Time for release clauses in EPL?

[yumtum]

I got to thinking recently about Southampton wanting £60m for VVD from Liverpool, and considering how much money the league has now they could essentially reject anything but their valuation because they're obviously not short of money anymore.

Problem is though that these players looking to progress and further they're career are clearly going to be blocked by the 'smaller' clubs wanting stupid money for their players, I'm not against smaller clubs wanting big money but it could harm the bigger English clubs in Europe, take VVD for example, he didn't want to stay at Southampton for the rest of his career when he left Celtic, he saw them as an in between and a shop window to showcase his talent on a bigger stage.

Read in the Press Gossip thread that Spurs are now demanding £60m for What! I don't think agents (who lets face it, want their clients to move) will be liking this, and I'm assuming they're going to start demanding release clauses in their clients contracts at reasonable fees as I just can't see this situation lasting much longer.

What ya'll think? Release clauses, yay or nay?

 

[Murray3007]

I got to thinking recently about Southampton wanting £60m for VVD from Liverpool, and considering how much money the league has now they could essentially reject anything but their valuation because they're obviously not short of money anymore.

Problem is though that these players looking to progress and further they're career are clearly going to be blocked by the 'smaller' clubs wanting stupid money for their players, I'm not against smaller clubs wanting big money but it could harm the bigger English clubs in Europe, take VVD for example, he didn't want to stay at Southampton for the rest of his career when he left Celtic, he saw them as an in between and a shop window to showcase his talent on a bigger stage.

Read in the Press Gossip thread that Spurs are now demanding £60m for What! I don't think agents (who lets face it, want their clients to move) will be liking this, and I'm assuming they're going to start demanding release clauses in their clients contracts at reasonable fees as I just can't see this situation lasting much longer.

What ya'll think? Release clauses, yay or nay?

i think every player should have a release clause in there contract, just makes things easier, also hate when players like walker sign a new 4/5 year deal during the season now seem to think hes not getting payed enough, (if the reports are true) why not say that at the time rather then sign the contract?

 

[yumtum]

i think every player should have a release clause in there contract, just makes things easier, also hate when players like walker sign a new 4/5 year deal during the season now seem to think hes not getting payed enough, (if the reports are true) why not say that at the time rather then sign the contract?

Yeah that's another big bear! I know players have too much power these days, but holding a player and asking a stupid amount of money, because let's face it, £60m for VVD is crazy and unfair on the player if he wants to play in the Champions League!

Let's say Liverpool pay the £60m to get him and he does really well in the Champions League and then Real Madrid want him, how much would Liverpool demand then?

 

[roonster09]

I got to thinking recently about Southampton wanting £60m for VVD from Liverpool, and considering how much money the league has now they could essentially reject anything but their valuation because they're obviously not short of money anymore.

Problem is though that these players looking to progress and further they're career are clearly going to be blocked by the 'smaller' clubs wanting stupid money for their players, I'm not against smaller clubs wanting big money but it could harm the bigger English clubs in Europe, take VVD for example, he didn't want to stay at Southampton for the rest of his career when he left Celtic, he saw them as an in between and a shop window to showcase his talent on a bigger stage.

Read in the Press Gossip thread that Spurs are now demanding £60m for What! I don't think agents (who lets face it, want their clients to move) will be liking this, and I'm assuming they're going to start demanding release clauses in their clients contracts at reasonable fees as I just can't see this situation lasting much longer.

What ya'll think? Release clauses, yay or nay?

VVD could have insisted release clause when he signed 6 year contract last season. It's such a nonsense to sign a contract and then cry about moving clubs.

I think even if the release clauses start becoming a thing they won't be cheaper. Clubs will insist on higher price.

 

[Mani]

Release clause is not a bad idea,every player should have release clause in their contract as they would be well aware what they are signing also avoids the clubs from asking exorbitant fee.

 

[Eboue]

No. Christ no. The big clubs already have too many good players. The benches at the top 7 are far better than the starters outside of it.

 

[The red panther]

I think it should be an obligation to have that in every player's contract yes.

The untouchables can get ridiculous fees as release clauses which they obviously have to agree to and is subject to negotiating their deal. The players who pass through clubs like someone as VVD can negotiate a sensible release clause allowing to move on when he wants to. Makes the transfer dealings also alot easier for everyone involved.

 

[Schmiznurf]

Nope, players should sign shorter term contracts if they think they'll want to move on.

 

[We need an rvn]

Agree that putting in release clauses can stop the fees being demanded being way too excessive (like the VVD fee being mentioned above).

