A release clause doesn't make a player more expensive. It's a release clause. Lots of players leave for less than their contractual release clause. If there hadn't been a release clause, he'd have cost more...
Bugger as was looking forward to giving you a "****ing *****l" avatar not sure quite why but that post by the Welsh fruitcake made me howl with laughter
You’ve just literally contradicted yourself in the space of 2 sentences, and I’ve still no idea what you think you’re explaining to me here, and by the looks of it, neither do you.
Haha, that fella is special ain’t he I had him on ignore for beards and I usually try and swerve getting into his tin foil hat stuff, but I was bored today so I thought I’d play.
he is a total crank but that post just made me howl , wife thought lockdown had finally flipped me , possibly because i had this mental image of you on a bow legged steppe pony leading a horde of tribesmen on a raid on not606 like a scourge from God . Actually wife may have a point
Not at all. My point was, Werner would have gone for more had he not had a release clause but you're original post suggested he only went for a large amount like that because he had a release clause and it would have been less had he not had said release clause, which is bollox. (Or have I interrupted you're initial party wrong?) People get too hung up on the release clause amount. So much so, they believe that's the only figure the player could possibly leave for. It isn't!
I can’t believe I’m having to actually explain this, but my original point was about the post COVID market and the effect it’ll have on fees. The examples cited were deals were the fees are not a reasonable indicator of what the post COVID market will be, as 2 of them were fiddled, one was set in Jan and one was a release clause. That’s literally it, I didn’t need an explanation of what a release clause is ffs.
I don't believe all clubs will spend less. There is always a club that will try to outbid others and the football world doesn't translate to the real world. Plus, for example, Chelsea have money after serving a transfer ban.
I don’t fully agree. You’ve already witnessed the effect at your own club with Werner. I doubt my club will spend hardly anything net, and that’ll go for most of the others imo. The fiscal impact of the crisis is ongoing and universal. Chelsea spent during their ban thanks to pre arranged deals, their purchase of Werner was funded by pre arranged sale of Morata. There’ll be a few across the continent who’ll end up with decent net spends no doubt, as if they have cash at hand or a backer who’ll provide it, then a deflated market might be a decent time to splurge, but they’ll be in a very small minority.
We always watch ther pennies and have had a low net spend for a long time so us not spending (only time will tell) after this would hardly be surprising. I just don't see certain clubs sitting back and missing out on players that could help them challenge for things because if right finances. Generally, clubs don't give a **** about FFP Edit: I don't think clubs will spend the same amounts we saw before, I just don't think it'll be reigned in as much as it perhaps should.
Well given they gave him a new contract with the release clause in it I’d say that they were fine to sell him for that amount.
Yeah right oh, as that’s how it works He was about to enter the last year of his contract and they offered him a new deal but the buyout clause was the compromise. He was never going to see out the contract he signed in 2019. The Icardi deal was a loan deal with an option to buy when PSG originally took him btw.
Varchester United. Remember when we had a great goal against Man Utd disallowed because 3 phases of play earlier there wasn't a foul on De Gea?
