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

[ian_marshall]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Numan said:

These release clauses are really annoying but we're being unfair to Rudkin here. Do people really think he puts them into contracts because he wants to? It's sometimes the only way a player will sign for us and they don't want to sit on the bench on a long term contract if things don't go their way.  

The most annoying part is the paltry amounts these clauses are set for but again that's more down to the player's agent than Rudkin. When the contract is signed, a players value isn't generally as high as when there is interest from other clubs and the agent doesn't want a player trapped by an over-valuation by the club so they're often a lot lower than the players current value.

As I say, they're extremely annoying when you lose a player like Kante for a lot less than his value became or you have a Vardy to Arsenal saga but who foresaw us becoming champions and the players values becoming what they did but it's hardly Rudkin's fault.

If we're going to lay any blame at his door, it's when he fails to sign players by not offering enough or yes, putting in a release clause.

Sorry I have to disagree with you here.

 

Negotiating is all about the balance of power and being able to recognise at any given moment who holds the power. Timing is usually critical to the process and considering that we signed him when we were flying high in the Premier League and he was playing Championship football, along with the fact that there didn't appear to be many clubs showing any serious interest we should have been in a very strong position to come to an agreement on our terms.

 

Ultimately it comes down to standing your ground and having the courage to be prepared to walk away from the table knowing that the weakest party will have to concede their position or lose the opportunity altogether. If we're incapable of capitalising when we're at the top it really does highlight the naivety and inexperience of those responsible for closing deals at the club.

 

What worries me most is that if you can't dictate terms to average player's and your aspirations are to become a big club attracting player's of the highest calibre whose abilities are in short supply, you'll clearly be taken to the cleaner's when dealing with super agents who are highly experienced and super savvy when brokering deals.

[Webbo]

17 minutes ago, Matt said:

And likewise how do you know it's not his fault?

 

I know that's your point, no-one knows anything, but there is more evidence/likelyhood is he isn't doing his job very well or certainly his team isn't, but he is the head, the face of that team.

Because it's never his fault when we win things.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

4 hours ago, foxhateram said:

Yes I agree with your notion. But some sort of negotiations need to happen so there is at least a decent value to the clause. If this article is true, 12 mill for Grey is radiculously low. We should be negotiating higher than that. If I was the owners I would ensure we have a hefty sell on % if he does leave for 12 mill. 

I'm sure negotiations do happen.  I cant believe (even though bashing Rudkin is a well loved past time on here) anyone on this forum seriously believes that Rudkin sits there (if he does at all.  I doubt he actually negotiates the contracts) and just accepts whatever.

 

We have to remember that the value of the release clause cant be unrealistic.  When we signed Gray, he was an unproven championship player with about a season of being fairly consistent.

 

The jury is still out really if he can be a consistent Prem standard player so a release clause at more than double what we paid is decent.  Same with Kante.  We didnt even pay £6m for him and he hadnt even been capped by France yet so its unlikely that his agent would have agreed a higher fee.

 

Its just unrealistic to suggest otherwise.

[Babylon]

People can try and excuse it all they want, but if true this is the third player in the space of a year who could go because of a release clause that doesn't reflect the market place. That is not normal.

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

People can try and excuse it all they want, but if true this is the third player in the space of a year who could go because of a release clause that doesn't reflect the market place. That is not normal.

Neither was us winning the league - the two are not unconnected 

[purpleronnie]

2 hours ago, AmarteyAndChill said:

How about no release clause at all

Good luck signing anyone.

[erlee]

i bet he's got a buy-out as well...

 

[Babylon]

19 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Neither was us winning the league - the two are not unconnected 

I'm sorry, what?

[Webbo]

32 minutes ago, Babylon said:

People can try and excuse it all they want, but if true this is the third player in the space of a year who could go because of a release clause that doesn't reflect the market place. That is not normal.

a) His release clause was negotiated at the time we signed him for less than a quarter of his release clause.

b) Do you think Rudkin insists on inserting these clauses against the will of the player and his agent? If they insist on these clauses would you want us to refuse to sign them?

[Babylon]

18 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

Good luck signing anyone.

How often do you hear of premier league players having release clauses (relegation clauses excluded), let alone losing one of their players for lower than what their value turns out to be? Unless you're called Leicester City it seems to be as rare as hens teeth.

