Skeletor Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 er do they not grasp the idea of a buyout clause? because I sure ain't heard of a clause that allows the player to speak to a club but not actually accept the bid No-one on this board has seen this supposed "buy-out" clause. It may very well only permit initial talks. Eh? How would that work in any way Easy. Clubs are not obligated to allow their players to talk with any clubs whilst they are under contract. It is entirely at their discretion. An "interest" clause is just that. From what I can gather, no money changes hands at that stage. It gives the selling club an opportunity to test the buying club's resolve without forcing them to sell. Are you actually saying these words? Bloody hell you're a weirdo if you believe any of that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 You're nuts. Perhaps, but I'm also a lawyer and have seen some fairly crazy clauses get thrown into contracts. Many of which are deemed unfair contract terms when actually tested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 er do they not grasp the idea of a buyout clause? because I sure ain't heard of a clause that allows the player to speak to a club but not actually accept the bid No-one on this board has seen this supposed "buy-out" clause. It may very well only permit initial talks. Eh? How would that work in any way Easy. Clubs are not obligated to allow their players to talk with any clubs whilst they are under contract. It is entirely at their discretion. An "interest" clause is just that. From what I can gather, no money changes hands at that stage. It gives the selling club an opportunity to test the buying club's resolve without forcing them to sell. Are you actually saying these words? Bloody hell you're a weirdo if you believe any of that. See above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 We would have pulled any interest in less than the time it takes to say Neil Taylor if we didn't believe that £1m could get him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That much I agree - it's barmy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sander68 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Do they really rate him that highly? £10 million is just mental. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I still don't get how such clause would serve any function whatsoever. Hawer, you're gonna have to explain it better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Do they really rate him that highly? £10 million is just mental. Do they fuck. They're just being arseholes, if true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 So technically rochdale could 'bid' 200mill for meadow if that was his release fee as no money needs to change hands ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 You're nuts. Perhaps, but I'm also a lawyer and have seen some fairly crazy clauses get thrown into contracts. Many of which are deemed unfair contract terms when actually tested. Wtf. You're 28 and from Manchester? I thought you were like 18 and from Ireland. :S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Is it really true that a player can't talk to another club without their current employer's permission? Surely it would breach all sorts of freedom of employment laws? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 er do they not grasp the idea of a buyout clause? because I sure ain't heard of a clause that allows the player to speak to a club but not actually accept the bid No-one on this board has seen this supposed "buy-out" clause. It may very well only permit initial talks. Eh? How would that work in any way Easy. Clubs are not obligated to allow their players to talk with any clubs whilst they are under contract. It is entirely at their discretion. An "interest" clause is just that. From what I can gather, no money changes hands at that stage. It gives the selling club an opportunity to test the buying club's resolve without forcing them to sell. So what, you pay £1 million to talk to the player? Or you bid £1 million, they have to accept and let you speak to the player, but then you go back and negotiate a new fee? There is absolutely no point to that whatsoever man. Why would it even exist? This, it is a ridiculous clause to have! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Messi not meadow.....predicto text Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be? To trick the player into signing the contract under the impression that he has a reasonable release fee if another club comes in for him? It sounds mental but I can't think of any other reason for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 The contract is written in English and they've used Babelfish? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be? 1. A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract. 2. An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount. 3. The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause). 4. If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in. If not, tough luck. It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Is it really true that a player can't talk to another club without their current employer's permission? Surely it would breach all sorts of freedom of employment laws? To do so would be 'tapping up', I guess. Which is against FA rules or whatever, but not illegal. It clearly goes on daily at every level of the professional game though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniatmoko Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 £1 Million just to talk to other clubs, wtf are Swansea mad? If it's in his contract he can leave for that amount then there's nothing that they can do about it other than be arseholes and see if we will cough up extra (which we rightfully won't) just to get things moving rather than go down the legal route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Is it really true that a player can't talk to another club without their current employer's permission? Surely it would breach all sorts of freedom of employment laws? I'm not an employment lawyer (commercial, EU and construction law are my bag) but a restrictive covenant clause can do just that, but I suppose that it could be contested. An alternative would be for the player to resign I suppose, but I would expect there to be a reciprocal compensation clause in the contract that would allow the club to recover costs from the player. EDIT 1: And Dave makes a good point, to do so would be "tapping up". EDIT 2: Which MA would never do, as he's a good little boy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be? 1. A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract. 2. An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount. 3. The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause. 4. If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in. If not, tough luck. It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them. Still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, this bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Hopefully that article is just shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be? 1. A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract. 2. An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount. 3. The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause. 4. If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in. If not, tough luck. It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them. Still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, this bit. I know you don't agree, but to me it makes perfect sense, as it's a negotiating tool. It's a stark contrast to a "buy-out" clause, which essentially forces a club to sell to whoever meets the asking price (subject to the player's consent), which leaves the selling club largely impotent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Is it really true that a player can't talk to another club without their current employer's permission? Surely it would breach all sorts of freedom of employment laws? To do so would be 'tapping up', I guess. Which is against FA rules or whatever, but not illegal. It clearly goes on daily at every level of the professional game though. No doubt, but surely anyone is free to have an interview for another employer any time he wishes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now