presumably a panel got together and decided for the benefit of CCFC to set the release clauses of frizzer campbell and caulker at £800k and £8m respectively……….
I am very surprised how very little fans of all clubs not just here know how a football club is run....They think it is so black and white and so simple to do and they are so far off the mark....I cringe sometimes at some of the comments that to those of us who know a little bit about how a football club is run find bizarre and so obvious they dont know what they are talking about and just giving lip service to make them look as if they do know .. It takes all sorts i suppose and adds to the fun...
In that case Dai, explain to me, in detail why a buy out clause, trumps no buy out clause, in regards to benefiting the club. See I can do that in my argument that its benefiting the player, not the club. You see with a buy out clause, the player can buy out his contract, allowing him to move elsewhere, in Bony's case, £19m if you believe what is being said. Now that allows a club, to give Bony £19m, and pay off his contract, allowing him to join their club. Or just give the club the money to buy out his contract. Now imagine that without a buy out clause, unless a club meets OUR valuation, they have no bloody hope of getting the player.
Liverpool's brashness guarantease a release clause , and Bony and agent are working it around top 6 teams .
It can benefit both, depending on the circumstances. Suppose a player wants to play for a top 4 club, but Swans offer him a contract. The player would probably say that yes he'll join as long as they let him leave if a top 4 club makes an offer. The club says that's fair enough, but we need to make some money on this deal, so let's agree you can only move if they offer £x. Player and club therefore both benefit if a top 4 club comes in with an offer. Club might be the ones to ask for it though because they don't want anyone chasing after their star players. But they are willing to sell for a big offer. So that benefits the club. It's obvious that a player can refuse to move or a club can refuse all offers. But the reality is different. If a player really wants to leave then he usually can. And if a club really wants to sell then a payer will leave. It's not as black and white as many seem to think. Contracts can be very complex. Many, maybe even most, fans seem to think real football works like fantasy football.
That doesn't make any sense. What's to stop another club making a "big offer" for a player whether there's a buyout clause or not? Why would you want to limit your potential customers and exclude others from a bidding war? If the selling club and the player concerned find the terms of a big offer acceptable, then it all happens. The only party a true buyout (release) clause benefits is the player.
Suppose Bony didn't have a £19m buy-out clause like claimed. Liverpool could make an offer for £12m, and Bony could insist on leaving. Of course we could force him to stay, but he'd be unhappy and wouldn't be worth keeping under those circumstances. So the benefit to the club is an extra £7m in this example. It's also true, like you say, that Arsenal could then bid £25m. But they probably wouldn't if they knew they could get him for £19m. It's not black and white and each side has to do what they feel is right for them at the time. If it's just for the benefit of the player, then he could just add a cause saying he can leave for any amount to a top 4 club. Or for whatever was paid for him. Why would a player insist on a high buy-out clause, as that might mean he loses a chance to play for a top club.
Also, Swans only bought Bony for £12m, so why make the buy-out £19m (if true)? No-one outbid the Swans when they paid £12m, so that must be his value. Putting the price as high as £19m usually means they get to keep the payer, which is what they want at the time. So that benefits the club. That is of no benefit to the player. It means most clubs are put off by the price. Why would a player limit his options? No benefit to the player there.
No club would accept a clause in a player's contract that would say he could go for any amount to a top 4 club - that would be ridiculous. If a club wants to sell a player who has a buyout clause in his contract for less than that figure, it is able to do that. The buyout figure doesn't mean it has to be matched. Losing the chance to play for a top club diminishes as his existing contract runs down. Any player worth his salt will get what he wants eventually if a top club wants him.
Of course it doesn't limit a player's options and benefits the player - it actually improves them. Without a buyout clause, a player is totally dependent upon a club releasing him - with a buyout clause, it can be triggered by a willing club on the back of the player's own improved performances.
Of course it limits his choices, as only clubs that can afford £19m can now buy him. He can't move to any club that wants him but can only pay £15m for example. So he certainly has less options. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
That would surely then be a minimum release clause, rather than a buy out clause, no? Something like Joe Allen had in his contract. And even then, the club can agree that they will listen to offers from top 4 clubs, but don't have to settle on a buy out clause, as with no clause at all, the club can demand what it wants, so again, it does not benefit the club, as in this instance, we could demand £25m based on his efforts last season, now we may have to settle for £19m.