[matty98]

29 minutes ago, Babylon said:

People can try and excuse it all they want, but if true this is the third player in the space of a year who could go because of a release clause that doesn't reflect the market place. That is not normal.

we paid 6 million for Kante? and sold for 30. It's hardly normal for a players value to increase 5 fold in the space of a year. The Vardy one, fair enough that was a bad one, but still we don't know the ins and outs of it. And this could be pure speculation for all we know. 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

13 hours ago, Poznan34 said:

He will play a lot more next season if Mahrez goes to Barca. 

 

The BBC stated that Real Madrid want him, and that it will cost them £40,000.000. Probably not true.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

a) His release clause was negotiated at the time we signed him for less than a quarter of his release clause.

So? If you're signing a young talent, I'd imagine you have seen something in them that you believe they can make the step up. £12m is sod all in this day and age for young English talent, a few good games and someones value can go to that amount. 

 

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

b) Do you think Rudkin insists on inserting these clauses against the will of the player and his agent? If they insist on these clauses would you want us to refuse to sign them?

Of course he doesn't, but refusing to give such a low clause doesn't mean they still won't sign. It's called negotiation, as I've already said this (if true) is the third player we could lose below what their actual value probably is within a year. These players will be coming to a bigger club, in a bigger league, with a bigger shop window and probably a minimum of 4x their current wages. The carrot is already there, without giving them everything.

 

Rudkin doesn't have the experience in this and it seems to me he's seen as a soft touch. If they were relegation clauses I have no issue, but a standard clause that can be triggered at any time is just careless quite frankly. How many talents have saints lost to release clauses, or anyone else for that matter in this league.

 

 

[the fox]

Just now, Richmondfox said:

We need to borrow the DOF from Sporting for our contract dealings they seem to get huge buyout clauses attached to their players.

if you think sporting are putting huge buyout clauses then you should see porto's buyout clauses, outrageous prices

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Jan 2016 ??

 

i second your last para

 

3 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

No it didn't? He signed last January, when we were already safe from relegation and looking good for a place in Europe.

My bad guys, thought he joined the previous Jan.

 

[Guest ttfn]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

So? If you're signing a young talent, I'd imagine you have seen something in them that you believe they can make the step up. £12m is sod all in this day and age for young English talent, a few good games and someones value can go to that amount. 

 

Of course he doesn't, but refusing to give such a low clause doesn't mean they still won't sign. It's called negotiation, as I've already said this (if true) is the third player we could lose below what their actual value probably is within a year. These players will be coming to a bigger club, in a bigger league, with a bigger shop window and probably a minimum of 4x their current wages. The carrot is already there, without giving them everything.

 

Rudkin doesn't have the experience in this and it seems to me he's seen as a soft touch. If they were relegation clauses I have no issue, but a standard clause that can be triggered at any time is just careless quite frankly. How many talents have saints lost to release clauses, or anyone else for that matter in this league.

 

 

Also worth pointing out that we got him through a release clause so the thing abou him signing with a clause 4x higher than his value at the time is total nonsense.

 

Everybody was dead chuffed with signing one of the best young players in the Championship for less than £4m. His market value at the time was probably nearer £10m when you look at the prices people go for these days.

 

And before says that's great negotiating on our part, it's not - anybody could have signed him for the £3.7m we paid.

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, matty98 said:

we paid 6 million for Kante? and sold for 30. It's hardly normal for a players value to increase 5 fold in the space of a year.

His release clause wasn't even £30m, it was vastly less and we only got that thanks to hooky bids form China.

 

Doesn't matter if the price goes up in one year or over the four of the contract. For starters the new premier league deal was on the door step and any fool could see prices were going to rocket, they always do when the deal goes up.

 

Most other countries seem to deal with release clauses on the basis of if they become brilliant, what would a ridiculous fee be that we'd think about. It's rare you get release clauses that you think someone is a bargain. Look at the ones Slimani and Musa had, signed for a pittance and had huge release fees considering the countries they operated in.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

So? If you're signing a young talent, I'd imagine you have seen something in them that you believe they can make the step up. £12m is sod all in this day and age for young English talent, a few good games and someones value can go to that amount. 

