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

[Berty23]

It would be very funny if chelsea suddenly popped up paying 65 million and off he went.

 

[raymondo]

It feels like this has dragged on for ages!

When's the first preseason friendly

 

[sagaman]

Can’t believe that he had a clause with buy out of less than £60m, even if agreed before World Cup.

If this happens would make our buy and sell policy look far less than optimum

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

His previous contract was due to expire now wasn't it, until he signed the extension in Oct.

So what people need to remember is that Alexis could have refused to sign the extension and the club would be getting nothing now. So in order to secure value the contract extension Brighton offered Alexis last Oct had to have enough sugar coating that Alexis signed it therefore ensuring we get something for him.

I have no idea what that sugar coating is, but when you say 'limiting the amount of money we could receive', you could argue it was maximising a return that could have been zero had he not signed the extension.

Talksport and others may say we're letting him go for a steal at £45m if he was to go for that, but that may have been a smart move to actually ensure we got something for him.

That's all based on the assumption he only signed a new contract with us because there was 100% certainty he'd never play for us again after this season.

That wasn't a given at the time. The club would have been trying to convince him along the way to stay.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Why are we not waiting for other clubs to come in to drive up the price. Liverpool is probably the worst of the big 6 for paying large transfer fees (some exceptions of course)

You can meet his request for moving to a certain club.

But why would you have a "clause" that doesn't allow for any negotiations for having triggers to make the price of his sale increase over time when he has so much potential to succeed?

That's why having a set price so he can leave sound so very stupid business wise and nothing like how we operate.

 

[The Fits]

As everybody is guessing, both those who are looking at the evidence and feeling he has a clause in his contract and those who are clinging on to something Barber once said, my guess is this:

Mac says he's happy here but doesn't want to extend his contract.
For whatever reason (Mac Snr shares the same dentist as Klopp, Maradona visited one of them in a dream) they insist on a clause that says:

Liverpool can come for Mac in the first two weeks of the off season (gives us time to get in a new player, prepare without Mac, or prepare with Mac)
They must be prepared to pay X amount up front.
We will then agree specific add ons relating to their position in the table and Mac's standing at that time.
Player leaves.

That's not a massively complicated clause and it answers all of my questions above.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Why has there not been an actual bid? Why would Romano etc go down the clause route and not the 'Liverpool have made an opening bid if x million'?
Why are other clubs (definitely Chelsea) not being linked?
Why has it happened so quickly?
How is he talking to them without a final bid being accepted?
Why are we not trying to create a bidding war?
Why is this so different to a normal transfer?
Those in denial can't answer these questions.

Many transfers are undisclosed, bids are not announced and clubs keep the details between them. The figures we hear are often educated guesses; 'thought to be in the region of £Xm', 'way less than £Ym'.
The player may only be interested in Liverpool. Both parties need to agree to break a contract. Alexis may not want to go to Chelsea, so no point them bidding.
If there was a release clause figure and it was pretty clear what that was, why hasn't it been completed / agreed yet?
His contract extension signed in October may have included provision for him to be able to talk to clubs, or maybe even specific clubs, but that doesn't mean a fee was also set.
We may not be creating a bidding war because as above, the provision might be he gets to talk to specific clubs. Who knows. Not necessarily a generic release clause with £X attributed to it.
It's different because in October he was going to be a free agent in 7 months time, the contract extension would have had to account for his desire to move as well as us looking to protect some value from an asset. End of the day he could have played out the last 7 months and been a free agent now agreeing a huge signing on fee and package without a transfer fee needing to be paid.

 

[MJsGhost]

He said it in regards to our star players.



So people believe that our club would sign up to a contract that would severely restrict how much we could gain from an asset?

Does that sounds like the Bloom way?

Do people really think Tony would take massive unders for one of our star players? That we'd limit the amount of money we could receive without a single negotiation taking place.

If there's one thing we know about Tony Bloom, it's that he looks at the big picture and does what's best for the club in the long term. He is a pragmatic, analytical man who has literally made a living out of weighing up risk and probability.

