Historically, if a club sold a player without a transfer request being made, the player got 10% of the transfer fee. If a player wanted a transfer and put in an official written transfer request, he did not get any of the fee.
Nowadays, signing on fees are common, and if a player (or his agent) negotiates a transfer without a written request having been made, then the signing club would often pay a fee. A proportion of this goes to the agent (between 10% and 30% I have heard).
As for the release clause, I have no problem with agents or clubs (because it can protect them too!) asking for inclusion, but the release (as I understand it) only allows a player to talk to a team that have made such an offer (as per Suarez with Arsenal). We also regularly get to hear of alleged release clause amounts because the press are all over it, especially with Johnny Foreigner who Man City/Chelski/Man Utd apparently want to sign. If a players agent wants to push through a move, of course he has a right (IMO) to make a potential target club aware of the level. If he doesn't, then the press will!
With Gomez, once an offer had been made for Joe, he is going to want to go; we would all move to a new job if they offered us a five-fold increase on salary (just my guess by the way). KM said it was difficult to stand in his way, and we can understand and accept that. I do think and hope that bearing in mind that we knew he was going early in the week, and he eventually signed on Saturday, that the fee was not simply the release clause amount; there was a lot of negotiation I think. Hopefully we have maximised our potential earnings from Joe to cover appearances for Liverpool and England. Any loan-back will be an unexpected bonus.
Due to the timing, we are likely to find out some of the details of the transfer when the official accounts are released later this summer.
By the way, Good luck Joe!
Right and that bit in bold is why I am struggling to understand the point of release clauses. You are not the first to indicate that triggering them gives the potential buying club an exclusivity, so I assume that this is generally true.
I also understand that it is reasonable for an agent to tell a potential buying club of the likely price a club will listen to, in an open market where several clubs could bid.
So what is the use of a release clause, (which offers exclusivity to one buying club), to the club who owns the player it it is notconfidential between the club and the player? maybe I'm missing something but if its not confidential you might as well tell the press that "we will listen to offers above x for player y" (which of course you see, but not usually for really hot properties).
of course, even if they are confidential, it would be difficult to prove the agent broke confidentiality and gave one club the lowdown. Which is what is being suggested may have happened in JG case.
But put JG aside. Someone just please explain me the general advantage to clubs with valuable players of release clauses which offer exclusive dealing, if they can be blabbed all over by the agent. Seems to me it simply leaves the selling club with no negotiating room
Historically, if a club sold a player without a transfer request being made, the player got 10% of the transfer fee. If a player wanted a transfer and put in an official written transfer request, he did not get any of the fee.
Nowadays, signing on fees are common, and if a player (or his agent) negotiates a transfer without a written request having been made, then the signing club would often pay a fee. A proportion of this goes to the agent (between 10% and 30% I have heard).
As for the release clause, I have no problem with agents or clubs (because it can protect them too!) asking for inclusion, but the release (as I understand it) only allows a player to talk to a team that have made such an offer (as per Suarez with Arsenal). We also regularly get to hear of alleged release clause amounts because the press are all over it, especially with Johnny Foreigner who Man City/Chelski/Man Utd apparently want to sign. If a players agent wants to push through a move, of course he has a right (IMO) to make a potential target club aware of the level. If he doesn't, then the press will!
With Gomez, once an offer had been made for Joe, he is going to want to go; we would all move to a new job if they offered us a five-fold increase on salary (just my guess by the way). KM said it was difficult to stand in his way, and we can understand and accept that. I do think and hope that bearing in mind that we knew he was going early in the week, and he eventually signed on Saturday, that the fee was not simply the release clause amount; there was a lot of negotiation I think. Hopefully we have maximised our potential earnings from Joe to cover appearances for Liverpool and England. Any loan-back will be an unexpected bonus.
Due to the timing, we are likely to find out some of the details of the transfer when the official accounts are released later this summer.
By the way, Good luck Joe!
Right and that bit in bold is why I am struggling to understand the point of release clauses. You are not the first to indicate that triggering them gives the potential buying club an exclusivity, so I assume that this is generally true.
I also understand that it is reasonable for an agent to tell a potential buying club of the likely price a club will listen to, in an open market where several clubs could bid.
So what is the use of a release clause, (which offers exclusivity to one buying club), to the club who owns the player it it is notconfidential between the club and the player? maybe I'm missing something but if its not confidential you might as well tell the press that "we will listen to offers above x for player y" (which of course you see, but not usually for really hot properties).
of course, even if they are confidential, it would be difficult to prove the agent broke confidentiality and gave one club the lowdown. Which is what is being suggested may have happened in JG case.
But put JG aside. Someone just please explain me the general advantage to clubs with valuable players of release clauses which offer exclusive dealing, if they can be blabbed all over by the agent. Seems to me it simply leaves the selling club with no negotiating room
But who says it is exclusive Prague? If Liverpool offered an initial £3.5m (in Joe's case, presuming that he had a release clause which we do not know....), then there was nothing to stop Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Millwall doing the same. All that would have meant was that the player could if he wanted talk to them.
The example I tried to highlight was where some Seville player was wanted by Chelsea I think, but the club made it quite clear that the player had a release clause of 37m euros, and if they got an offer exceeding that, the player could talk to them. Otherwise, he would remain with Seville.
