2024 January transfer window - hopes, needs, expectations and rumours.

[Beard82]

The only way I see luiz going is by f there is a release clause that arsenal can afford. 

Which is possible.  But we’ll see

Always assuming of course if any release course is met, said player actually wants to go.  It is possible.

Yes sorry 1 guess what I mean is the only way I see us accepting an offer is if there’s a clause.  As I don’t think arsenal will have the money to pay what he’s actually worth based on my understanding of there FFP situation

[Beard82]

He was in a strong position as he was in the last month of his contract.  So I would be more surprised if there wasn’t one in there.  However I am just speculating.  I would also imagine that if that is the case we’ll be working on an improved offer. 

[pablo_picasso]

The only way I see luiz going is by f there is a release clause that arsenal can afford. 

Which is possible.  But we’ll see

If we haven't learned from the Grealish situation then we deserve to lose him.

What lesson did we need to learn from the Grealish situation?

Was it not obvious from the context?

The lesson we needed to learn from the Grealish release clause situation was to act like a big-boy club & do not give out release clauses within new contracts.

[Clampy]

What if the player insisted on one and we didn't give it? As for the Grealish one, we did get an awful lot of money out of it.

[Lastfootstamper]

I'd say in the Grealish case we did act like a "big-boy" club. It was set at a hundred million pounds.

[Dave]

The only way I see luiz going is by f there is a release clause that arsenal can afford. 

Which is possible.  But we’ll see

If we haven't learned from the Grealish situation then we deserve to lose him.

What lesson did we need to learn from the Grealish situation?

Was it not obvious from the context?

The lesson we needed to learn from the Grealish release clause situation was to act like a big-boy club & do not give out release clauses within new contracts.

I'm not sure that losing your players for nothing because they won't sign a contract with you is the sign of a "big-boy" club. It's the sign of a stupid club.

Haaland has one in his Man City contract, because that was his price to agree to join them. I imagine Man City aren't regretting it.

[pablo_picasso]

What if the player insisted on one and we didn't give it?

Then we negotiate a higher wage, better bonuses or something.

If they wont back down, then we sell on our terms.

Even if it means losing a little money.

Sometimes a message is more important than money.

What Grealish taught some of the players is that they can engineer a move away using a release clause.

If we take that option away, less players will attempt to use it.

[Dante Lavelli]

I agree in an ideal world that there’d be no clauses however i suspect we’d lose more players on free transfers as a result or more players simply looking to leave.  Any clause will not be a shock to the club so you’d hope that have a contingency plan anyway (Tielemans?) 

[pablo_picasso]

Maybe I am being more of an idealist than realist.

I just wouldn't entertain them...

[Smithy]

release fee clauses sometimes "feel" like they shouldn't be given, but it's just the latest evolution of the shift in power towards the players and away from the club.  Some of them are a bit stupid (Ansu Fati, currently on loan at Brighton, has a £1billion release clause).  But they are, unfortunately, part and parcel of the game these days.  As others have said, even Haaland has one.  If you have a top player, and you're trying to secure them to a long-term contract, I can't imagine there are too many new contracts for the top 10% of players that don't have them these days.

There will come a point where we will exploit one, and we'll be absolutely delighted about its existence.

I don't have a problem with Dougie having one in his next contract. I'd prefer he didn't have one at all, but if it's going in there, just make sure it's at a value that makes him unattractive to most clubs, and if activated makes us a LOT of money. Certainly more than Grealish.

[Dave]

Then we negotiate a higher wage, better bonuses or something.

If they wont back down, then we sell on our terms.

Even if it means losing a little money.

Sometimes a message is more important than money.

In the Douglas Luiz-specific version of this, he joins Arsenal for £25m in the last couple of days of the summer '22 transfer window.

Does that leave Villa better off, or worse off than how his last 15 months have played out?

Assuming he has a clause, which nobody has said that there is. If I were him signing that contract under Gerrard though, I'd have insisted on one.

[Smithy]

Maybe I am being more of an idealist than realist.

I just wouldn't entertain them...

I guess then it becomes a game of chicken, if the player won't sign new contract without one, and you won't give him one, are you willing to lose him for nothing when his contract expires?

[OCD]

Didn't Dougie recently say "If they want me, they can sign me on FIFA."

I think after Grealish, the owners pretty much said they wouldn't agree to release clauses in future.

[pablo_picasso]

Maybe you are right...

It just seems to me to be another element of the game that is moving in the direction of favouring the super wealthy elite minority clubs.

And there is enough of that already.

If a player is demanding a release clause then that would suggest to me that he is not planning for a future with us, so maybe on a positive note, its a way of weeding out those not fully committed to 'our' project & we can plan accordingly.

Personally, I don't think that Douglas Luiz has a release clause though.

I have absolutely no reason to think that other than from my gut.

[Dave]

Didn't Dougie recently say "If they want me, they can sign me on FIFA

No.