriously think Rudkin or whoever at the club twisted Vardy' s arm and insisted that he put a release clause in his contract and made sure it was for below his market value against his will? Would anyone have been happy if in January we told him to do one if he hadn't signed a new contract? Use your common sense people.
Viva Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 You're making a huge assumption that the board had huge faith in Vardy to deliver the title and that without the new contract Vardy would have downed tools if he wasn't given a "blank cheque" to fill out his own contract. Up until January Vardy had just turned 29 and had one huge stand out half a season after being relatively mediocre up to this point in his career. Vardy couldn't afford to down tools nor is that in his character. If Vardy had faded away the second half of this season his first half season would be considered a flash in the pan and whilst he may have got his move it wouldn't be to a club like Arsenal on 130k a week for the next four years. Unless Vardy had a release fee on his previous contract then giving him a low one on his new contract is a monumental fuck up. I don't buy this theory you're spouting that he had to be kept 100% happy to keep performing, he could easily have been told that the release clause wasn't happening or it would be £30m+ and doubling his money to £80k a week still would have made him happy. Vardy on £40k a week, 29 years old and 2.5 years left on his current deal was in no position to be calling the shots. Why would a £30m clause make him happy if he wanted to leave? It would have probably stopped this move happening as I can't see Arsenal paying that much. I can think of 2 high profile players that wanted to leave, but were told no and their performance deteriorated. Stones and Berahino. Not worth the risk in our most important 4 months ever. We just don't know what went on behind the scenes.
foxes161 Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 Why would a £30m clause make him happy if he wanted to leave? It would have probably stopped this move happening as I can't see Arsenal paying that much. I can think of 2 high profile players that wanted to leave, but were told no and their performance deteriorated. Stones and Berahino. Not worth the risk in our most important 4 months ever. We just don't know what went on behind the scenes. rumour is the release clause could be 29 million
Matt Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 Why would a £30m clause make him happy if he wanted to leave? It would have probably stopped this move happening as I can't see Arsenal paying that much. I can think of 2 high profile players that wanted to leave, but were told no and their performance deteriorated. Stones and Berahino. Not worth the risk in our most important 4 months ever. We just don't know what went on behind the scenes. And they've still got their moves, so what's it gained? I get the point you're making that Everton and WBA respectively have an unhappy player on their books and they're no use to them, but at the same time the interested clubs have seen them for what they are and aren't interested anymore so they've shot themselves in the foot, they either buck their ideas up or there careers are looking bleak. You keep plugging away, do the talking with your feet, engineer a move with your feet, you don't rip off a club that has gave you everything - which is where I blame Rudkin (Or whoever did the negotiations) they shouldn't have allowed it.
Viva Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 rumour is the release clause could be 29 million If that is the case then it just shows that despite some people thinking they know everything, they really don't. Just trust the club as they have not done much wrong recently are are not as stupid as some people think.
Viva Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 And they've still got their moves, so what it gained? I get the point you're making that Everton and WBA respectively have an unhappy player on their books and they're no use to them, but at the same time the interested clubs have seen them for what they are and aren't interested anymore so they've shot themselves in the foot, they either buck their ideas up or there careers are looking bleak. I again go back to my original point. Would you have liked to take a risk of upsetting anyone when it mattered most? We win the league, job done. If that means us losing a few mill on him, so what!
Donut Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 rumour is the release clause could be 29 million If its £29 million, its incredible business.
erlee Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 If its £29 million, its incredible business. even 25 mil, i would sell Vardy (if he wanted out)
GaelicFox Posted 5 June 2016 Author Posted 5 June 2016 Mahrez and Kante all have them !!! Cheap ****kkg release clauses , it's like a nightmare According to a report in the Sun online, the Arsenal money men are said to be genuinely taken aback at how cheap they may lay their hands on the 25-year-old. They will be back for Kante after the Euros !!! Who is going to halt this ? Time for Top to step forward and get a grip on this disaster
st albans fox Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 Mahrez and Kante all have them !!! Cheap ****kkg release clauses , it's like a nightmare According to a report in the Sun online, the Arsenal money men are said to be genuinely taken aback at how cheap they may lay their hands on the 25-year-old. They will be back for Kante after the Euros !!! Who is going to halt this ? Time for Top to step forward and get a grip on this disaster Chill out. Riyad doesn't have one. Wenger wants him more than he wants JV. We would already be crushed in the rush if RM had a low release fee.
adam Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 This is doing me in .****ing release clauses. All sounds like a bad night on football manager when you don't check the clauses properly before you sign someone.
AyewJoking Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 are release clauses requested by the player, the agent or the club? it seems an easy way of being able to break any contract (not that contracts take much breaking anyway) i can see the benfits for all parties, more freedom for the player, easier for the club to sign players that may not want to be there for very long or perhaps not at all, more opportunity for the agent to make money. how do you find out if someone has a clause for example, if team x want player y but suspect player y will be out of their reach financially so dont bother making an enquiry, only to find out later that player y had a moderate release clause which they could have afforded only now its too late as player y has signed for someone else?
ian_marshall Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 Judging by the recent actions of his agent's I think it's safe to say that JV didn't have a low release clause in his previous contract as they'd have been making all manner of noises in January, and had a low release fee been present they'd have been in a really strong negotiating position with potential suitors as the low fee would have created a Bosman type situation. Therefore I really don't see why the club needed to offer a new contract at the time that they did. It surely was in the best interests of all parties to delay negotiations until the summer as from the clubs perspective if he wanted to move on at this point we'd have been in a stronger position to determine the valuation of the sale, and from JV's point of view he'd potentially be able to secure a higher wage having confirmed his status as a PL champion.
WigstonWanderer Posted 6 June 2016 Posted 6 June 2016 We can't be the only team with release clauses so let's start tapping up other teams players. Think we already have - Gray for a start.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.