[Archived] Summer 2011 Transfer Window Part One

[LeChuck]

To many on here it isnt, its better having the truth out there, rather than our new owners getting blamed for everything.

It's completely irrelevant whether a clause already existed or not.

His new contract was signed in February, that's when the clause that Man Utd are exploiting came into effect. Venky's put that there, it was their contract. Any clauses in the previous contract get torn up when a new one is signed.

I'm not saying any blame is attached to them for doing so because I know nothing of the negotiations, but I'm making the point that any clause existing before February is irrelevant.

[Black Burn]

It's completely irrelevant whether a clause already existed or not.

His new contract was signed in February, that's when the clause that Man Utd are exploiting came into effect. Venky's put that there, it was their contract. Any clauses in the previous contract get torn up when a new one is signed.

I'm not saying any blame is attached to them for doing so because I know nothing of the negotiations, but I'm making the point that any clause existing before February is irrelevant.

I think his point here is that many people in the forum are blaming Venkys for adding or inserting the 16 million pound release clause when they didn't add it. It was already there. Sure, it is irrelevant now, but some people like to close their eyes and rave how it is Venkys's fault for "adding" a clause despite it already being there.

[Gav]

It's completely irrelevant whether a clause already existed or not.

His new contract was signed in February, that's when the clause that Man Utd are exploiting came into effect. Venky's put that there, it was their contract. Any clauses in the previous contract get torn up when a new one is signed.

I'm not saying any blame is attached to them for doing so because I know nothing of the negotiations, but I'm making the point that any clause existing before February is irrelevant.

Lets assume we know whats going on with the contracts.

Jones has an 8m release clause in his deal before February, its in Rovers best interests to protect their investment by offering a new deal and upping the clause. So the fact that the original contract was irrelevant isn’t true in my eyes.

You could argue we shouldn’t have agreed to the clause, and then he’d have not signed, and would have left for 8m.

[DE.]

IF there was a lower release clause in Jones' pre-Feb contract then Venky's cannot be blamed for the £16M clause now in place. Yes it is technically 'their' contract but if their only other option was to stick with the old contract we would have lost Jones in the summer for far less than the £16M currently offered.

I very much doubt Jones would have signed a contract with no release clause, otherwise why have one in his original contract? Chances are we put the clause as high as he was willing to accept and had to take it or risk him leaving for a much lower fee. What can you do?

[Darth Paul]

Lets assume we know whats going on with the contracts.

Jones has an 8m release clause in his deal before February, its in Rovers best interests to protect their investment by offering a new deal and upping the clause. So the fact that the original contract was irrelevant isn’t true in my eyes.

You could argue we shouldn’t have agreed to the clause, and then he’d have not signed, and would have left for 8m.

Excellent point Gav and one that I have been amazed no one has picked up on yet. Also the clause actually protects Rovers in another way to a degree - if there wasn't one at all and someone like Utd bid £12m then Jones would still want to go and with todays player power we would have probably lost him anyway, contract or not for maybe £14m max.

£16m at least sets a price we could live with, rather than another team deciding the value. A £50m clause would be better but presumably the players camp would have never agreed. I think clauses can actually be a smart thing to have in todays player power market where contracts mean little. Still most people prefer a glass half empty...

[mark1875]

I can see why the jones transfer was taking so long to be confirm.

http://www.voxsports.net/jones-valued-by-rovers-at-25-million?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=jones-valued-by-rovers-at-25-million

we could all see that when it was posted last nite lol

[Hughesy]

Glad someone else see's what I was thinking, the new contract simply protected our asset more. It ensured we got a bigger amount. Imagine the reaction on here if he had gone for £8m rather than £16m+.

I also think they will have done the same with Samba.

Once a clause is there, the player & agent wont let go - but they would increase it, with increased salary.

[rebelmswar]

Well well well.

Venkeys have gained massive browny points with me for sticking up for us in the regard.

I can fully understand a renegotiated contract if he had a lower release clause. Could this be the reason for the other new contracts? Granted though I couldn't imagine Manure breaking our door down fir Roberts.

[BuckyRover]

Excellent point Gav and one that I have been amazed no one has picked up on yet. Also the clause actually protects Rovers in another way to a degree - if there wasn't one at all and someone like Utd bid £12m then Jones would still want to go and with todays player power we would have probably lost him anyway, contract or not for maybe £14m max.

£16m at least sets a price we could live with, rather than another team deciding the value. A £50m clause would be better but presumably the players camp would have never agreed. I think clauses can actually be a smart thing to have in todays player power market where contracts mean little. Still most people prefer a glass half empty...

I think some people picked up on it. (me).

But people would rather just label me than recognise FACTS.

There are lots of ulterior motives at work. People don't appear to be rational. Nobody with a rational, logical mind could think that Venky's are at fault here.

[Kelbo]

IF there was a lower release clause in Jones' pre-Feb contract then Venky's cannot be blamed for the £16M clause now in place. Yes it is technically 'their' contract but if their only other option was to stick with the old contract we would have lost Jones in the summer for far less than the £16M currently offered.

