Yes, he would. IF Newcastle had paid the release clause WITHOUT agreeing a conditional deal with Diame but lawyers would advise Newcastle to have the deal with Diame in place before paying the release clause.
I think you are getting confused. Accepting an offer is not the same as taking or not taking the money.
We have to accept the offer. Unless you're suggesting we're able to not accept. That's literally the two choices. You're being pedantic and boring. Enough.
His representative can't speak to them, on his behalf, without permission. Newcastle put in a bid. We accept or reject it. If it triggers a release clause it will be accepted & the player is free to negotiate. Newcastle cannot approach the player without permission.
No, they wouldn't at all. This happens in Spain all the time, most of the time it doesn't matter because the player wants to move anyway, but if the release clause is met, it only allows the buying club to talk to the player, it doesn't buy the player out of the contract they are currently in. That's a buy out clause, which is completely different. It's usually set at something ridiculous, like £153m. The player then has to buy out the rest of their contract, although the buying club usually does this for them. In this case, Diame is free to talk to Newcastle provided they meet the release clause. It does not mean he is released from his City contract at all, if he rejects Newcastle's terms, his contract with us is still valid.
In fact, read this: http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/ This is a brief blog on the issue of buy-out and release clauses in football player contracts. There appears to be some confusion between the two concepts and the aim of this blog is to set out the basics with the aid of a few recent examples. For more detail on this topic, I would highly recommend Ian Lynam’s excellent blog on this topic. What is a release clause? It is a clause in a player’s contract that, subject to qualifying conditions (i.e. a particular transfer window or non-participation in the Champions League), automatically requires a club to accept an offer of a pre-determined contractual amount expressly set out in the contract from the offering club. If the minimum amount stipulated in the contract is triggered by a the purchasing club, the player will be entitled to speak to that club. Examples of release clauses Only a few Premier League transfers have been reported to have included release clauses. This was the case with the Demba Ba transfer from Newcastle to Chelsea and Joe Allen from Swansea to Liverpool In the case of Allen, reports were that the bid could only trigger the release clause if it came from one of five clubs that included Liverpool. What is the difference between buy-out and release clauses? Buy-out clauses are prevalent in Spain and are somewhat different to a release clause. They are a mandatory element of most Spanish contracts and are usually set at a very high figure which is not necessarily the true market value of the player. The player has to literally ‘buy out’ his contract at the stipulated amount, though in practice, it is the purchasing club who pays the amount via the player. This can be a complicated process because of the practical tax logistics of a purchasing club transferring the ‘buy-out’ fee to the player who will in turn buy out his contract. We saw this with Manchester United’s reported failed bid with Anders Herrera and Javi Martinez’s successful transfer to Bayern Munich. One such example of what the Court of Arbitration for Sport called a ‘buy-out clause’ but may be in fact closer to a ‘release clause’ became publically available in the case of Matuzalem (CAS 2008/A/1519) – at paragraph 70 which stated: “The relevant part of clause 3.3 of the employment contract between Player and Shakhtar Donetsk reads as follows: “During the validity of the Contract, the Club undertakes – in the case the Club receives a transfer offer in amount of 25,000,000 EUR or exceeding the some [recte: sum] above the Club undertakes to arrange the transfer within the agreed period.” What happened with Luis Suarez? During the summer transfer window, the PFA reported that the contractual provision in Suarez’s contract with Liverpool was a ‘good faith’ release clause rather than an automatic release clause. The two are quite different. With an automatic release clause, player ‘y’ must be allowed to speak to purchasing club ‘x’ if the minimum release amount is offered. A ‘good faith’ clause means the parties are required to negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. Importantly, a good faith clause does not automatically trigger the selling club to accept the offer. The PFA were reported to have been arbitrating between the player and the club, and explaining to the player the likelihood of the clause standing up to a robust legal examination. As such, it was considered by the PFA that the clause was not an automatic release clause. Are release clauses meaningless? I do not believe release clauses have ever been tested from a European law, restriction of trade perspective but they are included in contracts for a specific reason. If an automatic release amount is triggered, a club will be contractually bound to accept the amount offered. If the club who has the player’s registration refuse to release him, then it is likely an arbitration process would follow between the two clubs to assess the validity of the release clause. In the case of a dispute between two Premier League clubs, if a Premier League tribunal viewed the contractual provision as an automatic release clause, the potential purchasing club would be allowed to speak to the player and proceed with the transfer. The only way there may be an issue with a release clause in the UK would be if the clause was so high that it was far beyond the market value of the player. A player may argue that the he would be restricted from moving to another club because the release fee was too extortionate. Is there scope for release clauses in future? There may well be instances where a player is willing to move down the football ladder to get more visibility and playing time in the short term, on the condition that a release clause is inserted into his contract, so that if he plays well a bigger club can then trigger the predetermined release clause
You are the one who is getting totally confused. I am being logical from start to finish. You are mixing up accepting or rejecting a deal with accepting or rejecting money. If a club offers to pay Hull City £20m for a player and the transfer takes place Hull City can still refuse to accept the money. You seem to think that the deal wouldn't happen until Hull City accepted the money. Obviously Hull City wouldn't want to not receive the money but if they insisted on not accepting the money the deal would still have taken place. You seem to have got tangled up with the money. It's a lot more simple than that. The club offers to pay Hull City the release clause and then Hull City's only involvement is to receive the money as well as signing the forms to transfer the players registration - which, despite what anybody says, is not "accepting the offer".
HDM just posted this on Twiter http://m.hulldailymail.co.uk/former...ull-city-job/story-29575061-detail/story.html
Diame would have to want to be released from the contract. I did refer to Newcastle PAYING the release clause whereas you only disagreed with me but referred to "meeting" the release clause - ie making the offer. When these offers are made they are always subject to conditions such as agreeing a contract with the player, etc. As I tried to make clear. A club will make an offer but they will not PAY the money unless they also have a contract with the player.
I think you are getting confused with the numbers. I would very much doubt that Hull City would refuse to take the money BEFORE the player even talks to Newcastle. Anyway, as I said, the club could refuse to take the money but the deal would still go ahead. Try to understand that the offer is not the same as payment.
And the manager news is? Dogs gnawing a bone give up quicker than this release clause debate! Good night and let's hope we get some concrete and acceptable news on Tuesday.
Stop whenever you want. In fact, given the lack of logic you are coming out with, the sooner the better. I don't think you understand logic. We don't have to accept the offer. We don't have to not accept the offer. We can and will do nothing at all regarding Newcastle. Newcastle have made an offer that triggers the release clause so they can speak to the player and agree a deal. Hull City can make a counter offer to Diame.
No, you incorrectly stated that if Newcastle met the release clause and then Diame declined their offer, he would be a free agent. That's not true at all. The money doesn't change hands until everything is sorted, that's obvious and the same with most transactions at any level, I'm not debating that. What you seem to be suggesting is that as soon as the clause is met the player is no longer ours, which simply isn't true. Meeting the clause only allows the buying club to speak to Diame without us saying no, it doesn't guarantee anything such as sale or contract statuses, that's ultimately down to Diame and Newcastle to agree.
