David Villa - £100 mill

[Guest Rafa]

 

 

 

His buy out clause is £85m, you'd have to pay that to get him.

 

no you wouldn't. Buy-out clauses are just a legal requirement. Doesn't mean that is what a player will go for in the end.

 

But Barcelona don't need to sell him anyway, not for a good while!

[Dokko]

 

 

 

His buy out clause is £85m, you'd have to pay that to get him.

 

no you wouldn't. Buy-out clauses are just a legal requirement. Doesn't mean that is what a player will go for in the end.

 

But Barcelona don't need to sell him anyway, not for a good while!

 

I really feel I've been unfairly quoted there!   bluebiggrin.gif

[Mr. Snrub]

 

 

 

His buy out clause is £85m, you'd have to pay that to get him.

 

no you wouldn't. Buy-out clauses are just a legal requirement. Doesn't mean that is what a player will go for in the end.

 

But Barcelona don't need to sell him anyway, not for a good while!

 

Yeah, but Barcelona wouldn't accept any offers for him as it's impossible to replace the world's best player, so to buy him you'd have to buy out his contract. 

 

If there's a player going for around £60m this season it will be Kaka to Real Madrid.

[Elephant]

Barcelona would NOT accept £60M offer for Ronaldinho - his value is not just in pitch, he is also great for them in PR.

 

And his buy-out clause is not £85M, it's somewhere around £100-150M nowadays after he signed new contract.

[Mr. Snrub]

Barcelona would NOT accept £60M offer for Ronaldinho - his value is not just in pitch, he is also great for them in PR.

 

And his buy-out clause is not £85M, it's somewhere around £100-150M nowadays after he signed new contract.

 

He's contracted to 2010 and the buy out clause is £85m.  It's Messi's that's £100m.

[Delima]

Chelsea should go for Torres instead of Villa, in my opinion, if they were to opt for a Spanish striker.

 

Torres' record is superior than Villa. He is also the captain of his club, which suggests his leadership qualities.

 

Finally, Torres is stronger, taller, better dribbler, younger - one who can make things for himself. Torres also outperformed Villa in the world cup.

[CPL]

 

He is also the captain of his club, which suggests his leadership qualities.

 

 

Not really tbh

[Dokko]

Chelsea should go for Torres instead of Villa, in my opinion, if they were to opt for a Spanish striker.

 

Torres' record is superior than Villa. He is also the captain of his club, which suggests his leadership qualities.

 

Finally, Torres is stronger, taller, better dribbler, younger - one who can make things for himself. Torres also outperformed Villa in the world cup.

 

I'd rather have Torres as well, but by god, what a choice.

 

Chelsea should buy the pair of them.

 

 

[Guest Rafa]

 

 

I really feel I've been unfairly quoted there!   bluebiggrin.gif

 

 

oops  so you have! sorry bluebiggrin.gif

 

the quotes on 'ere don't half confuse me (not such a difficult thing to do!)

[LooneyToonArmy]

 

He is also the captain of his club, which suggests his leadership qualities.

 

 

Not really tbh

 

agreed......there are more 'leader' type players in the Atletico team IMO but Torres being a through and through  Atletico Madrid fan certainly helped him in that respect

[Guest Village Idiot]

Dinho's buy-out clause is actually smaller every year. I believe in a couple of years it will be 60m quid. The new contract preventing this hasn't been signed yet iirc.

 

Iniesta and Messi are at 100m buyouts. Eto'o is at 70m quid. If somebody was daft enough to come with that kind of money I would personally carry them on my back to London/Madrid whatever.

 

And we have a big debt, btw (thanks, Joan Gaspart).

 

 

Also, I believe Torres is valued more abroad than here. He is quite maligned here due to his inconcistency. Typical player with awesome ability and pace but with an end product that can be truely embarassing. If somebody sorted him out would be incredible, of course.

[Tooj]

Chelsea should go for Torres instead of Villa, in my opinion, if they were to opt for a Spanish striker.

 

Torres' record is superior than Villa. He is also the captain of his club, which suggests his leadership qualities.

 

Finally, Torres is stronger, taller, better dribbler, younger - one who can make things for himself. Torres also outperformed Villa in the world cup.

 

Torres record better than Villa's don't make me laugh, there isn't a more overrated player on the planet than El Nino.

[Guest Village Idiot]

Villa was played on the wing during the WC, he was wasted there (look at AJ against Netherlands).