Prague - I don't believe Pedro45 was saying it offers exclusivity (which it doesn't) - he said any club offering 'at least' the release clause value may talk to the player.
Any number of clubs can offer that value initially, thereby triggering the release clause. Maybe only Liverpool did - or maybe there wasn't a release clause!
Historically, if a club sold a player without a transfer request being made, the player got 10% of the transfer fee. If a player wanted a transfer and put in an official written transfer request, he did not get any of the fee.
Nowadays, signing on fees are common, and if a player (or his agent) negotiates a transfer without a written request having been made, then the signing club would often pay a fee. A proportion of this goes to the agent (between 10% and 30% I have heard).
As for the release clause, I have no problem with agents or clubs (because it can protect them too!) asking for inclusion, but the release (as I understand it) only allows a player to talk to a team that have made such an offer (as per Suarez with Arsenal). We also regularly get to hear of alleged release clause amounts because the press are all over it, especially with Johnny Foreigner who Man City/Chelski/Man Utd apparently want to sign. If a players agent wants to push through a move, of course he has a right (IMO) to make a potential target club aware of the level. If he doesn't, then the press will!
With Gomez, once an offer had been made for Joe, he is going to want to go; we would all move to a new job if they offered us a five-fold increase on salary (just my guess by the way). KM said it was difficult to stand in his way, and we can understand and accept that. I do think and hope that bearing in mind that we knew he was going early in the week, and he eventually signed on Saturday, that the fee was not simply the release clause amount; there was a lot of negotiation I think. Hopefully we have maximised our potential earnings from Joe to cover appearances for Liverpool and England. Any loan-back will be an unexpected bonus.
Due to the timing, we are likely to find out some of the details of the transfer when the official accounts are released later this summer.
By the way, Good luck Joe!
Right and that bit in bold is why I am struggling to understand the point of release clauses. You are not the first to indicate that triggering them gives the potential buying club an exclusivity, so I assume that this is generally true.
I also understand that it is reasonable for an agent to tell a potential buying club of the likely price a club will listen to, in an open market where several clubs could bid.
So what is the use of a release clause, (which offers exclusivity to one buying club), to the club who owns the player it it is notconfidential between the club and the player? maybe I'm missing something but if its not confidential you might as well tell the press that "we will listen to offers above x for player y" (which of course you see, but not usually for really hot properties).
of course, even if they are confidential, it would be difficult to prove the agent broke confidentiality and gave one club the lowdown. Which is what is being suggested may have happened in JG case.
But put JG aside. Someone just please explain me the general advantage to clubs with valuable players of release clauses which offer exclusive dealing, if they can be blabbed all over by the agent. Seems to me it simply leaves the selling club with no negotiating room
In theory, any such clause - like the rest of the contract would be confidential.
Here's an extract as an example:
Confidentiality This contract is to be treated as being private and confidential and its contents shall not be disclosed or divulged either directly or indirectly to any person firm or company whatsoever either by the Club the Player or any Agent of the Club or the Player except: 16.1 with the prior written agreement of both the Club and the Player; or 16.2 as may be required by any statutory regulatory governmental or quasi governmental authorities or as otherwise required by law or pursuant to the Rules including (where appropriate) any recognised stock exchange; or 16.3 in the case of the Player to his duly appointed Agent and professional advisers including the PFA; or 16.4 in the case of the Club to its duly appointed Agent and its professional advisers or to such of its directors secretary servants or representatives or auditors to whom such disclosure is strictly necessary for the purposes of their duties and then only to the extent so necessary.
BUT what would be the sanction if a player or their agent broke the confidentiality clause? I'm guessing the only thing to do would be to sue for breach of contract (not going to happen as the club would never sign a player ever again unless they were desperate for a gig) or sack the player for gross misconduct in which case they'd walk for free. So, it's fairly clear that the clause exists primarily to stop the club blabbing about players wages and bonusues.
Of course, what is ironic, is that if such a clause existed in Joe's contract, the club would have been in breach of the clause by telling Olly Groome there was no release clause! (Because it would be very difficult to argue that it was strictly necessary.)
I'd guess a similar clause to the above sits in the sale contract which is why the value of the transfer is undisclosed.
Prague - I don't believe Pedro45 was saying it offers exclusivity (which it doesn't) - he said any club offering 'at least' the release clause value may talk to the player.
Any number of clubs can offer that value initially, thereby triggering the release clause. Maybe only Liverpool did - or maybe there wasn't a release clause!
Ok , got that now.
But I am still unclear what the value of a release clause is to a club. I can see that it's of value to the player, it sets a figure whereby the club have to let him talk, regardless of whether they want to sell him. But if the figure is not confidential, then the club has placed itself in a lousy negotiating position, unless 2-3 other clubs are able to Join the discussion
I really can't see the club intending to let Liverpool basically have a free run at Gomez - for all the talk of other prospective approaches, Liverpool seem to be in the driving seat throughout. So either Liverpool have managed to get things done very quickly indeed or it was Joe himself (or maybe his agent, though that's purely speculative) who has/had decided it's Liverpool, or no-one... for whatever reason.
But if the player refuses to sign a contract without it, what does a club do? I think the selling club has to try to add their own clause that were minimum requirements are met, they have the say on where the player goes. But then the player probably won't sign that. So basically it is looking like we were stitched up by the player and his agent but obviously couldn't say as much at the time. And it looks like Joe's agent probably broke the confidentiality of the agreement knowing there was absolutely nothing we could do about it.