Flip side though is that if every player had a release clause, clubs would be helpless to stop players from leaving which would play havoc into long / medium term planning of squads. Plus it could also give the players even more power to demand higher salaries as they could say someone is going to active my release clause unless you give me more money

 

[FC Ronaldo]

Release clauses should be in every contract and I think they should be calculated on the following basis unilaterally across the board:

wage x contract length x modifiers for league position and league ranking as per UEFA coefficient points.

Throw in a quota of 3 slots for protected players per team with those protected players having release clauses where rejections are possible. Therefore, clubs retain control and if they do actually wish to sell players, could use that protection to inflate prices further for limited assets.

 

[Murray3007]

Yeah that's another big bear! I know players have too much power these days, but holding a player and asking a stupid amount of money, because let's face it, £60m for VVD is crazy and unfair on the player if he wants to play in the Champions League!

Let's say Liverpool pay the £60m to get him and he does really well in the Champions League and then Real Madrid want him, how much would Liverpool demand then?

Yeah it prob is to much but for southampton to move up the league they need to keep there best players, VVD could easily have got a clause in his contract saying if a club in the CL comes for me then i could go for a set fee, but he signed a contract at the time and he should stick to it, Liverpool would obviously want to keep him and would be quite right to ask for what ever they wanted or if the offer is to much to turn down.

 

[Rado_N]

These poor players, they're basically slaves.


If you don't want to commit the next X years of your career to a club then don't sign such a long deal with them. Also, release clauses already do exist, they're just not mandatory and nor should they be.

 

[BenjaminP]

Release clause is not a bad idea,every player should have release clause in their contract as they would be well aware what they are signing also avoids the clubs from asking exorbitant fee.

I get your point, but in reality it's not as easy.
First, you have to estimate a future valuation of a player in 4-5years, and that would be a subjective matter, thus hard to zero in on a specific number.
Second, you basically have to negotiate a selling price to leave the same club which you just joined. That's easier said than done.
Third, for agents players and clubs, they have higher priorities on negotiating the wage, and other incentives. After taking hours and days of negotiating, coming to a conclusion on future release clause just not comes in as a priority.
Lastly, release clause is beneficial for players, but not to the club and its business. Having a ceiling of selling price is definitely not favoring the clubs, in terms of getting maximum profit out of selling a player. Most of the time, the club is a superior side of two negotiating parties.

Many different reasons for needing a release clause for every player are mostly from players point of view. I just think this isn't really a realistic idea.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I got to thinking recently about Southampton wanting £60m for VVD from Liverpool, and considering how much money the league has now they could essentially reject anything but their valuation because they're obviously not short of money anymore.

Problem is though that these players looking to progress and further they're career are clearly going to be blocked by the 'smaller' clubs wanting stupid money for their players, I'm not against smaller clubs wanting big money but it could harm the bigger English clubs in Europe, take VVD for example, he didn't want to stay at Southampton for the rest of his career when he left Celtic, he saw them as an in between and a shop window to showcase his talent on a bigger stage.

Read in the Press Gossip thread that Spurs are now demanding £60m for What! I don't think agents (who lets face it, want their clients to move) will be liking this, and I'm assuming they're going to start demanding release clauses in their clients contracts at reasonable fees as I just can't see this situation lasting much longer.

What ya'll think? Release clauses, yay or nay?

Nay

 

[Revan]

What's the point on making them mandatory? Clubs will just put them at a very high value.

Also, none puts a gun on a player to sign a contract for 6 years. They can sign shorter contracts. And well, release clauses can already be inserted in contracts, Phil Jones did it a few years ago.

 

[red thru&thru]

As a club/fan, I'd be worried if the player I'm about to sign, wants a release cause in their contract. I would question that players commitment straight away.

 

[Blackwidow]

Aren't release clauses part of the agreement between club and player?

A lot of young players in Germany have them in their contracts - but that costs them wage.

 

[antohan]

No. Christ no. The big clubs already have too many good players. The benches at the top 7 are far better than the starters outside of it.

Agreed. Compulsory release clauses only serve the purpose of helping the richer teams pillage the smaller ones.

It's stunning in itself that Southampton refused 60M for VvD and they absolutely should have that option of sticking to their guns.

 

[AndyJ1985]

Personally I think transfer fees should be scrapped altogether and players should be made to honour their contracts, then they can move for free if they choose not to sign a new one. If they throw a strop and down tools then clubs should fine them for each week it carries on.

Players currently have too much power and see a contract as more money, rather than a long term commitment to a club.