I very much doubt Jones would have signed a contract with no release clause, otherwise why have one in his original contract? Chances are we put the clause as high as he was willing to accept and had to take it or risk him leaving for a much lower fee. What can you do?

Interestingly, many other clubs now have these release clauses in contracts, I understand Notlob have them too in Cahills contract, its a double protection, one for the club and one for the player, seems to be the way contracts are going now and I do believe Ronaldo had a release clause in his contract too when he left Man U.

Indeed, Barca included a buy back clause in Rochinas contract when he signed for Rovers, they have first call on him if they wanted him and Rovers were selling, plus they have a sell on clause as well, contracts are quite complex nowadays!

[hawkiiz]

How exactly does a £16m release clause protect Rovers? It protects the player because if someone bid £16m, then we HAVE to accept.

It does NOT protect Rovers because even if someone bid £10m, it could still unsettle Jones, and with the above mentioned player power, he could moan and force a deal just as much as if there was NO clause.

Is that not right?

[den]

How exactly does a £16m release clause protect Rovers? It protects the player because if someone bid £16m, then we HAVE to accept.

It does NOT protect Rovers because even if someone bid £10m, it could still unsettle Jones, and with the above mentioned player power, he could moan and force a deal just as much as if there was NO clause.

Is that not right?

The thinking behind it, is that it gives any buying club a reference point - an idea of the clubs value and the players agreement of that value.

What it doesn't do, to my mind, is get the best price for the selling club. In fact, it quite often leads to sales under the true market value.

[rebelmswar]

How exactly does a £16m release clause protect Rovers? It protects the player because if someone bid £16m, then we HAVE to accept.

It does NOT protect Rovers because even if someone bid £10m, it could still unsettle Jones, and with the above mentioned player power, he could moan and force a deal just as much as if there was NO clause.

Is that not right?

I personally kinda agree with you but, 16 million ia better than a smaller amount right?

If he wants to go it is a damn sight better to get as much as possible. Its called keeping our Pimp hand strong.

[Kelbo]

How exactly does a £16m release clause protect Rovers? It protects the player because if someone bid £16m, then we HAVE to accept.

It does NOT protect Rovers because even if someone bid £10m, it could still unsettle Jones, and with the above mentioned player power, he could moan and force a deal just as much as if there was NO clause.

Is that not right?

I dont think that could happen, Jones and his agent agreed to that figure and only in the case of Rovers wanting to sell and the player wanting to leave would that change.

I think many players have release clauses in the event of relegation too.

[hawkiiz]

The thinking behind it, is that it gives any buying club a reference point - an idea of the clubs value and the players agreement of that value.

What it doesn't do, to my mind, is get the best price for the selling club. In fact, it quite often leads to sales under the true market value.

Exactly. What it says is "This is the MAX amount of money you have to pay, You are welcome to try to get it at a lower price"

For it to protect Rovers, it would have to say "A sale can not be done unless the fee is minimum £16m. If no higher bid is received within 24 hours, you can talk to the player."

[daveoftherovers]

Interestingly, many other clubs now have these release clauses in contracts, I understand Notlob have them too in Cahills contract, its a double protection, one for the club and one for the player, seems to be the way contracts are going now and I do believe Ronaldo had a release clause in his contract too when he left Man U.

Indeed, Barca included a buy back clause in Rochinas contract when he signed for Rovers, they have first call on him if they wanted him and Rovers were selling, plus they have a sell on clause as well, contracts are quite complex nowadays!

Spot on Kelbo, for me, they are more like the contracts that have been common place in the US and some parts of the developed EU for some considerable time.

Barca's contract is a fine example.

It's not just the football world, it's any high price or sought after resource, if you don't protect both parties with something mutually acceptable, then you are clearly asking for trouble.

If the amounts and dates on the contract clauses are correct, then it's good business from our owners TBH.

Top marks for them doing it, and shame on the people who just want to knock them ALL the time, sure they have had their failings, but when they do something good or sensible, we should be honest enough to give praise then also.

[LeChuck]

I think his point here is that many people in the forum are blaming Venkys for adding or inserting the 16 million pound release clause when they didn't add it.

Venky's put it in the contract they got him to sign in February. That's all that matters. Whether it existed previously or not doesn't matter, that was an old contract.

[hawkiiz]

I dont think that could happen, Jones and his agent agreed to that figure and only in the case of Rovers wanting to sell and the player wanting to leave would that change.

I think many players have release clauses in the event of relegation too.

I think most players have some kind of clause in the event of relegation/promotion. That's totally different

It depends though, what has happened, and what is written in the contract. If the release clause is £16m, we are still free to sell for £10 if we wish for some reason to get rid (yes, I understand that is very far from the case, and we want closer to £25m for Jones. I'm just discussing what parties are protected by these contracts).

Would be very very interesting to get a hint on the wording in the contract.