What I found strange was the statement that Liverpool and Charlton were still in negotiations on the sell on fee but this would not affect the transfer! What sort of negotiation was that then.
The Bosman ruling has done a lot of harm to football. If Europe had a proper tribunal system it like we had here it probably wouldn't have come about in the first place! Oh well!
Prague - I don't believe Pedro45 was saying it offers exclusivity (which it doesn't) - he said any club offering 'at least' the release clause value may talk to the player.
Any number of clubs can offer that value initially, thereby triggering the release clause. Maybe only Liverpool did - or maybe there wasn't a release clause!
Ok , got that now.
But I am still unclear what the value of a release clause is to a club. I can see that it's of value to the player, it sets a figure whereby the club have to let him talk, regardless of whether they want to sell him. But if the figure is not confidential, then the club has placed itself in a lousy negotiating position, unless 2-3 other clubs are able to Join the discussion
Ok - let's paint a scenario.
Poyet did not agree to sign a three-year deal - I believe he only signed a 1 year deal - so no real need for a release clause as he could just run down the contract and leave (which he did).
We didn't want the same thing to happen with Joe - we knew his potential and he was about to break into the first team, so we offered a three year deal and he was prepared to sign it on the basis that if any club made an initial offer to CAFC at or above 'x' (x would have been negotiated and agreed) then the club would have to give him permission enter into discussions with said club.
We tie him to a longer contract meaning we protect the assets value (i.e. a transfer fee would be required for him to move) and he gets the reassurance that if he does shine in the first team and interest in generated from a Prem side then the release clause means we couldn't stop him from talking.
Agents, 3.5 million, 10 million, , family, club wanting to cash in, player wanting to cash in, release clause, money to Staprix, money to Charlton, money for losses, money to invest, footballing reasons, disclosed, undisclosed. Couple of things seem to be facts. Joe was under contract. Joe has signed for Liverpool. From a simplistic fans perspective it's being upset by the loss of a great player, and therefore to get cheered up we need to get loads and loads of good results next season. No pressure Roland, Katrien, and Guy, but we see what's occouring, and if it leads to mediocrity and failure the fans will vote with their voices first, their feet second. Next season must yield a return of 76 points minimum, less than that is failure of this regime in my eyes.
Out of interest Seth, why 76? I agree that 16 points more than last year should be a realistic aim by the way
Prague - I don't believe Pedro45 was saying it offers exclusivity (which it doesn't) - he said any club offering 'at least' the release clause value may talk to the player.
Any number of clubs can offer that value initially, thereby triggering the release clause. Maybe only Liverpool did - or maybe there wasn't a release clause!
Ok , got that now.
But I am still unclear what the value of a release clause is to a club. I can see that it's of value to the player, it sets a figure whereby the club have to let him talk, regardless of whether they want to sell him. But if the figure is not confidential, then the club has placed itself in a lousy negotiating position, unless 2-3 other clubs are able to Join the discussion
Ok - let's paint a scenario.
Poyet did not agree to sign a three-year deal - I believe he only signed a 1 year deal - so no real need for a release clause as he could just run down the contract and leave (which he did).
We didn't want the same thing to happen with Joe - we knew his potential and he was about to break into the first team, so we offered a three year deal and he was prepared to sign it on the basis that if any club made an initial offer to CAFC at or above 'x' (x would have been negotiated and agreed) then the club would have to give him permission enter into discussions with said club.
We tie him to a longer contract meaning we protect the assets value (i.e. a transfer fee would be required for him to move) and he gets the reassurance that if he does shine in the first team and interest in generated from a Prem side then the release clause means we couldn't stop him from talking.
Quid pro quo!
Yes I get all that.
But do you not agree that the value to the club of such a deal is greatly increased if the terms of the release clause are confidential between the club and the player and his "adviser"? That is the point of the discussion this morning. Was an agent only doing something perfectly reasonable, or did he shaft Charlton by telling Liverpool stuff that Charlton regarded as confidential?
It hinges on whether there is confidentiality , and what the hell you can do if it is infringed. @cafcfan has addressed both, above.
But if the player refuses to sign a contract without it, what does a club do? I think the selling club has to try to add their own clause that were minimum requirements are met, they have the say on where the player goes. But then the player probably won't sign that. So basically it is looking like we were stitched up by the player and his agent but obviously couldn't say as much at the time. And it looks like Joe's agent probably broke the confidentiality of the agreement knowing there was absolutely nothing we could do about it.
What I found strange was the statement that Liverpool and Charlton were still in negotiations on the sell on fee but this would not affect the transfer! What sort of negotiation was that then.
The Bosman ruling has done a lot of harm to football. If Europe had a proper tribunal system it like we had here it probably wouldn't have come about in the first place! Oh well!
We really don't know that. A possible scenario is that Liverpool approached us and said "can we have permission to talk to Joe and if personal terms can be agreed our offer is likely to be around £5million?". This triggers the release clause and we are contractually obliged to say "yes".
If the release clause was in Joe's contract then it doesn't mean that Liverpool knew what the figure was - they could have offered way above that and sources at or very close to the club are saying that the £3.5 mill figure is wrong.
