We all know the scenario: eager young Academy player pictured signing his first contract having spent years at the club. He is thrilled to be here and we are delighted that he has turned down United/Chelsea/City (delete as appropriate) and shown loyalty to the club that has wiped his nose and fed him pasta and broccoli for ten years. But now in that eagerly signed contract is the grenade known as the buy out clause. Once the province of the Tevez's and the Ronaldo's of this world...now apparently inserted in the contract of every footballer knee-high to a grasshopper. Shaw and Chambers are reported to have had such a clause...Shaw's agent probably wouldn't let him sign a contract without one. I suspect any agent worth his salt will now insist on one...the argument with the club will just be the size of it. And whether it includes any club willing to stump up the price or only CL clubs. Perhaps the advantage to us is that at least they sign a contract, giving us a nice profit, rather than just leaving for next to nowt under the new rules. I suspect all contracts will have such a clause from now on.
If they are, that's fine, as long as it's £100 million for every 17-year old Academy graduate. If we are producing the best talent in England that needs to be reflected in the buyout clause. Doesn't stop us selling at a lower price if we want to get rid.
I think the advantage to us is that promising players at least sign, so we get a year or two or a decent price. Otherwise we would just get the standard compensation (under the new rules) for our troubles. Pretty sure that the agents would want the price set at an attainable level...otherwise there might as well not be one...say 20-30m. It means that as fans we have to change our attitude...a contract doesn't mean that they are staying for the duration, but they have agreed that their footballing education should continue at Saints for a while. It means that we may lose the very best quite quickly, but we then reinvest that money in the team and the academy. Saints would then steadily improve and the number of teams that a youngster would consider moving to becomes fewer.
Has been suggested...no serious attempt was made to keep them...it felt like we were making the best of a bad job. Poor old Spider must have one of the old style contracts
It is, but all the big players have ridiculous ones. Messi's is somewhere over £300m and I've seen somewhere that Ronaldo's is around a billion.
The stupidly high ones show the power of the clubs and the massive deals that they offer the player...he virtually writes off the buyout clause in exchange for a massive deal. Our problem is that we are producing gems and teams could try and poach them when their leading reins come off...a buyout clause set high enough to deter most buyers and high enough to give us a good deal if the big guns come calling suits us if it encourages youngsters to sign. The days of starry-kids seems to be over...got to get the best out of it.
It can always be worse even if you think it should be better Bradford have a decent academy, but rarely do their players even feature for the 1st team as they're sold at 15/16 for a few million and sell on clauses. At least we get to see our players for a season or two and get more substantial cash as a result.
If Chambers and Shaw had buy out clauses of £18m and £34m (inc add ons or not) then I would suggest that Cortese played an absolute blinder. Maybe Morgan does have a buy out clause but it is way way above these 'wipper snappers' and is never going to be realistically offered by other clubs