 

[Woeisme]

VVD has 5 years left on his contract. Southampton don't want to sell him. How then is asking 60 million for him Ridiculous?

John Stones and Side show bob were both sold for 50 million! In today's market, you would have to expect more than that for VVD.

An asking price is only ridiculous if no one is willing to pay it.

 

[SouthPredators4]

I'm with Southampton on this issue. They gave VVD a 6 year contract which could easily have been disastrous had VVD suffered a career ending injury. For that risk undertaken, they are in all fairness to reject bids which are detrimental to their goals.

 

[Cloud7]

If you're that certain you'll want to leave a club in the near future then negotiate a release clause in your contract. Forego a higher wage if that's what necessary to secure the release clause. Clubs shouldn't be forced to include them.

 

[ghagua]

I got to thinking recently about Southampton wanting £60m for VVD from Liverpool, and considering how much money the league has now they could essentially reject anything but their valuation because they're obviously not short of money anymore.

Problem is though that these players looking to progress and further they're career are clearly going to be blocked by the 'smaller' clubs wanting stupid money for their players, I'm not against smaller clubs wanting big money but it could harm the bigger English clubs in Europe, take VVD for example, he didn't want to stay at Southampton for the rest of his career when he left Celtic, he saw them as an in between and a shop window to showcase his talent on a bigger stage.

Read in the Press Gossip thread that Spurs are now demanding £60m for What! I don't think agents (who lets face it, want their clients to move) will be liking this, and I'm assuming they're going to start demanding release clauses in their clients contracts at reasonable fees as I just can't see this situation lasting much longer.

What ya'll think? Release clauses, yay or nay?

How many transfer have actually happened when someone triggers the release clause? Players should only sign a contract for the length of time that they are willing to spend at the club. These players want to get rewarded for their greed, not their ambition. If it was ambition, they would have signed up for a shorter term, and then moved to a bigger club if they were worthy. Pretty sure Southampton did not hold a gun to Van Dijk's head and get him to sign a contract for 6 years.

 

[The red panther]

These poor players, they're basically slaves.


If you don't want to commit the next X years of your career to a club then don't sign such a long deal with them. Also, release clauses already do exist, they're just not mandatory and nor should they be.

I tought they were forbidden in the EPL

 

[The red panther]

How many transfer have actually happened when someone triggers the release clause? Players should only sign a contract for the length of time that they are willing to spend at the club. These players want to get rewarded for their greed, not their ambition. If it was ambition, they would have signed up for a shorter term, and then moved to a bigger club if they were worthy. Pretty sure Southampton did not hold a gun to Van Dijk's head and get him to sign a contract for 6 years.

Deals also don't happen often when players are out of contract. Clubs don't offer short term contracts because they invest alot of money in a player, they want him for a long time and if they player wants to move they will want to make their money or turn a profit. Players don't have that much choice about contract lenght especially not when they are just signing up for their first big deal. Also situations can change, you can not predict what is going to happen in 5 years time as a player, that doesn't mean they shouldn't sign up for 5 year long contracts.

There are alot of points to be made in favor of release clauses, I haven't heard a single valid one to not have them.

 

[Rado_N]

I tought they were forbidden in the EPL

No.

 

[Rado_N]

There are alot of points to be made in favor of release clauses, I haven't heard a single valid one to not have them.

Here:

No. Christ no. The big clubs already have too many good players. The benches at the top 7 are far better than the starters outside of it.

 

[GBBQ]

If you're that certain you'll want to leave a club in the near future then negotiate a release clause in your contract. Forego a higher wage if that's what necessary to secure the release clause. Clubs shouldn't be forced to include them.

Might seem like a good idea at the time but ambitions, managers and owners change and suddenly its not the project you thought it was.

 

[Valar Morghulis]

Ideally I'd like everyone to have a set release clause dependent on the wages that are being paid, though that would be unfair on less wealthy teams than ourselves so it would never happen.

I personally just hate the transfer fee's nowadays and the constant inflation each year, a cap on player's values would be great. But unrealistic unfortunately.

 

[ghagua]

Deals also don't happen often when players are out of contract. Clubs don't offer short term contracts because they invest alot of money in a player, they want him for a long time and if they player wants to move they will want to make their money or turn a profit. Players don't have that much choice about contract lenght especially not when they are just signing up for their first big deal. Also situations can change, you can not predict what is going to happen in 5 years time as a player, that doesn't mean they shouldn't sign up for 5 year long contracts.

There are alot of points to be made in favor of release clauses, I haven't heard a single valid one to not have them.

Players have all the choice in the world on what type of contract they want to sign. Do you think Van Dijk did not have a choice if he should sign a 6 year deal or a shorter one?