A clause can also protect a club. Just look at the buy out clauses Spanish and Portuguese clubs slap on their players.
Nope, because the club could refuse £15m regardless. So it hasn't limited his options. However, if the player doesn't play well, we could sell him for £15m. The only reason why players hold the power, is because clubs bow down to them, if a player is not happy to play for a club, play hardball, chuck them on the bench, let the bastard rot, Liverpool did it with Suarez last season, a player wants to play regardless of which club it is with, they may kick up a big fuss, but tough titties, a contract is a contract, they can bitch and moan all they want, they signed it, they get on with it. Any clause for buy out, minimum release, is detrimental to the club.
Why does it benefit the club, the player is contracted, if the contract had no clause, and a clubs bid does not meet the clubs valuation, he stays regardless. There is no need of a clause to put other clubs off. All a clause does is open up the door to any clubs who are willing to match it. Which does NOT benefit the club. Because values change, so giving a 3 or 4 year contract with a buy out clause of the day you purchased him, is stupid for a club, as that player could sky rocket (clause puts club in a ****ty situation) or it could plummet (club can still sell at lower value anyway). The clause gives no protection to a club.
Bollocks Plastic. It's only in the club's interest if it is set prohibitively high. e.g. Top Portugese clubs' business model is to buy talented youngsters, develop them and sell them on for top dollar....hence the buyout clause is always something stupid like £40m. It's put in there as they got fed up with Europe's big clubs coming to them and taking all their talent on the cheap. Very few of their players will ever change hands for the release clause figure, it's just there to make sure the clubs are in control of future negotiations. Most buyout clauses in the Premier are there for the player's benefit, put there (insisted on) by agents. e.g. Wilfried Bony. We paid £12m. Clause insisted on was approx. £19m. If he didn't perform or was average he wouldn't be trapped. He would let us know that he wanted out and was not going to play ball...despite the clause being £19m we could only sell him at his market value (which is purely what a club is willing to pay for him)...in such a situation it would be in our interest to sell rather than put him in the reserves for the next 3 years picking up £2.5m - £3.5m a year. It is there purely to ensure Bony can move on to a club who is willing to pay him significantly more wages so he doesn't miss out (if the opportunity arose...which it clearly has). Take a step back and think about it....say Bony had signed for Southampton for £12m instead of us and had scored the goals he has...what would you realistically expect his market value to be? I would bet most would say "the bidding starts at £20m for such a player" (imagine the expensive Italian they bought last year had banged in the same number as Bony...how much would you expect him to move for this summer?)..... ....and that's the point. Bony's release clause is set deliberately (relatively) low at what his people would expect the bidding to start at if he had a good season or 2 in the Prem....because he and they had the upper hand in the negotiating (we were desperate to sign a striker at the time remember? and we faced stiff competition for him?)....this is what he wanted, what was motivating him...he knew if he did the business a number of clubs who can afford to pay him significantly higher wages would be queuing up to give us £18/19/20m. This is proving the case. If that clause was (or, hopefully, is) not there we would have a bidding war on our hands. Now we are most probably going to see him leave for a relatively small amount of money. We took a £12m risk and will likely make £3.5-5.5m profit on him (when you take wages into account). In this country the buy out clause tends to be what it says it is on the tin....an opportunity for the player to get out of his contract should a more attractive employer come calling. Southampton have obviously done better than us with negotiating contracts as they are able to demand more money for players who have achieved less than Bony. We should learn the lesson from clubs like Sporting Lisbon and insist on prohibitively high buyout clauses and long contracts for any youngsters we bring through or purchase.....with pay rises built in based on performance. That would put us in the driving seat. As far as I am aware there isn't a club in this country that is doing that at present. You have to do it when they are young before they have agents and options....only problem being, if we are competing to sign promising youngsters with other British clubs and we haven't yet built a reputation for bringing youngsters through who go on to have careers with top clubs.....the best youngsters agree to the high buy out clauses at the likes of Sporting Lisbon as they can see the path through to the elite clubs of European football as it is a well trodden one.
Last season arsenal met suarez's buy out clause, plus£1, liverpool told them to go forth and multiply, if huw were to ignore any supposed buy out price, what complaint could Liverpool have after their own actions ?