Prague - I don't believe Pedro45 was saying it offers exclusivity (which it doesn't) - he said any club offering 'at least' the release clause value may talk to the player.
Any number of clubs can offer that value initially, thereby triggering the release clause. Maybe only Liverpool did - or maybe there wasn't a release clause!
Ok , got that now.
But I am still unclear what the value of a release clause is to a club. I can see that it's of value to the player, it sets a figure whereby the club have to let him talk, regardless of whether they want to sell him. But if the figure is not confidential, then the club has placed itself in a lousy negotiating position, unless 2-3 other clubs are able to Join the discussion
Ok - let's paint a scenario.
Poyet did not agree to sign a three-year deal - I believe he only signed a 1 year deal - so no real need for a release clause as he could just run down the contract and leave (which he did).
We didn't want the same thing to happen with Joe - we knew his potential and he was about to break into the first team, so we offered a three year deal and he was prepared to sign it on the basis that if any club made an initial offer to CAFC at or above 'x' (x would have been negotiated and agreed) then the club would have to give him permission enter into discussions with said club.
We tie him to a longer contract meaning we protect the assets value (i.e. a transfer fee would be required for him to move) and he gets the reassurance that if he does shine in the first team and interest in generated from a Prem side then the release clause means we couldn't stop him from talking.
Quid pro quo!
Yes I get all that.
But do you not agree that the value to the club of such a deal is greatly increased if the terms of the release clause are confidential between the club and the player and his "adviser"? That is the point of the discussion this morning. Was an agent only doing something perfectly reasonable, or did he shaft Charlton by telling Liverpool stuff that Charlton regarded as confidential?
It hinges on whether there is confidentiality , and what the hell you can do if it is infringed. @cafcfan has addressed both, above.
Prague - I don't believe Pedro45 was saying it offers exclusivity (which it doesn't) - he said any club offering 'at least' the release clause value may talk to the player.
Any number of clubs can offer that value initially, thereby triggering the release clause. Maybe only Liverpool did - or maybe there wasn't a release clause!
Ok , got that now.
But I am still unclear what the value of a release clause is to a club. I can see that it's of value to the player, it sets a figure whereby the club have to let him talk, regardless of whether they want to sell him. But if the figure is not confidential, then the club has placed itself in a lousy negotiating position, unless 2-3 other clubs are able to Join the discussion
Ok - let's paint a scenario.
Poyet did not agree to sign a three-year deal - I believe he only signed a 1 year deal - so no real need for a release clause as he could just run down the contract and leave (which he did).
We didn't want the same thing to happen with Joe - we knew his potential and he was about to break into the first team, so we offered a three year deal and he was prepared to sign it on the basis that if any club made an initial offer to CAFC at or above 'x' (x would have been negotiated and agreed) then the club would have to give him permission enter into discussions with said club.
We tie him to a longer contract meaning we protect the assets value (i.e. a transfer fee would be required for him to move) and he gets the reassurance that if he does shine in the first team and interest in generated from a Prem side then the release clause means we couldn't stop him from talking.
Quid pro quo!
Yes I get all that.
But do you not agree that the value to the club of such a deal is greatly increased if the terms of the release clause are confidential between the club and the player and his "adviser"? That is the point of the discussion this morning. Was an agent only doing something perfectly reasonable, or did he shaft Charlton by telling Liverpool stuff that Charlton regarded as confidential?
It hinges on whether there is confidentiality , and what the hell you can do if it is infringed. @cafcfan has addressed both, above.
Well Prague we don't actually know what the agent did, or didn't do, do we? Everything here is speculation. Personally, if Liverpool (in this instance) asked his agent if he would be "interested" (as it appears that many clubs go to agents first and selling clubs second), I don't blame him for saying yes, but be aware that there is a release clause of X amount. If Liverpool then go to Charlton with the release clause amount, then negotiations (with club and player) begin.
As for the contract, if there was a release clause, it would probably have been in both parties interest to have one inserted when Joe signed up for three more years. Charlton protected their asset from being swayed and bought on the cheap (think Shelvey, Parker, etc), while Gomez knew that if he was good enough to bring about a decent transfer bid he could argue to go once this figure had been offered. In hindsight, it is probably a shame that the release clause (if there was one) was that low, but then again, who knew how good Joe might look as he had only just made his debut. There also needs to be some balance between such a release clause and the salary paid, otherwise every single player would have that billion pound clause in his contract!
But if the player refuses to sign a contract without it, what does a club do? I think the selling club has to try to add their own clause that were minimum requirements are met, they have the say on where the player goes. But then the player probably won't sign that. So basically it is looking like we were stitched up by the player and his agent but obviously couldn't say as much at the time. And it looks like Joe's agent probably broke the confidentiality of the agreement knowing there was absolutely nothing we could do about it.
What I found strange was the statement that Liverpool and Charlton were still in negotiations on the sell on fee but this would not affect the transfer! What sort of negotiation was that then.
The Bosman ruling has done a lot of harm to football. If Europe had a proper tribunal system it like we had here it probably wouldn't have come about in the first place! Oh well!
We really don't know that. A possible scenario is that Liverpool approached us and said "can we have permission to talk to Joe and if personal terms can be agreed our offer is likely to be around £5million?". This triggers the release clause and we are contractually obliged to say "yes".
