I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE FVCKING BUY-OUT CLAUSES!!!!!

[Guest]

On 3/28/2017 at 14:37, Webbo said:

Do you think a player who rates his own ability and thinks he can make it to the top would want to commit his future to Leicester for the rest of his career? Obviously he wants to play for a top team and win medals. Okay he won a PL medal with us, but that was far from certain at the time he signed.

Surely if you're good enough to go to a better club, then you're good enough to command a higher price. Unless you've got your heart set on going to penny-pinchers Arsenal, just about every club that wants you will pay anything up to the lower limits of  gob-smacking ludicrous.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, winchesterton said:

Surely if you're good enough to go to a better club, then you're good enough to command a higher price. Unless you've got your heart set on going to penny-pinchers Arsenal, just about every club that wants you will pay anything up to the lower limits of  gob-smacking ludicrous.

If we didn't want him to leave we can just put a ridiculous price on him that nobody would pay.

[hairy]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If we didn't want him to leave we can just put a ridiculous price on him that nobody would pay.

If thats the case then I am confused about what a release clause is

[Col city fan]

1 hour ago, hairy said:

If thats the case then I am confused about what a release clause is

If I was a pro footballer joining a club, the reason why my agent might insist on a release clause built into my contract would be for numerous reasons that I can think of:

 

1. If I saw the club as a stepping stone (I think Gray saw us as a stepping stone) to a bigger club, I'd want a release clause to be set at a realistic figure. Kante to Chelsea being an obvious example. Chelsea bid, Kante wanted to go, we could do nothing. IF THE CLUB SET THIS AT A COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC FIGURE, THEN I'D NOT SIGN.

2. If I was relegated with the club I'd joined, I may want a release clause in my contract which says that other clubs can come in for me at a lower fee than market value, giving me a chance to move on more easily. The parent club may well want this in my contract too...so that they can more readily sell their players on bigger, more expensive contracts.

I would imagine that these two scenarios form the bulk of such clauses. That's how I see them anyway. The first, representing a 'buy out clause', the second is a 'release clause. Of course, there may be a release clause for lots of other factors too. Eg. Vardy, when signing his new contract, may hypothetically have had a clause put into his contract that said he could move for 15 million quid IF he scored 20 goals this season.

[foxinsocks]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

If I was a pro footballer joining a club, the reason why my agent might insist on a release clause built into my contract would be for numerous reasons that I can think of:

 

1. If I saw the club as a stepping stone (I think Gray saw us as a stepping stone) to a bigger club, I'd want a release clause to be set at a realistic figure. Kante to Chelsea being an obvious example. Chelsea bid, Kante wanted to go, we could do nothing. IF THE CLUB SET THIS AT A COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC FIGURE, THEN I'D NOT SIGN.

2. If I was relegated with the club I'd joined, I may want a release clause in my contract which says that other clubs can come in for me at a lower fee than market value, giving me a chance to move on more easily. The parent club may well want this in my contract too...so that they can more readily sell their players on bigger, more expensive contracts.

I would imagine that these two scenarios form the bulk of such clauses. That's how I see them anyway. The first, representing a 'buy out clause', the second is a 'release clause. Of course, there may be a release clause for lots of other factors too. Eg. Vardy, when signing his new contract, may hypothetically have had a clause put into his contract that said he could move for 15 million quid IF he scored 20 goals this season.

Further to point1... if i have a say 20m release clause . .my agent will tell the buyer that i am worth 50... but they can get me for 40: ie  by giving the agent 20 and then i will trigger the realease clause for 20 to the selling club 

 

Thus the player pockets a good chunk of the value above the release clause

[Col city fan]

31 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

Further to point1... if i have a say 20m release clause . .my agent will tell the buyer that i am worth 50... but they can get me for 40: ie  by giving the agent 20 and then i will trigger the realease clause for 20 to the selling club 

 

Thus the player pockets a good chunk of the value above the release clause

The point i was trying to make was ive never seen these as being particularly complicated. Sure, other bits may be built into the clauses in contracts but if Gray has a 12 million pound buy out clause in his contract I can only imagine it's because he saw his time at City as potentially being short term and that he could then move to what he felt is a 'bigger club. People might not like this, but I guess it's the case.

Which would make me immediately think, if City thought they were buying a potential star, why on earth did we allow a clause of only 12 million to be written in? These days.. .chicken feed.

However, it could be that Gray would not sign if we demanded any more?

