[Albion] Should we consider signing high value players and give them a release clause?

[Worried Man Blues]

Just because he's good for West Ham doesn't mean he'd be good for us

 

[willalbion]

Do you think he would have chosen us over West Ham?

West Ham pay much higher wages. So, no.

 

[Bald Head]

On the fence, Best let the club decide.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Caceido went for in excess of 100 million, Cucurella for 60 Million, any release clauses would have been for a fraction of that. The control isnt preventing players leaving, its having them leave on the best terms possible for Brighton. I cant see any upside for the club.

I'm sure it's possible to set a general release clause and a Chelsea one. Anyone else can purchase Adingra for £45m, but Chelsea £308m.

 

[AstroSloth]

I think he would have signed for whoever offered him money, which wouldn’t have been us.

We were interested and close to signing him before West Ham even registered interest. We could have gotten the deal done before they put in a bid.

 

[A1X]

I’m quite happy with us doing what we’ve been doing TBH

 

[Flounce]

Just because he's good for West Ham doesn't mean he'd be good for us

Have you seen him play? EXACTLY what we have missed so much this season imo. He may have of course got a season ending injury in the first game!

We may not have got him but I got the impression it was close until we blocked the sell on clause

 

[Flounce]

I’m quite happy with us doing what we’ve been doing TBH

Never questioning things, even when we get most things right, is not an option imo

I must have lost my happy clappy Beanie hat

 

[drew]

The upside is getting players that you otherwise wouldn't have.

Such as Kudus. If we'd given him a release clause we probably would have signed him and he would have been a great player to have this season.

You only have one example where a player seemingly didn't come to us. What you don't know is whether we were just a bargaining chip for his move to WHU who also a have a higher a higher wage structure than us!!!

 

[American Seagle]

The upside is getting players that you otherwise wouldn't have.

Such as Kudus. If we'd given him a release clause we probably would have signed him and he would have been a great player to have this season.

The down side is once you give one.... Everyone will want one and we will lose our in the long run

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No. As others have said, if player turns out to be crap it’s pointless and a waste of time. If he’s good the clause might not reflect his true value. I imagine it will take extra time to discuss and agree the figure, allowing window of opportunity for other clubs to come in and steal the deal.

 

[Justice]

I’m quite happy with us doing what we’ve been doing TBH

Selling the entire midfield and not replacing them? It’s been problematic all season.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Never questioning things, even when we get most things right, is not an option imo

I must have lost my happy clappy Beanie hat

Here's something to chew on.

Imagine we sign an unknown young player and after a year or so he starts to look like an absolute gem. Other clubs are sniffing around.

We could then offer him an improved contract with a release clause.

We then get to keep him for a bit longer, maybe even with him helping is qualify for a European competition.

In the meantime, the player wins the word cup and at the end of the season we sell him to one of the top four.

Could never happen, could it?

 

[Flounce]

Here's something to chew on.

Imagine we sign an unknown young player and after a year or so he starts to look like an absolute gem. Other clubs are sniffing around.

We could then offer him an improved contract with a release clause.

We then get to keep him for a bit longer, maybe even with him helping is qualify for a European competition.

In the meantime, the player wins the word cup and at the end of the season we sell him to one of the top four.

Could never happen, could it?

Yeah, I could see us doing that if we were worried the player might run down his contract and leave for peanuts

It would have to be a player with morals who had appreciation for the work done for him by the club rather than one who went down the “downing tools” route once a big team showed interest though, don’t you think? Not too many of those around imo

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yeah, I could see us doing that if we were worried the player might run down his contract and leave for peanuts

So, do you suspect, like I do, that we DO do release clauses (when it suits us, because our owner is smart and pragmatic - and secretive so we punters don't really know what goes on), and that maybe we didn't sing Kludo, for example, because he fancied being in London?

I am aware of a couple of clubs who have splashed out on well-known stars and recognizable names, in one case to bolster a very creaky squad, and in the other case simply as part of a moneyball strategy. That's Luton and Forest. That's going well....And there may be reasons why we did not go in for Elanga, Origi and Hudson-Odoi. reasons that meant the big fees and salaries were a punt too far.

No, whatever model we are using is fine by me. I am sure that this includes sell on clauses when it suits us, but we will for the most part never know.

The MacAllister deal? What do we know? Nothing. "reported to be an initial £35 million and a total of £55 million including add-on fees". I'm happy with that. I'm less happy with what we got for Trossard, especially given how good he looks now, but we can't win them all. "The fee consisted of a guaranteed £20 million, and around a further £7 million in add-ons". My source here is wikipedia by the way.

I think the big question is how far are we prepared to go with fees and wages. We allegedly offered £40 million for Colwill.

Ah well. I am a nosey Parker but I am strangely uninterested in player fees and salaries. The wider issues of recruitment, training and game management interest me more.

 

[sparkie]

Fence.

It should not be the general policy but maybe in a rare exception - and we should have no more than 1 player on this sort of contract at any given time.

Of course - do it once and they'll all want the clause.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

We can't only sign players who have the chance of giving us a 1000% profit in 3 years time. I think we need to be more flexible than this. If we buy a player for £30m but with the proviso we have the chance of losing him in 12 to 18 months for £40m. Isn't that still good business?

Of course, he might turn out to be crap, but that's the case irrespective of whether there is a release clause. Signings are risky.

In addition, there is a chance for flexibility here. These clauses aren't all uniform, so we could contract with the player, for example that the clause kicks in after 2 years for example. If that is what is needed to get a deal over the line why should we be squeamish about it

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Of course - do it once and they'll all want the clause.

No idea if this is true, but we did it for Alexis.

 

[Commander]

Should be a case by case basis, but generally I think no. We're enough of a stepping-stone club as it is, this would just exaggerate it even more. Our model works, there is no need to change it.

 

[GT49er]

You only have one example where a player seemingly didn't come to us. What you don't know is whether we were just a bargaining chip for his move to WHU who also a have a higher a higher wage structure than us!!!

Doesn't matter whether it's one player or ten - none of us know anything about what goes on in our negotiations. But the Kudus theory is a reasonable one (in that it makes and could be right) so it's fine for a discussion on a football chat site, isn't it? On the balance of probability, I don't think it's far off.