Quote from: Dave on June 28, 2015, 05:36:01 PMQuote from: old man villa fan on June 28, 2015, 04:29:11 PMI thought release clauses usually stated a minimum amount and not an actual amount. Also, are there not two types of clause, one an express contractual and the other an implied good faith type. In both cases, isn't there usually a limiting factor on triggering the clause e.g. relegation, CL qualified club etc. With a minimum amount, wouldn't this imply that you could get two or more teams bidding. The player is not a free agent.What would be the point of a 'minimum amount'? What if the player turned out to be rubbish and you wanted to sell him, but because you've put a minimum amount in the contract you wouldn't be able to? A release clause is just as the name suggests - it entitles the player to trigger his release from the contract. As for 'implied good faith', why would you put that into a legal contract? If neither party has to abide by it, why would you spend time even putting it in there?If there were a 'minimum amount' then yes, you could get two teams bidding. But that's not how release clauses work, so therefore you wouldn't. I can't think of any examples where a player has had a buy-out clause in his contract at the time of the transfer and the buying club paid more than they had to. There just wouldn't be a reason for them to do so.Which players have enforced a release clause to get a transfer?
Quote from: old man villa fan on June 28, 2015, 04:29:11 PMI thought release clauses usually stated a minimum amount and not an actual amount. Also, are there not two types of clause, one an express contractual and the other an implied good faith type. In both cases, isn't there usually a limiting factor on triggering the clause e.g. relegation, CL qualified club etc. With a minimum amount, wouldn't this imply that you could get two or more teams bidding. The player is not a free agent.What would be the point of a 'minimum amount'? What if the player turned out to be rubbish and you wanted to sell him, but because you've put a minimum amount in the contract you wouldn't be able to? A release clause is just as the name suggests - it entitles the player to trigger his release from the contract. As for 'implied good faith', why would you put that into a legal contract? If neither party has to abide by it, why would you spend time even putting it in there?If there were a 'minimum amount' then yes, you could get two teams bidding. But that's not how release clauses work, so therefore you wouldn't. I can't think of any examples where a player has had a buy-out clause in his contract at the time of the transfer and the buying club paid more than they had to. There just wouldn't be a reason for them to do so.
I thought release clauses usually stated a minimum amount and not an actual amount. Also, are there not two types of clause, one an express contractual and the other an implied good faith type. In both cases, isn't there usually a limiting factor on triggering the clause e.g. relegation, CL qualified club etc. With a minimum amount, wouldn't this imply that you could get two or more teams bidding. The player is not a free agent.
If the club don't speak out this week , I hope Delph does . Either way we need to know sooner rather than later what's happening.
Quote from: old man villa fan on June 28, 2015, 05:42:12 PMQuote from: Dave on June 28, 2015, 05:36:01 PMQuote from: old man villa fan on June 28, 2015, 04:29:11 PMI thought release clauses usually stated a minimum amount and not an actual amount. Also, are there not two types of clause, one an express contractual and the other an implied good faith type. In both cases, isn't there usually a limiting factor on triggering the clause e.g. relegation, CL qualified club etc. With a minimum amount, wouldn't this imply that you could get two or more teams bidding. The player is not a free agent.What would be the point of a 'minimum amount'? What if the player turned out to be rubbish and you wanted to sell him, but because you've put a minimum amount in the contract you wouldn't be able to? A release clause is just as the name suggests - it entitles the player to trigger his release from the contract. As for 'implied good faith', why would you put that into a legal contract? If neither party has to abide by it, why would you spend time even putting it in there?If there were a 'minimum amount' then yes, you could get two teams bidding. But that's not how release clauses work, so therefore you wouldn't. I can't think of any examples where a player has had a buy-out clause in his contract at the time of the transfer and the buying club paid more than they had to. There just wouldn't be a reason for them to do so.Which players have enforced a release clause to get a transfer?Demba Ba had a clause in his Newcastle contract which meant that he could move to any team in the Champions League for £7m - Chelsea met that clause, bingo, he becomes a Chelsea player. Liverpool met the buy-out clause in Joe Allen's Swansea contract as well.
Point being we need ample time to seek replacements if indeed that is the case. Therefore the sooner we are made clear the better.
Wasn't Ba's release clause to protect Newcastle because of his injury record i.e. the limiting amount that the club would have to pay out.
Emile Heskey always had a release clause in his contracts. It said "On expiry of 12 months without scoring a goal in any competition the player has the right to seek a termination and move to a Club of not his choice". He enforced that in almost every move in his career.
Quote from: Matt Collins on June 28, 2015, 04:56:07 PMIf citeh's interest and the clause are genuine it would make the £12m plus players deal seem more logical. I think he'd get in the city midfield at the moment. Not if they get pogba in as well though. Delph is not CL quality and therefore City will be buying other midfield players that are. Their owners want CL football and will spend the necessary money. Delph to City would be a waste of his footballing career but would be financially rewarded. Not being in that financial position, I do not know what it would feel like to get an extra £25k a week (or whatever it would be) for giving up playing week in week out, having dedicated most of his life to reaching the playing level he has.
If citeh's interest and the clause are genuine it would make the £12m plus players deal seem more logical. I think he'd get in the city midfield at the moment. Not if they get pogba in as well though.
If the club don't speak out this week , I hope Delph does . Either way we need to know sooner rather than later what's happening. Same with Benteke .
Quote from: silhillvilla on June 28, 2015, 05:58:59 PMIf the club don't speak out this week , I hope Delph does . Either way we need to know sooner rather than later what's happening. We don't really.Either it's true and we'll find out when a club makes a bid. Or it's not true, no bids come in and we just carry on.If the club or player come out and say "yes, it's true" is that going to make you feel that much better about things?
Quote from: Dave on June 28, 2015, 06:02:28 PMQuote from: silhillvilla on June 28, 2015, 05:58:59 PMIf the club don't speak out this week , I hope Delph does . Either way we need to know sooner rather than later what's happening. We don't really.Either it's true and we'll find out when a club makes a bid. Or it's not true, no bids come in and we just carry on.If the club or player come out and say "yes, it's true" is that going to make you feel that much better about things?stop making excuses for the club.... I've just forked out again for a season ticket - they need to be upfront on this.
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Fabian Delph - Signed for Manchester City (Read 685422 times)