[Webbo]

10 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

The point i was trying to make was ive never seen these as being particularly complicated. Sure, other bits may be built into the clauses in contracts but if Gray has a 12 million pound buy out clause in his contract I can only imagine it's because he saw his time at City as potentially being short term and that he could then move to what he felt is a 'bigger club. People might not like this, but I guess it's the case.

Which would make me immediately think, if City thought they were buying a potential star, why on earth did we allow a clause of only 12 million to be written in? These days.. .chicken feed.

However, it could be that Gray would not sign if we demanded any more?

There can't be any other reason. It's not in the club's interest to have one at all.

[foxinsocks]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There can't be any other reason. It's not in the club's interest to have one at all.

Unless they are easily persuaded.  How about saying no?

[Col city fan]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There can't be any other reason. It's not in the club's interest to have one at all.

Also begs the question whether Gray's heart is in the club at all really. He must be doubly peeved that he don't play much. If an offer meets the 12 mill, he'll be off. Of that I have no doubt.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

Unless they are easily persuaded.  How about saying no?

Did you see the bit "However, it could be that Gray would not sign if we demanded any more?" If we say no, then he doesn't sign and Rudkin gets criticised again for not signing our targets. If you had your way he wouldn't be our player in the first place because he'd have never signed so what do we lose by him leaving? We wouldn't be in a position to sell him and we'd miss the £8million profit, never mind having him to improve the team

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Also begs the question whether Gray's heart is in the club at all really. He must be doubly peeved that he don't play much. If an offer meets the 12 mill, he'll be off. Of that I have no doubt.

I'm realistic about it, very few players play for us out of love. They're all in it for the money.

[Col city fan]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I'm realistic about it, very few players play for us out of love. They're all in it for the money.

Aye. Same here

[Wymsey]

2 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Also begs the question whether Gray's heart is in the club at all really. He must be doubly peeved that he don't play much. If an offer meets the 12 mill, he'll be off. Of that I have no doubt.

Maybe John Rudkin told Shakespeare that if he starts another game again, an agreement was made that it'd cost the club millions in a instalment to Birmingham..

 

On a serious note, why he's not playing regularly despite being a consistent major threat to the opposition's defence is confusing.

[Filbert_Ross]

I didn't think he had a release clause ? 

this last few things I've read seem like he has. 

[Max Wall]

On 3/26/2017 at 00:28, Foxxed said:

During international breaks and the like, I wonder how much transfer speculation is fuelled by hacks desperately needing to fill column space. Besides, he has one of the world's best wingers to learn from here, and a guaranteed starting place later on - a point even a seasoned raver could easily communicate to him during a particularly crushing come down, never mind our staff and players.

Thanks for that. Great line.

 

[foxinsocks]

23 hours ago, Webbo said:

Did you see the bit "However, it could be that Gray would not sign if we demanded any more?" If we say no, then he doesn't sign and Rudkin gets criticised again for not signing our targets. If you had your way he wouldn't be our player in the first place because he'd have never signed so what do we lose by him leaving? We wouldn't be in a position to sell him and we'd miss the £8million profit, never mind having him to improve the team

Maybe he would sign maybe not. Maybe a higher trigger would get set... maybe we send a message to agents saying we resust such clauses. Without knowing how hard ridkin struggled we dont know. But a 12m rc seems low in the pl...

 

[SheppyFox]

I'd be on my way aswell if I were in his shoes.

[sylofox]

On ‎30‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 18:55, foxinsocks said:

Further to point1... if i have a say 20m release clause . .my agent will tell the buyer that i am worth 50... but they can get me for 40: ie  by giving the agent 20 and then i will trigger the realease clause for 20 to the selling club 

 

Thus the player pockets a good chunk of the value above the release clause

I dont think you understand what a release clause is and how a transfer works. The agent/player get paid by the clubs. They never hold the transfer fee. The two clubs negotiate the transfer fee. It's nothing to do with the player or the agent.

[foxinsocks]

7 minutes ago, sylofox said:

I dont think you understand what a release clause is and how a transfer works. The agent/player get paid by the clubs. They never hold the transfer fee. The two clubs negotiate the transfer fee. It's nothing to do with the player or the agent.

The player triggers the txf clause and the clubs agrees a fee of 20m.  The buying club then pays a golden hello to the player... or inflates his wages coz they got him cheap

[sylofox]

1 hour ago, foxinsocks said:

The player triggers the txf clause and the clubs agrees a fee of 20m.  The buying club then pays a golden hello to the player... or inflates his wages coz they got him cheap

The player triggers nothing neither does his agent. The buying club triggers the sale by offering whatever figure the clause is. The clubs agree nothing of the fee once the clause is activated.