If the release clause was in Joe's contract then it doesn't mean that Liverpool knew what the figure was - they could have offered way above that and sources at or very close to the club are saying that the £3.5 mill figure is wrong.
We don't know but we can have a guess. It isn't always what you get, but what you do with it that matters!
Agents, 3.5 million, 10 million, , family, club wanting to cash in, player wanting to cash in, release clause, money to Staprix, money to Charlton, money for losses, money to invest, footballing reasons, disclosed, undisclosed. Couple of things seem to be facts. Joe was under contract. Joe has signed for Liverpool. From a simplistic fans perspective it's being upset by the loss of a great player, and therefore to get cheered up we need to get loads and loads of good results next season. No pressure Roland, Katrien, and Guy, but we see what's occouring, and if it leads to mediocrity and failure the fans will vote with their voices first, their feet second. Next season must yield a return of 76 points minimum, less than that is failure of this regime in my eyes.
Out of interest Seth, why 76? I agree that 16 points more than last year should be a realistic aim by the way
What I have done is look at the points tally achieved just by Guy Luzon, and then extrapolated from it. I calculated ( looking at it a bit like Dave Brailsford and British Cycling, the 'aggregation of small improvements') that we need an overall 18% improvement in everything we do. Now although 18% is quite a lot to demand, it is not unrealistic either, and if we make that sort of improvement on Luzon's record so far, it would and ought to lead to at least 76 points. They got my season ticket money, they have invited me in, we are supposed to be building a better tomorrow together, so 76 points is a better tomorrow, certainly better than 62 points.
Prague - I don't believe Pedro45 was saying it offers exclusivity (which it doesn't) - he said any club offering 'at least' the release clause value may talk to the player.
Any number of clubs can offer that value initially, thereby triggering the release clause. Maybe only Liverpool did - or maybe there wasn't a release clause!
Ok , got that now.
But I am still unclear what the value of a release clause is to a club. I can see that it's of value to the player, it sets a figure whereby the club have to let him talk, regardless of whether they want to sell him. But if the figure is not confidential, then the club has placed itself in a lousy negotiating position, unless 2-3 other clubs are able to Join the discussion
Ok - let's paint a scenario.
Poyet did not agree to sign a three-year deal - I believe he only signed a 1 year deal - so no real need for a release clause as he could just run down the contract and leave (which he did).
We didn't want the same thing to happen with Joe - we knew his potential and he was about to break into the first team, so we offered a three year deal and he was prepared to sign it on the basis that if any club made an initial offer to CAFC at or above 'x' (x would have been negotiated and agreed) then the club would have to give him permission enter into discussions with said club.
We tie him to a longer contract meaning we protect the assets value (i.e. a transfer fee would be required for him to move) and he gets the reassurance that if he does shine in the first team and interest in generated from a Prem side then the release clause means we couldn't stop him from talking.
Quid pro quo!
Yes I get all that.
But do you not agree that the value to the club of such a deal is greatly increased if the terms of the release clause are confidential between the club and the player and his "adviser"? That is the point of the discussion this morning. Was an agent only doing something perfectly reasonable, or did he shaft Charlton by telling Liverpool stuff that Charlton regarded as confidential?
It hinges on whether there is confidentiality , and what the hell you can do if it is infringed. @cafcfan has addressed both, above.
Well Prague we don't actually know what the agent did, or didn't do, do we? Everything here is speculation. Personally, if Liverpool (in this instance) asked his agent if he would be "interested" (as it appears that many clubs go to agents first and selling clubs second), I don't blame him for saying yes, but be aware that there is a release clause of X amount. If Liverpool then go to Charlton with the release clause amount, then negotiations (with club and player) begin.
As for the contract, if there was a release clause, it would probably have been in both parties interest to have one inserted when Joe signed up for three more years. Charlton protected their asset from being swayed and bought on the cheap (think Shelvey, Parker, etc), while Gomez knew that if he was good enough to bring about a decent transfer bid he could argue to go once this figure had been offered. In hindsight, it is probably a shame that the release clause (if there was one) was that low, but then again, who knew how good Joe might look as he had only just made his debut. There also needs to be some balance between such a release clause and the salary paid, otherwise every single player would have that billion pound clause in his contract!
I also think there needs to be come credibility with the release clause and the wages. You wouldn't expect a £10m player to sign a contract earning £1,500 a week for three years, in the same way that you wouldn't (as a player or agent) ask for £100k a week with a £1m release clause.
Chances are that the relationship between release clause and wages is a similar ratio with all players. The chances of Joe (or any other player) agreeing to tie themselves up to a club (at 17) for £1k a week with no option to leave are slim at best - especially so if the player has obvious potential.
I find it a little inappropriate when I read stories about youth players being cheaper than more experienced pros. We go on about how we love a youth player coming through but then, it would seem, we expect them to work for a lot less that another player equally talented that came up through another club's academy. If our home grown players are so desirable then we should be paying them more, not less.
If we (as a nation/league of clubs) are going to 'exploit' our academy graduates by paying them less than (a) a replacement would cost and (b) less than they could earn elsewhere then we have, absolutely, no right to complain about a lack of loyalty.
I know I've gone a little off topic but if our players believe they can earn more elsewhere and/or develop their career we have to expect them to do everything in their power to get that move.