 

[The red panther]

No.

I thought buy-out clauses needed to represent a fair value according to english law, because that would force clubs to sell their players to cheap, they don't take them up into player contracts. In Spain it is mandatory and clubs are allowed to negotiate ridiculous fees with the player if they want to.

The system right now really benefits the smaller clubs and harms the bigger ones and also harms the interests of the players who want to move but can't buy-out of their contract. If a player ends up agreeing to a certain buy-out, he can't go on later to complain it was too high but if you enter into a contract without a buy-out because it is not custom to include them in the EPL, I do think players can rightfully be pissed off that clubs can hold them to that contract against their will.

EPL has already many systems in place to benefit the smaller clubs, the division of tv-money in the EPL is one of those systems. The fact buy-out clauses are not allowed the way they are enforced in Spain is another one of those systems. The thing it it doesn't make those smaller more competitive in europe, it just harms the bigger domestic clubs, EPL top clubs can not cherry pick the talent from the league the way Bayern or Spanish clubs can without overpaying to a ridiculous extent. It makes the league more competitive but it puts the english teams further behind the top clubs from other leagues.

 

[Rado_N]

I thought buy-out clauses needed to represent a fair value according to english law, because that would force clubs to sell their players to cheap, they don't take them up into player contracts. In Spain it is mandatory and clubs are allowed to negotiate ridiculous fees with the player if they want to.

The system right now really benefits the smaller clubs and harms the bigger ones and also harms the interests of the players who want to move but can't buy-out of their contract. If a player ends up agreeing to a certain buy-out, he can't go on later to complain it was too high but if you enter into a contract without a buy-out because it is not custom to include them in the EPL, I do think players can rightfully be pissed off that clubs can hold them to that contract against their will.

EPL has already many systems in place to benefit the smaller clubs, the division of tv-money in the EPL is one of those systems. The fact buy-out clauses are not allowed the way they are enforced in Spain is another one of those systems. The thing it it doesn't make those smaller more competitive in europe, it just harms the bigger domestic clubs, EPL top clubs can not cherry pick the talent from the league the way Bayern or Spanish clubs can without overpaying to a ridiculous extent. It makes the league more competitive but it puts the english teams further behind the top clubs from other leagues.

What the hell are you talking about?

1. Buyout clauses already exist in England.

2. The idea that the big clubs are being harmed by the current system is utterly laughable.

3. If a player signs a contract he's every bit as obliged to see it through as the club. If he changes his mind one year into a six year deal that's just tough shit, he ask for a transfer but has absolutely no ground to complain of unfair treatment.

4. I feel like this needs saying again; buyout clauses already exist in England.

 

[The red panther]

Players have all the choice in the world on what type of contract they want to sign. Do you think Van Dijk did not have a choice if he should sign a 6 year deal or a shorter one?

I think Souton offered him a deal and doubt VVD had alot of choice in the matter. Obviously you can negotiate but at the time, you want a big move, you are not in a position to have strong demands and are happy to sign a 6 year deal. But I don't think that means Souton should be able to keep him for the full 6 years if that were against his will.

If the contract included an agreed upon buy-out that would solve any issue. If the player wants to leave, buy-out of the contract, simple as that.

 

[Schmiznurf]

I thought buy-out clauses needed to represent a fair value according to english law, because that would force clubs to sell their players to cheap, they don't take them up into player contracts. In Spain it is mandatory and clubs are allowed to negotiate ridiculous fees with the player if they want to.

The system right now really benefits the smaller clubs and harms the bigger ones and also harms the interests of the players who want to move but can't buy-out of their contract. If a player ends up agreeing to a certain buy-out, he can't go on later to complain it was too high but if you enter into a contract without a buy-out because it is not custom to include them in the EPL, I do think players can rightfully be pissed off that clubs can hold them to that contract against their will.

EPL has already many systems in place to benefit the smaller clubs, the division of tv-money in the EPL is one of those systems. The fact buy-out clauses are not allowed the way they are enforced in Spain is another one of those systems. The thing it it doesn't make those smaller more competitive in europe, it just harms the bigger domestic clubs, EPL top clubs can not cherry pick the talent from the league the way Bayern or Spanish clubs can without overpaying to a ridiculous extent. It makes the league more competitive but it puts the english teams further behind the top clubs from other leagues.

So we're meant to implement a system designed to stunt the growth of smaller clubs and help big clubs grow? Calm the hell down name that rhymes with play golf.