[Blackburn Ravers]

Venky's put it in the contract they got him to sign in February. That's all that matters. Whether it existed previously or not doesn't matter, that was an old contract.

Venkys were to blame when we got relegated in 99,

Course it matters that it previously existed in his contract, Jones advisors would have made sure it was still in there, but we got the minimum increased to 16 million, Venkys have got us MORE money for Jonesy than we would have got before the contract extension

[Darth Paul]

Let me reiterate...these days if a player wants to leave they leave such is the current balance of power. Happens to Man Utd never mind little ol Rovers. Without a clause a club can bid any value and the player is unsettled...subsequently 9 times out of 10 they get their move one way or another.

During negotiations with Jones we will have gone for the highest release clause value possible...that is logic, whilst the players camp would try to achieve the opposite...that is negotiation. Polarised intrests resulting in negotiation, resulting in a MUTUALLY agreeable outcome. No clause and Jonesy boy could have been off for peanuts either now or in six months because thats the modern game. We couldnt force him to sign a new contract. Player Power. The clause does protect Rovers but instead of looking at it from the 'we should hold out for £25m' perspective which is ideal but unrealistic, look at it from the 'we are getting £16m it could have been half that' view.

Stick him in the reserves to rot then I hear you say? Not going to happen. I dont like our best prospects leaving anymore than anyone else but as an experienced negotiator of multi million pound deals I can see that Rovers have made a smart if not unrealistically perfect move in the circumstances. Same apllied to the Duff transfer.

I would go as far as to say that I hope as long as we go for the highest value possible I wouldnt be against such clauses existing for new players in the future.

[Fife Rover]

Yes

Could you not just say what you know?

Yes go on BPF do it ; and take it like a man! Errrr....I was of course meaning the flak that you inferred in your post above.

[den]

Course it matters that it previously existed in his contract, Jones advisors would have made sure it was still in there, but we got the minimum increased to 16 million, Venkys have got us MORE money for Jonesy than we would have got before the contract extension

The rest of your post is based on the bit in bold being correct. We don't know that, but it is possible.

Ultimately though, his current contract is down to Venky's. They negotiated it. Whether they could have done better, no-one knows.

[Black Burn]

Venky's put it in the contract they got him to sign in February. That's all that matters. Whether it existed previously or not doesn't matter, that was an old contract.

It matters because people are blaming Venkys wrongly and bashing them over something they don't deserve.

All contracts have release clauses. Whether it's your phone contract (where you have to pay a termination fee to terminate your contract), your work contract or players' contract, everything has a termination clause.

If there was no clause, Phil Jones could just resign or quit the club, then join Manchester United while we get nothing. But people fail to see that and make statements like "Venkys should never have included a clause!"

I could be wrong, but I think some people here share the same sentiments.

[LeChuck]

Venkys were to blame when we got relegated in 99

Bloody hell. I went out of my way in the post before the one you quoted to say I'm not blaming Venky's for it, I don't know what Jones' agent was saying in negotiations. Stupid comments like that do not help.

All I'm saying is the sheer nature of contracts means any pre-existing clause is irrelevant, Venky's chose (for whatever reason) to have one in the contract they had Jones sign.

[hawkiiz]

Let me reiterate...these days if a player wants to leave they leave such is the current balance of power. Happens to Man Utd never mind little ol Rovers. Without a clause a club can bid any value and the player is unsettled...subsequently 9 times out of 10 they get their move one way or another.

During negotiations with Jones we will have gone for the highest release clause value possible...that is logic, whilst the players camp would try to achieve the opposite...that is negotiation. Polarised intrests resulting in negotiation, resulting in a MUTUALLY agreeable outcome. No clause and Jonesy boy could have been off for peanuts either now or in six months because thats the modern game. We couldnt force him to sign a new contract. Player Power. The clause does protect Rovers but instead of looking at it from the 'we should hold out for £25m' perspective which is ideal but unrealistic, look at it from the 'we are getting £16m it could have been half that' view.

Stick him in the reserves to rot then I hear you say? Not going to happen. I dont like our best prospects leaving anymore than anyone else but as an experienced negotiator of multi million pound deals I can see that Rovers have made a smart if not unrealistically perfect move in the circumstances. Same apllied to the Duff transfer.

I would go as far as to say that I hope as long as we go for the highest value possible I wouldnt be against such clauses existing for new players in the future.

My point is that ManU can still bid any value they want and potentially unsettle the player.

Someone mentioned clauses in all contracts (mobile phones etc), and in those contracts, if you tell your operator that, "hey, I got a better offer at this other company, and I would like to transfer to them", my experience is that your current operator will give you a better deal.

There is only two set points in Jones' contract as far as I can see:

1. He has to play for Rovers for 5 years.

2. If a club offers £16m, we have to accept.

What it means is Jones can agree to stay longer than the 5 years. It also means Rovers can agree to sell him at any price below £16m. Rovers can not stand in the way if someone bid £16m.

Now if the contract says £16m is a MINIMUM for a sale to go through, then we can hold out for more.