Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,802
You’ve proven his point.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bruno Guimaraes
- Thread starter Nethermoor
- Start date
They still activated it and our rivals could cause us mischief with that. Saying that Liverpool got a highly motivated player that nearly won the league that season.You’ve proven his point.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,802
A release clause means the club cant reject the offer. The player still can.They still activated it.
How have you not grasped this yet?
Again Arsenal did put in a fruitless bid with Luis Suarez
I know, but that's not got anything to do with my post. My point is that if a player doesn't want to leave, there's no point offering a club the release fee.
I think Suarez did want to go, but the fuss that was made about it and the delaying tactics meant he ended up staying. He was more or less press-ganged into it. I think if he'd have properly demanded the move then he would have got his way.
I fully grasped the concept hence I agreed with mattcity5's postA release clause means the club cant reject the offer. The player still can.
How have you not grasped this yet?
£50m isn't much as far as transfer fees go these days especially for our rivals.
It isn't, but you think Haaland would have agreed to go to Bournemouth if they'd offered it? You think they'd have been able to afford his wages as well?
For the very top players there are very few clubs who can afford them or they'd move to. That's partly why the fee sometimes isn't that high (as per Haaland). Dortmund wanted to keep him happy, so had to give him a sane release clause as they knew he'd leave at some point. They could have asked him to have a release clause of more ,eg £100m, but I'm guessing he wouldn't have signed the contract and he'd have left them sooner.
I fully grasped the concept hence I agreed with mattcity5's post
Was that agreeing? I didn't read it that way, fair enough.
No difference between that our any of our Premier League rivals. Saying that if it happens to be a rival european club who could afford it then it would be more likely.It isn't, but you think Haaland would have agreed to go to Bournemouth if they'd offered it? You think they'd have been able to afford his wages as well?
For the very top players there are very few clubs who can afford them or they'd move to. That's partly why the fee sometimes isn't that high (as per Haaland). Dortmund wanted to keep him happy, so had to give him a sane release clause as they knew he'd leave at some point. They could have asked him to have a release clause of more ,eg £100m, but I'm guessing he wouldn't have signed the contract and he'd have left them sooner.
I agreed for the second part. That was the point I was making about the whole Release Clause concept and the selling clubs still having a say.Was that agreeing? I didn't read it that way, fair enough.
I agreed for the second part. That was the point I was making about the whole Release Clause concept and the selling clubs still having a say.
I don't think they actually do. I think they broke rules by causing a fuss, and if it went to court they would have lost, but they dragged things out and he changed his mind rather than cause the cult to turn on him.
However, I don't know the actual wording of the contract, so that's all a guess. Traditionally, if a clause is activated then it's over to the player.