07 Jun 2016 14:54:38
Ed002: perhaps you can shed some light on a football contracts matter? How common are release clauses (with set valuations) in contracts for players and managers?
Also, how could a club whose manager is moving to another club insist (via contractual clauses) on no "poaching[" of his former club's players? A club may refuse to transfer a player who's under contract, but surely they can only have a gentlemen's agreement for the manager's new club not to go for the player at his old club.
Surely nothing can stop a player seeking a move - although the club can flatly refuse the transfer request? In the modern day of agents and intermediaries, players must be fully aware of interest in them?
Thanks.

{Ed002's Note - I can deal with the manager situation very quickly. It doesn't really happen - at lease not in the UK and it would never be legally enforcable.

I generally avoid talk of clauses as it is a horribly complex area not least because they are written under individual national laws, and football fans (as we know) are not very bright at all and they tend to get easily confused by them - as do the media. So, in simple terms:

The "buy out" clause is legally binding between a club and a player. The "buy out" is effectively what it says - a means for the player to buy himself out of the contract. As an example, if a player wishes to buy himself out of a contract, he pays the applicable FA (on behalf of the club) the amount of the "buy out" clause and therefore he becomes, effectively, a free agent. The problem is that in most cases a player would need to obtain that money from the buying club - and this is fraught with issues regarding "tapping up" and, of course, taxation as it can be seen as income for the player and would therefore be subject to income tax. There was a test case about the taxation issue in Spain about three years ago. So "buy out" clauses are very rare nowadays - but some exist.

A "release clause" is far more common in that it gives a figure that the club would accept for the sale of a player to another club - but it is not legally binding except where both parties are in the same country (for the sake of argument I should say that Spain and Portugal count as the same country as do England and Wales) for legal purposes. These are normally unreasonably high figures (Messi at Barcelona for example) introduced to act as a deterrent for hostile bids - and even then the club could easily block a move. However, if a club does agree to match a release clause then the selling club would be obliged to ask the player if he is interested in the potential move - there is no obligation on the player to make a move. For interested clubs outside of the country of the selling club, it may well provide a guide as to what the player might cost - but they are under no obligation to accept a bid - an example being Firmino is a good example here as Liverpool agreed to pay €41M (potentially rising to €50M) for a player that no German side were interested in buying from Hoffenheim at his €25M release clause.

There is then the becoming popular "termination clause" which is binding between the player and the club and if met would see an offer from anywhere accepted and the player given the opportunity to make a call on a move. This overcomes the issues associated with "buy out" clauses as the money would be paid by one club to another. Again the prices assigned are generally on the high side - Eliaquim Mangala was one player purchased via a termination clause - €50M.}

1.) 07 Jun 2016
07 Jun 2016 15:27:49
Ed002: Thanks for your comprehensive reply.
I like to think of myself as fairly well informed, level headed and reasonably intelligent, but (and this might be rare amongst football fans) I adhere to Clint Eastwood's saying as Dirty Harry that "a man's got to know his limitations". I generally do, which is why I welcome you replying to my questions about subjects I don't know much about - even if many other fans find them arcane or boring and would rather gambol through the dream world of unicorns, magic wands and fairy dust. Still, it all makes for enjoyable craic and feeds the apparently insatiable fans' appetite for any gossip no matter how fanciful.
Once again, thanks for taking the time to reply to these posts. Have a good one.

{Ed002's Note - You are more than welcome Sid.}

2.) 07 Jun 2016
07 Jun 2016 15:34:27
Very informative Ed002. Makes understanding the paper talk a lot easier as bullocks now. So the release clause was what Arsenal triggered for Suarez by bidding £1 over the speculated £50m when he was at Liverpool.

{Ed002's Note - The situation with Arsenal was that with Suarez desperate to leave the previous summer Liverpool had agreed that if any offer over £40M was made then Suarez would be allowed to move if he wanted to. This was not a buy out or release clause but what is now becoming more popular – a termination clause. At the time, the expectation was that Real Madrid would step in (which was what Suarez then wanted) with an offer but it was far too low for Liverpool to accept. Arsenal made the offer of £40M plus £1 as Guardiola was unsure whether it was “£40M and above” or “over £40M” – there was nothing wrong with that. At the time, as this was seemingly the only way out of Liverpool, Suarez was willing to accept this as a stepping stone to one of the major Spanish clubs, but the Liverpool board blocked it. Suarez's agents took legal advice and were set to argue that Arsenal matched the clause that allowed to leave and that they should allow the player to discuss the transfer with Arsenal as soon as is possible. They would then look to leverage this legal position to stop Liverpool blocking the transfer and were willing to use the £2M then due the player as an incentive in order to facilitate the transfer. Suarez would have moved to Arsenal given the opportunity and this is when he started his campaign against the club regarding broken promises etc.. That summer, Liverpool agreed that he would be able to leave the following summer, regardless – this was done to avoid any potential legal battle. By the following summer Barcelona were interested and that suited Suarez – better than Madrid he tells the Catalan media when they ask. If the matter had of gone to court there would be no doubt the move could have been forced. An appeal would have perhaps been considered by Liverpool but that would have potentially dragged on long enough to stop Suarez playing for anyone until it was resolved – and that could have had disastrous consequences for Liverpool.

3.) 07 Jun 2016
07 Jun 2016 15:39:39
Cheers Ed002. Top notch.

4.) 07 Jun 2016
07 Jun 2016 15:39:44
Wouldn't it be something if players just honoured their contractsite and there was need for all these loop holes. Imagine how different the football landscape would look then.
You would probably find a lot more young players would get a chance to come in from the academysite as it wouldn't be so easy to just go and buy a player.
I suppose there would be pros and cons.

{Ed002's Note - These aren't loopholes. One day when their is a pan-European breakaway the other leagues will need to reorganise and then you might get your wish.}

5.) 07 Jun 2016
07 Jun 2016 16:05:51
Great info that Ed and clears up a lot, always wondered about the Suarez situation and now we know, thanks.

6.) 07 Jun 2016
07 Jun 2016 16:33:47
And do you think that would be a good or bad thing Ed?

{Ed002's Note - The full breakaway will happen regardless of UEFAs efforts to try and keep control over what happens. For me it will be a good thing for a small number of clubs who will dominate the money, and the future of the game. For many clubs life will change, the money will be less and the cloth will need to be cut accordingly. For many, many other clubs they will need to adjust to what will likely be a completely reorganised league and lifestyle - probably on a regional basis - if they are going to survive. It will be a rather sad end for some BNS.}