 

Really stick to FM or whatever it is you play.

[foxes21]

Demarai Gray is very inconsistent. If we want to progress next season, we cannot rely on him as a starter.

 

To think he can replace Mahrez is laughable. We carry Mahrez, because he's a match winner. He can create a bit of magic each game. Gray can create a bit of magic every 3 games.

 

It's frustrating because if he is to develop, he needs to be playing week in week out. But if we want to challenge for trophies next season or finish high in the table, we need someone more reliable on the wing. There's a reason why Mourinho hates playing kids.

 

Lets be honest, if he does develop to his full potential his ceiling is closer to Zaha/Townsend, not Mahrez/Hazard. There are better wingers out there (young or experienced) we can replace Gray with. Anyway this screams of his agent forcing Leicester to improve his contract.

 

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, sylofox said:

The player triggers nothing neither does his agent. The buying club triggers the sale by offering whatever figure the clause is. The clubs agree nothing of the fee once the clause is activated.

 

Really stick to FM or whatever it is you play.

Surely if a player is worth say 20m but his release clause is 10m, a club wanting to buy him is getting a 20m asset for 10m. This effectively leaves up to 10m that could potentially be given to the player/agent as a signing on fee or extra wages.

 

The way this would work in practice is that once a buying club triggers a release clause the selling club has no further say in the matter, it is up to the player. If a second club comes in to buy, it is then up to the player to choose where he goes, so he can choose the club willing to pay higher wages or sign on fee. In other words clubs have to compete for his signature, and the player holds all the cards and can demand additional wages or a sign on fee up to the value of the extra 10m.

 

If no other club comes in for him, it suggests he wasn't really worth 20m as supply and demand determines the price.

 

In practice I would expect the additional 10m to be split between the buying club and the player so that both are getting a good deal, with the selling club effectively losing out.

 

For example in the above case, the player might end up with an additional 5m in extra wages and/or sign on fee, so the buying club effectively pay 15m for a 20m asset. Buying clubs would need to be careful not to upset their existing players by paying the incoming player too much more, so I would expect this to put some downward pressure on the new players package.

 

This would only apply in the case of a simple release clause, not to the type of clause that Kante had for example.

 

I should add that I have absolutely no inside knowledge or expertise in these matters, and am simply relying on common sense and logic.

[sylofox]

6 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Surely if a player is worth say 20m but his release clause is 10m, a club wanting to buy him is getting a 20m asset for 10m. This effectively leaves up to 10m that could potentially be given to the player/agent as a signing on fee or extra wages.

 

The way this would work in practice is that once a buying club triggers a release clause the selling club has no further say in the matter, it is up to the player. If a second club comes in to buy, it is then up to the player to choose where he goes, so he can choose the club willing to pay higher wages or sign on fee. In other words clubs have to compete for his signature, and the player holds all the cards and can demand additional wages or a sign on fee up to the value of the extra 10m.

 

If no other club comes in for him, it suggests he wasn't really worth 20m as supply and demand determines the price.

 

In practice I would expect the additional 10m to be split between the buying club and the player so that both are getting a good deal, with the selling club effectively losing out.

 

For example in the above case, the player might end up with an additional 5m in extra wages and/or sign on fee, so the buying club effectively pay 15m for a 20m asset. Buying clubs would need to be careful not to upset their existing players by paying the incoming player too much more, so I would expect this to put some downward pressure on the new players package.

 

This would only apply in the case of a simple release clause, not to the type of clause that Kante had for example.

 

I should add that I have absolutely no inside knowledge or expertise in these matters, and am simply relying on common sense and logic.

Right your talking wages and signing on fee I understand that but not what my post was about. My reply was to someone claiming the player and his agent trigger the buy out clause. He also stated the agent could claim the the release fee was 40m when it is infact 20m and him and the player could keep that. Infact most of what my reply was to is total bollox.

[foxinsocks]

6 hours ago, sylofox said:

Right your talking wages and signing on fee I understand that but not what my post was about. My reply was to someone claiming the player and his agent trigger the buy out clause. He also stated the agent could claim the the release fee was 40m when it is infact 20m and him and the player could keep that. Infact most of what my reply was to is total bollox.

I didnt say that.... i said the club buys for 20 and can then pay extra to the adent..pkayer either gokden hello or wages... this his how the player reaps the value above the rc