Well I had no idea that’s what a release clause meant, how would that have worked with Messi when it was something like €700m? I thought release clauses are driven mostly by the player not the club, why would a club insist on a release clause as it would make no sense? So therefore why would a player insist on their release clause having to be paid in full? Would make no sense at all. Edit to add to your edit, I take the Viera stuff with a massive pinch of salt, he’s just as likely to be out of the door within a month or so.
I get the argument that every summer transfer window including this one we waste at least 4 x £2 million on dross, leaving us with a squad of players not good enough and not even of the right mental mindset. We can't change it but it's pretty simple we probably did have £8 million but chose to spend it on pick and mix at poundland
A player/agent will push for a release clause for obvious reasons - the club will be given the option to include it or the player won’t sign the deal most likely. I doubt a club have ever pushed to include one - but realise they have to to secure the player. The hope being it’s never activated. Reading’s issue has clearly been that it was set too low and at a level where established PL clubs could pay it. But I also doubt they expected the season they got from him. Spanish football is different as every player has to have a clause by law. It’s a contract buy out - not a release clause. But both have to be paid in full.
Yes, that’s my point though. Why would a player insist on a release clause but then also agree that the fee has to be paid up front? That would largely make the release clause pointless as it would price out a lot of clubs who need to pay in instalments as that is what happens in 99.999% of transfers. So I suspect what you’re saying is just conjecture and not fact at all. Palace may or may not have paid the transfer fee in full, but just because he had a release clause it doesn’t automatically mean that sum had to be paid in full. It just means we wouldn’t pay £8m in any form.
The player doesn’t say it has to be paid in full. It’s just a fact that release clauses have to be paid in full. You can believe it’s conjecture if you want, I don’t mind. A brief Google search will tell you however that it’s not. Happy to leave it at that as I can tell you won’t be told otherwise regardless!
It seems a pointless and arbitrary rule that would render a lot of release clauses completely pointless, as no club would have the ability to stump the figure up in one go, the Messi example being an obvious one. Contracts can be structured however the involved parties want, so I don’t believe such a rule exists at all, especially one that is so counter productive to the point of its existence in the first place. It may exist in some cases, but only if the player who wanted the clause in the first place agrees, and why would they. But yes let’s leave it there.
Then perhaps don’t get involved in a debate about release clauses if you aren’t willing to do the ground work to formulate your opinion on? Surely it’s silly otherwise!? Just this summer Liverpool signed Konate for £41m because it was his release clause. Widely reported it HAD to be paid in full and not in instalments as that’s what Liverpool’s initial offer was. Seems to me you’ve made a point about being upset at not bidding £8m for Olise and no amount of sensible conjecture as to why we didn’t will knock you from that perch and only an exclusive viewing of the paperwork on his Palace transfer will do so. In that case, let’s go back to leaving it there!
So why did Gino offer £5m in instalments then? I have googled it and there is absolutely nothing specific, for the obvious reasons that I’ve already stated, that a contract can be structured however the parties involved want and there is nothing anywhere that states a release clause has to be paid in full. In fact the very first article on it on Google links to an article that states exactly that: Release clauses are not common in English football, but a number of examples have been reported in recent years, such as Demba Ba at Newcastle and Marouane Fellaini at Everton. As became apparent during the Luis Suárez transfer affair last summer, the drafting of a release clause is key. Given their relative scarcity, an industry norm has not yet developed and I have seen some examples , perhaps drafted by a stressed club secretary at 10pm on deadline day, that would be unlikely to withstand legal challenge.
I guess based on the small off chance that Reading were so desperate for cash and couldn't be sure that another offer would come in that they would sell irrespective of the release figure or the payment schedule, a bird in the hand etc ? Long shot but worth a cheeky bid. Maybe he'd have allowed that figure to be negotiated up a little as long as payments were spread but always likely that bigger richer clubs would be in for him. No harm in trying.
Well, it seems entirely pointless and futile because apparently its enshrined in contract law that you have to pay the amount in full when it comes to release clauses. The fact that Gino has probably seen and been involved with thousands of contracts before, and the fact that he wouldn’t even meet the figure in the first place means he’s either mentally challenged, or was just wasting everyone’s time for fun, surely?
Maybe the issue is that a club can declare that the release clause does not apply unless the sum is paid in full upfront, BUT also have the option of declaring it activated even if it will be paid in instalments if that suits them. Could be Gino was hoping the latter could be the case if Reading were desperate....although I’m struggling to see why he thought £5m would be acceptable in any situation.
I presume you can only take the player when the club doesn't really want to lose the player if you meet the value, and pay in full. It gives the player some security that the club will allow them go if a reasonable bid is made. However presumably the club can always agree to sell the player for a lower fee if they and the player agree, with any payment terms they like....so if desperate for cash they just might have sold for £5m....
And equally may have accepted instalments off of Palace at £8m. I can’t really square the circle that a ‘cheeky’ £5m bid in instalments was worth a try, whilst simultaneously never being in the running.
Btw, Brentford fans are also illogically annoyed that they supposedly missed out on Olise. Though some of their fans are claiming that supposedly Olise's agent wanted £5.5mil for himself as part of any deal: https://griffinpark.org/index.php?threads/michael-olise.135666/
There is no bidding war unless you are referring to wages. As soon as any team offers £8m he can talk to any of them?
Yes meant package / relegation clauses etc. Ultimately Viera, and "established prem team" means they would always be in the driving seat.
