[Albion] Where is Alexis going? (Liverpool - for an undisclosed fee...)

[Eeyore]

Naylor takes a dig at the 'uninitiated' but he clearly also doesn't know what this release clause is, as he hasn't reported it.

Or, maybe the club have told him so he can put down Fabrizio.

Not a typical release clause could mean that there is an agreed fee but Brighton have to give the okay for him to leave at that specific time, say, not in a January window if they don't want. Basically they agree he can go at a suitable time and a suitable club.

He's clearly leaving. I'm just unsure about that fee (if indeed it is true).

Andy Naylor has only stated simple but irrelevant facts. It maybe that Liverpool haven't been in contact and that it is not the usual clause. But if it something along the lines of the above then I'm not sure why he is making a point about it. MAC is clearly going to Liverpool, regardless.

 

[albionalex]

The point of the new contract was to get some money instead of him going on a free.

The lower release clause is because it's the only way he'd likely sign a new contract.

But he had another year left on his contract, so he was never going on a free.

 

[albionalex]

Apologies if fixtures, but what if another club betters the buy out figure? Surely Albion should be able to sell to the highest bidder, provided Alexis can agree personal terms with them?

If there is a fixed buyout fee, say £50m as an example, then there is no reason for a club to bid higher than that. Albion would obligated to accept any bid that meets that buyout figure and then it's up to the player to agree personal terms with whichever club/s meet it.

 

[dazzer6666]

But he had another year left on his contract, so he was never going on a free.

No, but we'd have perhaps been looking at something like Trossard-type money at best for him. I suspect the new contract was a form of compromise, hence the 'low' release number (if that's what it is). Mac could easily have told the club pre-WC that he wasn't interested in signing a new contract and be going now just the same, for 50% or more less than whatever we're getting. Works for him, works for us

Funny thing is we'll never know what the contract stipulated, nor what the final fee is as it'll all be 'undisclosed' as usual and we'll have another 50 pages of speculation and counter-claim on here without getting any closer to the truth

 

[Eeyore]

Sky Sports aren't short of their own sources inside Premier League clubs - or via players / agents - who can confirm or deny transfer incomings/outgoings. Naylor and The Athletic likewise.

Brighton transfer news: Moises Caicedo and Alexis Mac Allister price tags set at more than £70m each​

Sky Sports 05.05.2023

'The players are both on long contracts, which are not thought to include release clauses as CEO Paul Barber has revealed the club avoids them'

Melissa Reddy- Senior Reporter

Ooops...

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

I guess we were allowed to speak or approach them earlier that 'allowed' though? As their contacts aren't up until the end of the month and Milner was announced ages ago.

Maybe it makes absolutely no difference at all, just a thought.

Nothing has been announced officially regarding Milner.

As Liverpool have told Milner they aren’t offering him a new deal they won’t stand in the way of him looking for a new contract and talking to clubs before his current deal expires. We wouldn’t need to get permission from Liverpool.

Players currently employed in England can talk to clubs from other associations in the last 6 months of their contracts without any need for the current club to give permission. I’m not sure of what the rules are when it comes to talking to other clubs in England but as above they wouldn’t stop it and if they did it would probably fall foul of other employment laws anyway.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

View attachment 161818

Photo shop of him in last seasons home shirt

 

[Weststander]

It's interesting what Naylor writes - I guess it could mean that the FEE is set, but that if club X meets the fee it doesn't necessarily mean BHA will sell. Which presumably means we have some leverage with Liverpool regarding what we get in return.

I’ve posted that Ornstein quote more than once. Naylor’s just copying my mate Ornstein and I

 

[Weststander]

Nothing has been announced officially regarding Milner.

As Liverpool have told Milner they aren’t offering him a new deal they won’t stand in the way of him looking for a new contract and talking to clubs before his current deal expires. We wouldn’t need to get permission from Liverpool.

Players currently employed in England can talk to clubs from other associations in the last 6 months of their contracts without any need for the current club to give permission. I’m not sure of what the rules are when it comes to talking to other clubs in England but as above they wouldn’t stop it and if they did it would probably fall foul of other employment laws anyway.