As for a release clause being confidential - what is the point of it if the player (or his agent) cannot use it to orchestrate a move away. Anyone that believes something different is clearly biased towards the selling club. I also, for the record, seriously doubt that we haven't taken advantage of such clauses. Hell, when we signed Bailey and Gray they both as good as refused to play for their respective clubs as they didn't feel their head was in the right place once they were aware of our interest - and, no doubt, the wages we were willing to offer them!
In case I didn't make myself clear I have no problem with the actions of Joe or his agent (who has no obligation to anyone other than the player). They wanted a move away and they got one.
I have another issue with youth players and that is that I'm not sure that 'finding' a player makes the club deserving of a huge transfer fee at all. Clearly Joe's talent was always his. If we were able to make superstars out of just any young player then we'd have ten a year coming out of the academy. The fact that we have so few suggests that the player would have been as good almost anywhere. I'm also not sure that the value of the talent of the odd player should be used to provide a youth setup for those that are not talented enough. If the money from the sale of Joe allows the club to train up a hundred other boys that never make it one could argue that Joe has, himself, funded it.
I'm not saying that we should give all of our talented players away, I'm just a little uncomfortable with the concept that we should 'own' children and be able to control where they work etc. We need to remember that Joe has been 18 and, therefore, an adult for less than a month!
But if the player refuses to sign a contract without it, what does a club do? I think the selling club has to try to add their own clause that were minimum requirements are met, they have the say on where the player goes. But then the player probably won't sign that. So basically it is looking like we were stitched up by the player and his agent but obviously couldn't say as much at the time. And it looks like Joe's agent probably broke the confidentiality of the agreement knowing there was absolutely nothing we could do about it.
What I found strange was the statement that Liverpool and Charlton were still in negotiations on the sell on fee but this would not affect the transfer! What sort of negotiation was that then.
The Bosman ruling has done a lot of harm to football. If Europe had a proper tribunal system it like we had here it probably wouldn't have come about in the first place! Oh well!
We really don't know that. A possible scenario is that Liverpool approached us and said "can we have permission to talk to Joe and if personal terms can be agreed our offer is likely to be around £5million?". This triggers the release clause and we are contractually obliged to say "yes".
If the release clause was in Joe's contract then it doesn't mean that Liverpool knew what the figure was - they could have offered way above that and sources at or very close to the club are saying that the £3.5 mill figure is wrong.
( thank you BTW for helping me understand better how it is supposed to work) but with respect you haven't answered me regarding confidentiality. Your example above is benign and a win-win. But what if, as is being suggested, the agent tips off the buyer what the release trigger is? In that case the buyer isn't going to offer 5m, if the release trigger is 3.5
Not sure how I can find out as I said I was under the impression that his dad was involved in a lot of the decision making and rightly so, and done us no wrong in his conduct Imo
Prague, you are still misunderstanding the concept of a release clause. The value of such a clause is not the value of the sale, it is just the minimum bid required to trigger both the player & their club to talk to the club making the bid. The actual transfer fee will then be negotiated in the normal way & the selling club has the right to walk away if they don't get the price they want.
But if the player refuses to sign a contract without it, what does a club do? I think the selling club has to try to add their own clause that were minimum requirements are met, they have the say on where the player goes. But then the player probably won't sign that. So basically it is looking like we were stitched up by the player and his agent but obviously couldn't say as much at the time. And it looks like Joe's agent probably broke the confidentiality of the agreement knowing there was absolutely nothing we could do about it.
What I found strange was the statement that Liverpool and Charlton were still in negotiations on the sell on fee but this would not affect the transfer! What sort of negotiation was that then.
The Bosman ruling has done a lot of harm to football. If Europe had a proper tribunal system it like we had here it probably wouldn't have come about in the first place! Oh well!
We really don't know that. A possible scenario is that Liverpool approached us and said "can we have permission to talk to Joe and if personal terms can be agreed our offer is likely to be around £5million?". This triggers the release clause and we are contractually obliged to say "yes".
If the release clause was in Joe's contract then it doesn't mean that Liverpool knew what the figure was - they could have offered way above that and sources at or very close to the club are saying that the £3.5 mill figure is wrong.
( thank you BTW for helping me understand better how it is supposed to work) but with respect you haven't answered me regarding confidentiality. Your example above is benign and a win-win. But what if, as is being suggested, the agent tips off the buyer what the release trigger is? In that case the buyer isn't going to offer 5m, if the release trigger is 3.5
No, we don't know about confidentiality, and/or if it may have been compromised in Joe's case. But it is, to some extent, up to the selling club to have a sufficiently high enough release clause amount to meet the current value of the player. I do think that Charlton may have got this right last September, but maybe that same amount was a little low now...Maybe over the course of his contract the release fee amount may have changed? Even if the agent (or someone else) advised a buying club of the release clause amount, I don't see how this can be attached as blame for not getting a higher fee in the end? Whatever the clause amount (which only gets you in to speak to the player), it is still up to the club to maximise the fee, and that, hopefully, they have done through the negotiations. Charlton could, if they had wanted, turned around to Liverpool and said that they wanted more, but that would have just pee-ed off Joe, and maybe other academy players too?