 

Of course he doesn't, but refusing to give such a low clause doesn't mean they still won't sign. It's called negotiation, as I've already said this (if true) is the third player we could lose below what their actual value probably is within a year. These players will be coming to a bigger club, in a bigger league, with a bigger shop window and probably a minimum of 4x their current wages. The carrot is already there, without giving them everything.

 

Rudkin doesn't have the experience in this and it seems to me he's seen as a soft touch. If they were relegation clauses I have no issue, but a standard clause that can be triggered at any time is just careless quite frankly. How many talents have saints lost to release clauses, or anyone else for that matter in this league.

 

 

I don't know if Southampton lose their players for less than what they're worth because I don't follow their transfer dealings, I doubt if many on here do either , but I bet there are a load of Southampton fans that do.

 

As for the fee, it's nearly 4 times what we paid for him in less than 2 years, that's not bad. The old transfer tribunals used to base transfer fees in proportion to the wages the players were paid. I'd guess the release clause is based on something similar.

 

We're always going to be a stepping stone for players. Anyone with any ambition is going to insist on a release clause. If we don't agree to them,we don't sign the player at all,  we don't benefit from the player in the team and we don't profit from them when they are sold.

[AmarteyAndChill]

Southampton never seem to have this problem 

[Babylon]

5 minutes ago, ttfn said:

Also worth pointing out that we got him through a release clause so the thing abou him signing with a clause 4x higher than his value at the time is total nonsense.

 

Everybody was dead chuffed with signing one of the best young players in the Championship for less than £4m. His market value at the time was probably nearer £10m when you look at the prices people go for these days.

 

And before says that's great negotiating on our part, it's not - anybody could have signed him for the £3.7m we paid.

You should probably read my post again. "probably a minimum of 4x their current wages"

 

But I'll engage... if his true value was much closer to £10m, we're even more bloody stupid to accept a £12m release clause.

[Guest ttfn]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

You should probably read my post again. "probably a minimum of 4x their current wages"

 

But I'll engage... if his true value was much closer to £10m, we're even more bloody stupid to accept a £12m release clause.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you.

[Guest ttfn]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't know if Southampton lose their players for less than what they're worth because I don't follow their transfer dealings, I doubt if many on here do either , but I bet there are a load of Southampton fans that do.

 

As for the fee, it's nearly 4 times what we paid for him in less than 2 years, that's not bad. The old transfer tribunals used to base transfer fees in proportion to the wages the players were paid. I'd guess the release clause is based on something similar.

 

We're always going to be a stepping stone for players. Anyone with any ambition is going to insist on a release clause. If we don't agree to them,we don't sign the player at all,  we don't benefit from the player in the team and we don't profit from them when they are sold.

Only one they didn't get good value for was Clyne.

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, ttfn said:

Also worth pointing out that we got him through a release clause so the thing abou him signing with a clause 4x higher than his value at the time is total nonsense.

 

Everybody was dead chuffed with signing one of the best young players in the Championship for less than £4m. His market value at the time was probably nearer £10m when you look at the prices people go for these days.

 

And before says that's great negotiating on our part, it's not - anybody could have signed him for the £3.7m we paid.

So it's okay when we sign a player for a third of their value because of a release clause but not if we're forced to sell them for less than what we've arbitrarily decided is his market value?

 

I thought we were the only club stupid enough to allow release clauses? 

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't know if Southampton lose their players for less than what they're worth because I don't follow their transfer dealings, I doubt if many on here do either , but I bet there are a load of Southampton fans that do.

They don't, neither do most teams.

 

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

As for the fee, it's nearly 4 times what we paid for him in less than 2 years, that's not bad. The old transfer tribunals used to base transfer fees in proportion to the wages the players were paid. I'd guess the release clause is based on something similar.

It's bad if they are worth far more than that.

 

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're always going to be a stepping stone for players. Anyone with any ambition is going to insist on a release clause. If we don't agree to them,we don't sign the player at all,  we don't benefit from the player in the team and we don't profit from them when they are sold.

How do you know the player won't sign? Nobody does in reality, but as I keep saying they are quite rare in this league. Are we just unlucky that we seemingly keep having players who want them... or are we just a soft touch? This is the best paying league in the world and one of the biggest shop windows for players, the carrot is there already for players.

 

 

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, ttfn said:

I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you.

My bad... I should try reading your post