[Dr Spectrum]

Just reading all this stuff about clauses - Does anyone know what Luis Figo's buyout clause was when Real Madrid bought him from Barcelona? Did they pay the full whack as stipulated in his contract or was it just a good offer Barca accepted in the usual manner? If its the latter then I can't believe that this buyout clause dealy has any meaning to anyone other than the odd El Presidente who wants to get his name in the papers.

[Guest Village Idiot]

Just reading all this stuff about clauses - Does anyone know what Luis Figo's buyout clause was when Real Madrid bought him from Barcelona? Did they pay the full whack as stipulated in his contract or was it just a good offer Barca accepted in the usual manner? If its the latter then I can't believe that this buyout clause dealy has any meaning to anyone other than the odd El Presidente who wants to get his name in the papers.

 

60million euro. And Barça didn't want to sell, so they paid it in full.

[Dr Spectrum]

Just reading all this stuff about clauses - Does anyone know what Luis Figo's buyout clause was when Real Madrid bought him from Barcelona? Did they pay the full whack as stipulated in his contract or was it just a good offer Barca accepted in the usual manner? If its the latter then I can't believe that this buyout clause dealy has any meaning to anyone other than the odd El Presidente who wants to get his name in the papers.

 

60million euro. And Barça didn't want to sell, so they paid it in full.

 

You do suprise me, after hearing all these silly clauses I imagined it would have been a lot higher considering 2001 Figo was a far superior player to most of the names being banded about here. But I guess that transfer is why these more recent clauses are so rediculous.

[Guest Village Idiot]

Just reading all this stuff about clauses - Does anyone know what Luis Figo's buyout clause was when Real Madrid bought him from Barcelona? Did they pay the full whack as stipulated in his contract or was it just a good offer Barca accepted in the usual manner? If its the latter then I can't believe that this buyout clause dealy has any meaning to anyone other than the odd El Presidente who wants to get his name in the papers.

 

60million euro. And Barça didn't want to sell, so they paid it in full.

 

You do suprise me, after hearing all these silly clauses I imagined it would have been a lot higher considering 2001 Figo was a far superior player to most of the names being banded about here. But I guess that transfer is why these more recent clauses are so rediculous.

 

60million euro was seen as a ridiculously high amount at the time, though. And it's still the second highest transfer fee ever paid.

[Dr Spectrum]

Just reading all this stuff about clauses - Does anyone know what Luis Figo's buyout clause was when Real Madrid bought him from Barcelona? Did they pay the full whack as stipulated in his contract or was it just a good offer Barca accepted in the usual manner? If its the latter then I can't believe that this buyout clause dealy has any meaning to anyone other than the odd El Presidente who wants to get his name in the papers.

 

60million euro. And Barça didn't want to sell, so they paid it in full.

 

You do suprise me, after hearing all these silly clauses I imagined it would have been a lot higher considering 2001 Figo was a far superior player to most of the names being banded about here. But I guess that transfer is why these more recent clauses are so rediculous.

 

60million euro was seen as a ridiculously high amount at the time, though. And it's still the second highest transfer fee ever paid.

 

I don't think it was that bad. It was only a small stretch on the previous World Record, and Figo was a superior player to the holder (Crespo). Obviously like most major transfers it was silly money but I don't consider it anywhere as ridiculous as this contract suggesting that Villa is worth more than twice as much as Zidane was, which is frankly Ludicrous on any number of levels.

[Guest Village Idiot]

Just reading all this stuff about clauses - Does anyone know what Luis Figo's buyout clause was when Real Madrid bought him from Barcelona? Did they pay the full whack as stipulated in his contract or was it just a good offer Barca accepted in the usual manner? If its the latter then I can't believe that this buyout clause dealy has any meaning to anyone other than the odd El Presidente who wants to get his name in the papers.

 

60million euro. And Barça didn't want to sell, so they paid it in full.

 

You do suprise me, after hearing all these silly clauses I imagined it would have been a lot higher considering 2001 Figo was a far superior player to most of the names being banded about here. But I guess that transfer is why these more recent clauses are so rediculous.

 

60million euro was seen as a ridiculously high amount at the time, though. And it's still the second highest transfer fee ever paid.

 

I don't think it was that bad. It was only a small stretch on the previous World Record, and Figo was a superior player to the holder (Crespo). Obviously like most major transfers it was silly money but I don't consider it anywhere as ridiculous as this contract suggesting that Villa is worth more than twice as much as Zidane was, which is frankly Ludicrous on any number of levels.

 

Well, those clauses are not there to suggest a real valuation from the club, they are just there for "hands off!" purposes. Of course a good agent will always try to negotiate a "reasonable enough" clause that might enable a future move and more money for his pocket.