TS and others reporting this afternoon that the Milner Albion deal is about to be announced.

https://talksport.com/football/1446097/brighton-james-milner-mahmoud-dahoud/

 

[albionalex]

No, but we'd have perhaps been looking at something like Trossard-type money at best for him. I suspect the new contract was a form of compromise, hence the 'low' release number (if that's what it is). Mac could easily have told the club pre-WC that he wasn't interested in signing a new contract and be going now just the same, for 50% or more less than whatever we're getting. Works for him, works for us

Funny thing is we'll never know what the contract stipulated, nor what the final fee is as it'll all be 'undisclosed' as usual and we'll have another 50 pages of speculation and counter-claim on here without getting any closer to the truth

Even with a year left on his contract, I am pretty sure we'd be able to get the £45-50m that this supposed release clause is set at. Of course, that would be more of a gamble than guaranteeing a set figure though.

 

[Springal]

Even with a year left on his contract, I am pretty sure we'd be able to get the £45-50m that this supposed release clause is set at. Of course, that would be more of a gamble than guaranteeing a set figure though.

Why ? We only got £30M ish for Bissouma

 

[AstroSloth]

But he had another year left on his contract, so he was never going on a free.

Yes but if he'd got to this summer he'd probably go for an amount similar to Bissouma, or on a free next year.

This way we get more money than we would have no matter what.

 

[albionalex]

Why ? We only got £30M ish for Bissouma

Mac is a better player than Bissouma, slightly younger and a World Cup winner.

I would expect more of a bidding war too.

 

[albionalex]

Yes but if he'd got to this summer he'd probably go for an amount similar to Bissouma, or on a free next year.

This way we get more money than we would have no matter what.

I think we'd get more than we got for Bissouma.

 

[trueblue]

Not a typical release clause could mean that there is an agreed fee but Brighton have to give the okay for him to leave at that specific time, say, not in a January window if they don't want. Basically they agree he can go at a suitable time and a suitable club.

He's clearly leaving. I'm just unsure about that fee (if indeed it is true).

Andy Naylor has only stated simple but irrelevant facts. It maybe that Liverpool haven't been in contact and that it is not the usual clause. But if it something along the lines of the above then I'm not sure why he is making a point about it. MAC is clearly going to Liverpool, regardless.

He's not really making a point about it though. He's just doing his job as a journalist. He's asked Brighton about the stories. They've said they've agreed nothing with Liverpool yet. It's not a dig at anyone. He's just laying out the situation as it stands based on information from the people that will actually have the final say. Facts. An old-fashioned notion these days, I realise.

 

[Hiheidi]

Mason Mount has a year left on his contract - according to news sources Man United are willing to pay £55 million, but Chelsea value him at £85 million!!!

 

[dazzer6666]

Even with a year left on his contract, I am pretty sure we'd be able to get the £45-50m that this supposed release clause is set at. Of course, that would be more of a gamble than guaranteeing a set figure though.

We might now, but no way we would have been thinking in those terms before the WC.

 

[dazzer6666]

Mac is a better player than Bissouma, slightly younger and a World Cup winner.

I would expect more of a bidding war too.

He wasn’t when he signed his new contract……he wasn’t a guaranteed starter in the Argie XI.

 

[Eeyore]

He's not really making a point about it though. He's just doing his job as a journalist. He's asked Brighton about the stories. They've said they've agreed nothing with Liverpool yet. It's not a dig at anyone. He's just laying out the situation as it stands based on information from the people that will actually have the final say. Facts. An old-fashioned notion these days, I realise.

Fact indeed. But contrarily correct in a redundant way. The club may not have been approached by Liverpool, but it's clear that he is going. It's like the Met Office saying a storm is fast approaching and me constantly making the, correct, point that at the moment it is dry sunny and calm. My point is redundant to the main subject matter.

 

[folkestonesgull]

Veltman had a clause allowing us to sign him for £1m as he stayed an extra season with Ajax.
Haarland and other players in Germany also often have a clause built in...we agreed a contract extension before the world cup that insured we had a happy player and what looks like a guaranteed min fee.
He could have had a terrible world cup...he could have got injured. He could have come back and played badly.
Ultimately we're losing a great player but we are doing so on good terms having created one hell of a pathway for other players to follow.