Contract buy-out clauses ?

comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 6 minutes ago
Well Liverpool had a clause and then went and completely ignored it when Arsenal matched it.

Not really sure how much they deter other clubs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't the concept of clauses that was ignored, that specific clause was just worded so poorly it was basically meaningless. They met the number, but all the clause said was we had to rub our chins and say "that's a tempting offfer... but no thanks you tosssers"

There are clauses written by people with a full set of chromosomes that actually have some teeth.

Kaiser

Is that true? What I heard was that your owner Henry realised the meaningless of 'release clauses' in this country and that there was nothing legally binding in them. So even if a club did match it you could just ignore it and that goes for all release clauses.

Kaiser is spot on. The Suarez clause was that we would notify him of any offer over x amount and consider it.

Then ignore it.

Manfrombelmonty

Really? What was the f-cking point of that then? Have Liverpool never included a release clause before or was this added by request of Suarez and his people?

Yeah apparently it's a legal thing and why they have them in Spain and we don't.

depends on how pedantic you want to be about certain quotes.

One thing is defintely true - whoever wrote Suarez's clause had a law degree from a primary school. The PFA's lawyers looked at it and came back immedaitely with the response "sorry Luis, you're feckked mate. this thing is horrid and non binding". IT was completely shiite as far as clauses go, possibly the worst ever.

The other side is that Henry did say that clauses in general had limited enforceability as far as he was concerned. Would he defy a well written clause? maybe, maybe not.

Kaiser

Fair enough.

@FootballLaw: Release, buy-out & buy-back clauses explained. http://t.co/KLRSUGfF5H & http://t.co/cFpicsoprB http://t.co/vU60CZpMXb

comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 12 minutes ago

....One thing is defintely true - whoever wrote Suarez's clause had a law degree from a primary school. The PFA's lawyers looked at it and came back immedaitely with the response "sorry Luis, you're feckked mate. this thing is horrid and non binding". IT was completely shiite as far as clauses go, possibly the worst ever.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I see it as having been written by someone quite clever, in that they fooled Luis and his agent into thinking there was a clause which meant we had to sell him at £40 mill+. Whereas actually we only had to inform them of the offer, but not necessarily accept it. So to me, it was actually very clever.

Release clauses are a legal requirement in Spain.

Initially clubs used to set clauses they considered impossible to meet. Nowadays, however, it's hard to find such outrageous clauses because the law was amended to oblige clubs to link the amount in the clause to the player's wages.

Why don't English clubs include clauses systematically?
Because they rarely favour the club and more often than not play into the footballer's hands. If another club meets the clause, the club is powerless to stop the player from leaving.

It's especially the case in Spain with the less wealthy clubs, or even some of the "Tier 2" clubs wishing to attract bigger names. They'll often agree to set a relatively modest clause in order to convince a player to sign, then lose them for less than they'd fetch in the open market if they held any bargaining power.