 

[edcunited1878]

The problem is transparency and the lack of it throughout the entire process. Compounded by the fact that agents have too much influence and power, the transfer system and player contracts are so fecked up.

There are release clauses in every player contract. It's called a transfer request. Every club can release a player if they don't uphold club values, i.e. they are getting into off the pitch trouble, arrested, etc.

Players just don't control enough of their careers because of agents and the politics that surround them.

 

[The red panther]

What the hell are you talking about?

1. Buyout clauses already exist in England.

2. The idea that the big clubs are being harmed by the current system is utterly laughable.

3. If a player signs a contract he's every bit as obliged to see it through as the club. If he changes his mind one year into a six year deal that's just tough shit, he ask for a transfer but has absolutely no ground to complain of unfair treatment.

4. I feel like this needs saying again; buyout clauses already exist in England.

Buy-out clauses exists but it is my understanding they are:

1. not mandatory to include
2. can not exceed a fair value valuation of the contract

This makes it a thing that many clubs will try to avoid putting in their player contracts.

Spanish system it is:

1. mandatory to include
2. can be any value agreed upon between player and club

I think the big clubs in this league are harmed by it. It is impossible to buy players from midtable or subtop clubs because:

1. those clubs are filty rich due to the tv-money deal so don't need money
2. players contracts in most cases don't include buy-out clauses

Hence those clubs ask outright ridiculous prices for their players. It is something you see every year in the EPL and becomes worse and worse. You compare that to the Bundesliga and Bayern and Dortmund can sign any player they want from other bundesliga clubs for what we would call cut price deals. In Spain it is the same, not hard to see why that harms the bigger clubs and benefits the smaller ones.

 

[GJNJ]

I tought they were forbidden in the EPL

Nope, highest profile one i can think of was Kante to Chelsea last summer. Leicester would have demanded a shed load more had it not been in his contract. I think Vardy and Marhez also had them before they signed new deals.

 

[ghagua]

I think Souton offered him a deal and doubt VVD had alot of choice in the matter. Obviously you can negotiate but at the time, you want a big move, you are not in a position to have strong demands and are happy to sign a 6 year deal. But I don't think that means Souton should be able to keep him for the full 6 years if that were against his will.

If the contract included an agreed upon buy-out that would solve any issue. If the player wants to leave, buy-out of the contract, simple as that.

I am all for the free movement of players and have put Van Dijk at the top of my wishlist for defenders, but why on earth would Southampton not be able to keep hold of Van Dijk for the term of his contract if they choose to do so? It's not like Van Dijk was a youth player signing his first contract, he was an established played who had a lot of choices when he chose to sign that 6 year deal.

 

[Rado_N]

Buy-out clauses exists but it is my understanding they are:

1. not mandatory to include
2. can not exceed a fair value valuation of the contract

This makes it a thing that many clubs will try to avoid putting in their player contracts.

Spanish system it is:

1. mandatory to include
2. can be any value agreed upon between player and club

I think the big clubs in this league are harmed by it. It is impossible to buy players from midtable or subtop clubs because:

1. those clubs are filty rich due to the tv-money deal so don't need money
2. players contracts in most cases don't include buy-out clauses

Hence those clubs ask outright ridiculous prices for their players. It is something you see every year in the EPL and becomes worse and worse. You compare that to the Bundesliga and Bayern and Dortmund can sign any player they want from other bundesliga clubs for what we would call cut price deals. In Spain it is the same, not hard to see why that harms the bigger clubs and benefits the smaller ones.

Of course they're not mandatory, and they absolutely shouldn't be, but your original claim was that they were forbidden which is nonsense.

If a player wants a release clause in his deal he and his agent can negotiate for one when the deal is being agreed. If the club don't want to include one the player can either decline to join that club or agree to do without.

What you're suggesting is that smaller clubs should be kept small and under the boot of the bigger clubs who should be able to cherry pick their best players at will, whilst the smaller clubs have no say in the matter. It's ridiculous.

To be frank you're just speaking as a transfer muppet who's only interest is a fix. There's a bigger picture which is the benefit of the league as a whole, we should not be looking at the position in Spain as an example of what to aspire to.

 

[Escobar]

Yeah that's another big bear! I know players have too much power these days, but holding a player and asking a stupid amount of money, because let's face it, £60m for VVD is crazy and unfair on the player if he wants to play in the Champions League!

Let's say Liverpool pay the £60m to get him and he does really well in the Champions League and then Real Madrid want him, how much would Liverpool demand then?

But in the end it's the player who agreed to sign a new contract where he usually get's more money. So he just cant have both and it is clear that the clubs try to protect themselves