 

The clauses exist because our labor law states that a worker can always leave his current work, so if a player wanted to leave his club for another he should be allowed without his employer having any right to force him to stay. The FA then came up with the buyout clauses which actually are compensations that the player agrees to pay should he eventually rescind his contract.

 

There's a limit on how big a clause can be set in relation to the wages the player perceives, though (done to protect youngsters so they don't get slapped with 150m clauses when they hit 17, that's why we had to review Messi's contract ASAP)

[Dr Spectrum]

Just reading all this stuff about clauses - Does anyone know what Luis Figo's buyout clause was when Real Madrid bought him from Barcelona? Did they pay the full whack as stipulated in his contract or was it just a good offer Barca accepted in the usual manner? If its the latter then I can't believe that this buyout clause dealy has any meaning to anyone other than the odd El Presidente who wants to get his name in the papers.

 

60million euro. And Barça didn't want to sell, so they paid it in full.

 

You do suprise me, after hearing all these silly clauses I imagined it would have been a lot higher considering 2001 Figo was a far superior player to most of the names being banded about here. But I guess that transfer is why these more recent clauses are so rediculous.

 

60million euro was seen as a ridiculously high amount at the time, though. And it's still the second highest transfer fee ever paid.

 

I don't think it was that bad. It was only a small stretch on the previous World Record, and Figo was a superior player to the holder (Crespo). Obviously like most major transfers it was silly money but I don't consider it anywhere as ridiculous as this contract suggesting that Villa is worth more than twice as much as Zidane was, which is frankly Ludicrous on any number of levels.

 

Well, those clauses are not there to suggest a real valuation from the club, they are just there for "hands off!" purposes. Of course a good agent will always try to negotiate a "reasonable enough" clause that might enable a future move and more money for his pocket.

 

The clauses exist because our labor law states that a worker can always leave his current work, so if a player wanted to leave his club for another he should be allowed without his employer having any right to force him to stay. The FA then came up with the buyout clauses which actually are compensations that the player agrees to pay should he eventually rescind his contract.

 

There's a limit on how big a clause can be set in relation to the wages the player perceives, though (done to protect youngsters so they don't get slapped with 150m clauses when they hit 17, that's why we had to review Messi's contract ASAP)

 

I think the government should be looking at that law and this dealy over how big it can be. If a £100m transfer fee constitutes giving a worker some degree of freedom over his career there is something seriously wrong with it mental.gif

[Guest Village Idiot]

Just reading all this stuff about clauses - Does anyone know what Luis Figo's buyout clause was when Real Madrid bought him from Barcelona? Did they pay the full whack as stipulated in his contract or was it just a good offer Barca accepted in the usual manner? If its the latter then I can't believe that this buyout clause dealy has any meaning to anyone other than the odd El Presidente who wants to get his name in the papers.

 

60million euro. And Barça didn't want to sell, so they paid it in full.

 

You do suprise me, after hearing all these silly clauses I imagined it would have been a lot higher considering 2001 Figo was a far superior player to most of the names being banded about here. But I guess that transfer is why these more recent clauses are so rediculous.

 

60million euro was seen as a ridiculously high amount at the time, though. And it's still the second highest transfer fee ever paid.

 

I don't think it was that bad. It was only a small stretch on the previous World Record, and Figo was a superior player to the holder (Crespo). Obviously like most major transfers it was silly money but I don't consider it anywhere as ridiculous as this contract suggesting that Villa is worth more than twice as much as Zidane was, which is frankly Ludicrous on any number of levels.

 

Well, those clauses are not there to suggest a real valuation from the club, they are just there for "hands off!" purposes. Of course a good agent will always try to negotiate a "reasonable enough" clause that might enable a future move and more money for his pocket.

 

The clauses exist because our labor law states that a worker can always leave his current work, so if a player wanted to leave his club for another he should be allowed without his employer having any right to force him to stay. The FA then came up with the buyout clauses which actually are compensations that the player agrees to pay should he eventually rescind his contract.

 

There's a limit on how big a clause can be set in relation to the wages the player perceives, though (done to protect youngsters so they don't get slapped with 150m clauses when they hit 17, that's why we had to review Messi's contract ASAP)

 

I think the government should be looking at that law and this dealy over how big it can be. If a £100m transfer fee constitutes giving a worker some degree of freedom over his career there is something seriously wrong with it mental.gif

 

Surely. The law is 20 years old, and clearly not able to cope with current trend$

 

Also, I wouldn't bet on some of those clauses standing up in court. The law is extremely vague, and allows the courts to decide in what is reasonable and what's not. Few have gone that route though (FIFA wouldn't be much happy).