Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by SAred, Aug 8, 2018.
Is there any reason why United don't make use of these?
What do you mean?
Agree. Can't believe we haven't triggered Modric's release clause.
That we’ve never met them.
It’s logical, most of the time the clause is higher than their worth.
As in have them for our players or trigger them? If the former it's because they're not a legal obligation in England, I don't think, and if we put them in our contracts then we'd be powerless to stop other clubs buying our players. If it's the latter it's because they're usually very expensive.
You are actually impressed by Chelsea paying a £71m release clause for a relatively unknown keeper?
We triggered Herrera's release clause to sign him.
Is why don't United have release clauses on their players.
Alderweirld's release clause is £25m next year . I think we trigger it if he can stay fit and able to play at a high level.
Crazy money in a mad market.
Because it's not mandatory in England.
For what its worth, this model should really be a rule in football.
Cap the maximum fee, every player has a clause, everyone knows where they stand. None of this 'preparing a bid' bullshit.
We have. It is just that they are set to infinite.
So United could if they wanted to then.
Release clauses are law in Spain. It's why Madrid's best players have €700m release clause to deter bids. Barca had Neymar on £200m clause because they thought that was enough.
Why would we have clauses when it isn't necessary? It reduces club control.
Utd have paid clauses for Diogo Dalot (although we slightly overpaid to ensure we got the deal done without competition), De Gea was a release clause purchase and so was Ander Herrera.
It's not mandatory. Why would we willingly put them in?
Why do something what is not good for you?
Yeah but it doesn't make any sense
Players like Martial, Rashford and Pogba is pretty much an asset. Big clubs like United won't put a price on any of their treasured players because they want to have the upper hand on transfers.
Small clubs are more suitable because they could protect their asset and gain maximum amount of profit for their players.
Why would we want to when they are not mandatory? In effect, we have set release clauses at infinite for each player. This protects us more than setting them to x amount of money.
Release clause doesn't mean that the player goes for the release clause. It just means that if some club pays it and player accepts, the selling club has no power to stop the transfer. For this reason, Real (and Barca after Neymar) puts impossible release clauses on their players.
Players still go for fees which are considerably lower than their release clauses.
No. Spanish teams get around the rule by having ridiculous release clauses, but obviously the big clubs get caught out on occasion - Figo and Neymar come to mind.
If you capped the clause, then the smaller teams would just get picked off every summer.
Yes, because you don't do something that could harm you unless the law necessitates it.
So PSG could Neymar us?
So here we have Barca sniffing around Pogba, he is unsettled not saying he is but for argument sake, he wants to leave. United don't want to sell but don't want to have an unhappy player on board so they have a release clause set at say 180 million. United say to Paul's agent that's the figure if it is activated we won't stand in his way. So Pogba now knows that United are not standing in his way of a move but United don't receive that figure so keep the player. Paul is happy that United have at least given the buying team a chance so he does not sulk and blames Barca for not meeting his realistic figure. Not a Modric or infinite figure but realistic figure.
So we could as well just ask Barca to pay 180 mil...?
Of coarse but we don't want to sell so the release clause which is built in gives a buying team the option to buy a player that does not want to be here. Its pointless keeping an unhappy player no matter how good.
Plus if you have your clause put in at what was a "realistic" figure at the time and then one season later your very good player turns into a world class player you lose him for less than he is now worth.
Release clauses also become negotiating points in Spain. For example, teams say we will give you a pay rise but you have to increase the clause to x. Similarly, a player will sign a new deal sometimes rather than leaving on a free but with a reduced clause so that his club get a fee but he also still gets a move.
And what if the market inflates over the course of the contract and £180 mil becomes the cost of a good midfielder rather than world class. We balked at the thought of paying up to £50 million for Martial not so long ago. Now we wouldn't accept less than £100 mil despite some question marks over drive and dedication.
Maybe but lets say in Paul's case 180 million is more than realistic even in today's madness. And the figures wont be thumb sucked managers will get involved etc.
Waste of time. The club should always have the right to determine whether a bid is high enough or not.
But you've said yourself that Barca wouldn't pay the 180 mil because it's too much so it doesn't really matter if it's the clause that's 180 or us asking 180 in the end, now does it?
I mean, imagine we put 100 mil clause into Pogba, a year later Mbappe/Neymar happen and 100 mil clause is laughable money and we're basically getting robbed because somebody activates it, what then?
Why would you buy a 23-year old with room to improve and set his release clause £10m higher than what you've just paid though, that would just be plain stupid. Release clauses do no harm if used effectively, e.g. no one will pay €500m for Umtiti and even if he gets ridiculously overhyped and someone is stupid enough to pay it, you can buy 5 great defenders with the money you've received.
Barça should've recognized they were in trouble since €220m wasn't that high for a player like Neymar. Seems like everyone has learned from it since, I think Asensio's is €700m now so basically a clause doesn't even exist.
We can do the same now. Pretend that we have 180m release clause, and start negotiations with the minimum amount of money we are expected to accept be 180m. But on negotiations try to get more.
Why do it though? If we're willing to sell him for 180m today, we could just say that we'll sell at 180. Then next year we can decide what the number is. Why reduce your own flexibility? It's done at initial contract as part of the negotiation, in the same way as a salary is set. In fact salary v clause v contract length is a common trade-off in Spain.
Player's demand to set it to X amount or else he won't sign pretty much is the first thing that springs to my mind.
I think that (Atletic Bilbao) is the one exception. They have that all Basque rule, and more money than they need, whatever fee they get they cannot usually reinvest in players. So they insist that the buying club meet the release clause. And they also do it so that they can tell their fans that they turned down all offers, but that the player abandoned their project.
Release clauses should be mandatory throughout the world and the maximum is capped at £100m, or currency equivalent.
Surely that would depend on the level of the cap.
Start with a wage cap, quantify a transfer clause cap on the basis of the value of the contract + reasonable fee.
Eventually player power is going to cause a bigger stir in football than it already has.
Footballers really should be regarded as self-employed entities in their own right if the current transfer system continues. They have limited employee rights bar their ridiculous pay.
They can be a weak point when fees get inflated like the current market with CBs. For example imagine if Bailly had come in when we signed him and we put double his fee as his release clause, like £45 million. Imagine he hadnt had injury problems and built on his good first season and become one of the best CBs in the league.
Now we'd be losing him for £45 million while other teams are pricing their CBs at £65-70 million. And it wouldnt be in Bailly's intrerest to sign a new deal with a higher clause unless he got a huge payday. So either way it wouldnt have been good for the club
Separate names with a comma.