But if the player refuses to sign a contract without it, what does a club do? I think the selling club has to try to add their own clause that were minimum requirements are met, they have the say on where the player goes. But then the player probably won't sign that. So basically it is looking like we were stitched up by the player and his agent but obviously couldn't say as much at the time. And it looks like Joe's agent probably broke the confidentiality of the agreement knowing there was absolutely nothing we could do about it.
What I found strange was the statement that Liverpool and Charlton were still in negotiations on the sell on fee but this would not affect the transfer! What sort of negotiation was that then.
The Bosman ruling has done a lot of harm to football. If Europe had a proper tribunal system it like we had here it probably wouldn't have come about in the first place! Oh well!
We really don't know that. A possible scenario is that Liverpool approached us and said "can we have permission to talk to Joe and if personal terms can be agreed our offer is likely to be around £5million?". This triggers the release clause and we are contractually obliged to say "yes".
If the release clause was in Joe's contract then it doesn't mean that Liverpool knew what the figure was - they could have offered way above that and sources at or very close to the club are saying that the £3.5 mill figure is wrong.
( thank you BTW for helping me understand better how it is supposed to work) but with respect you haven't answered me regarding confidentiality. Your example above is benign and a win-win. But what if, as is being suggested, the agent tips off the buyer what the release trigger is? In that case the buyer isn't going to offer 5m, if the release trigger is 3.5
As you say, Prague - it has been suggested that the agent tipped off Liverpool. He may have, he may not - there are unscrupulous operators in every industry!
If he did it was a breach of contract on behalf of Joe (Joe signs the contract, not the agent). Would that be considered a repudiatory breach - possibly and it could be considered Gross misconduct. There is a termination clause in the standard Prem player contract that states in such circumstances that the Club could terminate giving 14 days' notice. End off - no contract, no transfer fee!! Not a wise move by the club!!
What about consequential losses as a result of the breach? We've now established a common understanding I believe about the nature of release clauses. It is still up to the two clubs to come to an agreement on fee - if no agreement then no deal. So no tangible consequential loss then.
i would think Gomez agent let Liverpool know what the release was,i bet he knew before hand what Liverpool were going to pay as well,just like chairman talking to chairman behind closed doors
At the end of the day, Joe has gone to Liverpool for an undisclosed amount, which we will never be told the truth, good luck Joe, hope your career goes well for you. NOW as the saying goes, let's move on to the players who will be representing us for this season
At the end of the day, Joe has gone to Liverpool for an undisclosed amount, which we will never be told the truth, good luck Joe, hope your career goes well for you. NOW as the saying goes, let's move on to the players who will be representing us for this season
At the end of the day, Joe has gone to Liverpool for an undisclosed amount, which we will never be told the truth, good luck Joe, hope your career goes well for you. NOW as the saying goes, let's move on to the players who will be representing us for this season
aren't too many as of yet!
Patience DeeBee, by the end of the week we will see players coming in, if not, I will, er, eat my, no, well I will be wrong!
Comments
I also understand that it is reasonable for an agent to tell a potential buying club of the likely price a club will listen to, in an open market where several clubs could bid.
So what is the use of a release clause, (which offers exclusivity to one buying club), to the club who owns the player it it is notconfidential between the club and the player? maybe I'm missing something but if its not confidential you might as well tell the press that "we will listen to offers above x for player y" (which of course you see, but not usually for really hot properties).
of course, even if they are confidential, it would be difficult to prove the agent broke confidentiality and gave one club the lowdown. Which is what is being suggested may have happened in JG case.
But put JG aside. Someone just please explain me the general advantage to clubs with valuable players of release clauses which offer exclusive dealing, if they can be blabbed all over by the agent. Seems to me it simply leaves the selling club with no negotiating room
The example I tried to highlight was where some Seville player was wanted by Chelsea I think, but the club made it quite clear that the player had a release clause of 37m euros, and if they got an offer exceeding that, the player could talk to them. Otherwise, he would remain with Seville.
Any number of clubs can offer that value initially, thereby triggering the release clause. Maybe only Liverpool did - or maybe there wasn't a release clause!
Here's an extract as an example:
Confidentiality
This contract is to be treated as being private and confidential and its contents shall not be disclosed or
divulged either directly or indirectly to any person firm or company whatsoever either by the Club the
Player or any Agent of the Club or the Player except:
16.1 with the prior written agreement of both the Club and the Player; or
16.2 as may be required by any statutory regulatory governmental or quasi governmental authorities or
as otherwise required by law or pursuant to the Rules including (where appropriate) any
recognised stock exchange; or
16.3 in the case of the Player to his duly appointed Agent and professional advisers including the PFA;
or
16.4 in the case of the Club to its duly appointed Agent and its professional advisers or to such of its
directors secretary servants or representatives or auditors to whom such disclosure is strictly
necessary for the purposes of their duties and then only to the extent so necessary.
BUT what would be the sanction if a player or their agent broke the confidentiality clause? I'm guessing the only thing to do would be to sue for breach of contract (not going to happen as the club would never sign a player ever again unless they were desperate for a gig) or sack the player for gross misconduct in which case they'd walk for free. So, it's fairly clear that the clause exists primarily to stop the club blabbing about players wages and bonusues.
Of course, what is ironic, is that if such a clause existed in Joe's contract, the club would have been in breach of the clause by telling Olly Groome there was no release clause! (Because it would be very difficult to argue that it was strictly necessary.)
I'd guess a similar clause to the above sits in the sale contract which is why the value of the transfer is undisclosed.
But I am still unclear what the value of a release clause is to a club. I can see that it's of value to the player, it sets a figure whereby the club have to let him talk, regardless of whether they want to sell him. But if the figure is not confidential, then the club has placed itself in a lousy negotiating position, unless 2-3 other clubs are able to Join the discussion
What I found strange was the statement that Liverpool and Charlton were still in negotiations on the sell on fee but this would not affect the transfer! What sort of negotiation was that then.
The Bosman ruling has done a lot of harm to football. If Europe had a proper tribunal system it like we had here it probably wouldn't have come about in the first place! Oh well!
Poyet did not agree to sign a three-year deal - I believe he only signed a 1 year deal - so no real need for a release clause as he could just run down the contract and leave (which he did).
We didn't want the same thing to happen with Joe - we knew his potential and he was about to break into the first team, so we offered a three year deal and he was prepared to sign it on the basis that if any club made an initial offer to CAFC at or above 'x' (x would have been negotiated and agreed) then the club would have to give him permission enter into discussions with said club.
We tie him to a longer contract meaning we protect the assets value (i.e. a transfer fee would be required for him to move) and he gets the reassurance that if he does shine in the first team and interest in generated from a Prem side then the release clause means we couldn't stop him from talking.
Quid pro quo!
But do you not agree that the value to the club of such a deal is greatly increased if the terms of the release clause are confidential between the club and the player and his "adviser"? That is the point of the discussion this morning. Was an agent only doing something perfectly reasonable, or did he shaft Charlton by telling Liverpool stuff that Charlton regarded as confidential?
It hinges on whether there is confidentiality , and what the hell you can do if it is infringed. @cafcfan has addressed both, above.
If the release clause was in Joe's contract then it doesn't mean that Liverpool knew what the figure was - they could have offered way above that and sources at or very close to the club are saying that the £3.5 mill figure is wrong.
As for the contract, if there was a release clause, it would probably have been in both parties interest to have one inserted when Joe signed up for three more years. Charlton protected their asset from being swayed and bought on the cheap (think Shelvey, Parker, etc), while Gomez knew that if he was good enough to bring about a decent transfer bid he could argue to go once this figure had been offered. In hindsight, it is probably a shame that the release clause (if there was one) was that low, but then again, who knew how good Joe might look as he had only just made his debut. There also needs to be some balance between such a release clause and the salary paid, otherwise every single player would have that billion pound clause in his contract!
They got my season ticket money, they have invited me in, we are supposed to be building a better tomorrow together, so 76 points is a better tomorrow, certainly better than 62 points.
Chances are that the relationship between release clause and wages is a similar ratio with all players. The chances of Joe (or any other player) agreeing to tie themselves up to a club (at 17) for £1k a week with no option to leave are slim at best - especially so if the player has obvious potential.
I find it a little inappropriate when I read stories about youth players being cheaper than more experienced pros. We go on about how we love a youth player coming through but then, it would seem, we expect them to work for a lot less that another player equally talented that came up through another club's academy. If our home grown players are so desirable then we should be paying them more, not less.
If we (as a nation/league of clubs) are going to 'exploit' our academy graduates by paying them less than (a) a replacement would cost and (b) less than they could earn elsewhere then we have, absolutely, no right to complain about a lack of loyalty.
I know I've gone a little off topic but if our players believe they can earn more elsewhere and/or develop their career we have to expect them to do everything in their power to get that move.
As for a release clause being confidential - what is the point of it if the player (or his agent) cannot use it to orchestrate a move away. Anyone that believes something different is clearly biased towards the selling club. I also, for the record, seriously doubt that we haven't taken advantage of such clauses. Hell, when we signed Bailey and Gray they both as good as refused to play for their respective clubs as they didn't feel their head was in the right place once they were aware of our interest - and, no doubt, the wages we were willing to offer them!
In case I didn't make myself clear I have no problem with the actions of Joe or his agent (who has no obligation to anyone other than the player). They wanted a move away and they got one.
I have another issue with youth players and that is that I'm not sure that 'finding' a player makes the club deserving of a huge transfer fee at all. Clearly Joe's talent was always his. If we were able to make superstars out of just any young player then we'd have ten a year coming out of the academy. The fact that we have so few suggests that the player would have been as good almost anywhere. I'm also not sure that the value of the talent of the odd player should be used to provide a youth setup for those that are not talented enough. If the money from the sale of Joe allows the club to train up a hundred other boys that never make it one could argue that Joe has, himself, funded it.
I'm not saying that we should give all of our talented players away, I'm just a little uncomfortable with the concept that we should 'own' children and be able to control where they work etc. We need to remember that Joe has been 18 and, therefore, an adult for less than a month!
If he did it was a breach of contract on behalf of Joe (Joe signs the contract, not the agent). Would that be considered a repudiatory breach - possibly and it could be considered Gross misconduct. There is a termination clause in the standard Prem player contract that states in such circumstances that the Club could terminate giving 14 days' notice. End off - no contract, no transfer fee!! Not a wise move by the club!!
What about consequential losses as a result of the breach? We've now established a common understanding I believe about the nature of release clauses. It is still up to the two clubs to come to an agreement on fee - if no agreement then no deal. So no tangible consequential loss then.