When faced with the prospect of a player not extending a contract at all in order to eventually leave on a free/at a big discount, would he agree to a contract albeit with a clause that isn't a "release clause" per se, but does make the situation more certain for the player, should specified criteria (including something about size of fee and probably timing) be met?
Sounds like smart negotiation to me - a bit of give and take where the club moved from their ideal position (Alli Mac signs long-term with nothing like a release clause) to something in the middle. Importantly, the player carries on happily for the remainder of the season and our push for Europe wasn't derailed. Same for Caicedo I presume (though his agents took a little more 'persuading' to see sense). It still fits with the idea that the club 'doesn't like release clauses' (in the usual sense), but that they will entertain something similar as long as the club retains an element of control.
My guess (and it's absolutely that) is that the 'release' fee gets incrementally higher as time passes and the window draws to a close. E.g. £50m in June, £60m in July, £70m in August. That would be an incentive to get the deal done, enabling us the time to get the right replacement in, rather than a mad trolley dash with inflated prices at the end of the window when clubs know we're desperate. That could save as much as is 'lost' by the Alli Mac's price being lower and crucially allows time for new signings to be integrated.

 

[The Wizard]

As everybody is guessing, both those who are looking at the evidence and feeling he has a clause in his contract and those who are clinging on to something Barber once said, my guess is this:

Mac says he's happy here but doesn't want to extend his contract.
For whatever reason (Mac Snr shares the same dentist as Klopp, Maradona visited one of them in a dream) they insist on a clause that says:

Liverpool can come for Mac in the first two weeks of the off season (gives us time to get in a new player, prepare without Mac, or prepare with Mac)
They must be prepared to pay X amount up front.
We will then agree specific add ons relating to their position in the table and Mac's standing at that time.
Player leaves.

That's not a massively complicated clause and it answers all of my questions above.

In the history of football I’ve never heard of or seen another clause where the parameters you’ve mentioned would be included. It’s just nonsensical.

All I can imagine this would have done is piss the club off as it would have made it obvious Mac/his family have been talking to Liverpool already, and that being the case why the hell would Liverpool want that clause when they could have got him for zilch? Or his agent/dad for that matter considering they could have made millions in fees.

 

[Bold Seagull]

That's all based on the assumption he only signed a new contract with us because there was 100% certainty he'd never play for us again after this season.

That wasn't a given at the time. The club would have been trying to convince him along the way to stay.

You would have to make the assumption that we'd offered him an extension long before it got down to the last 7 months of his current one - unless you in turn make the assumption we chose to leave it that late which I can't imagine was the case.

So if it got down to the last 7 months and you're own hand needs to protect itself from a player's desire to move, then it may well have need some provision to facilitate that happening for the player, even though it might not be certain they would move.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

My guess is the release clause is more a minimum fee clause, i.e. we'll let you go for bids over 45m, but we'll accept the largest one. It may well be however that Mac is so determined to go to Liverpool and nowhere else it doesn't matter if Chelsea bid higher, so the minimum fee becomes in effect a release clause.

 

[wellquickwoody]

In the history of football I’ve never heard of or seen another clause where the parameters you’ve mentioned would be included. It’s just nonsensical.

All I can imagine this would have done is piss the club off as it would have made it obvious Mac/his family have been talking to Liverpool already, and that being the case why the hell would Liverpool want that clause when they could have got him for zilch? Or his agent/dad for that matter considering they could have made millions in fees.

Not wishing to be rude, but exactly how many footballers contracts have you actually seen?

 

[The Fits]

Well the big reveal is going to be very exciting.
If people think Man City, Man U, Newcastle, Chelsea, Spurs, Dortmund, Bayern, Real at the very least wouldn't be in for Mac at the quoted prices then you're seriously underrating the player. There had to be a reason for this.
It might sound far fetched but for me either there's a few named clubs or only one.

 

[The Fits]

IMHO it all boils down to Mac Snr being approached by Liverpool BEFORE the contract extension.

 

[Commander]

He said it in regards to our star players.



So people believe that our club would sign up to a contract that would severely restrict how much we could gain from an asset?

Does that sounds like the Bloom way?

Do people really think Tony would take massive unders for one of our star players? That we'd limit the amount of money we could receive without a single negotiation taking place.

Yes. I really can't see what is so difficult to understand here. Last November the player could leave at knock-down price in Summer as only has one year left, so realistically £25 million. Alternative is he can leave for nothing the following Summer. Club tries to tie him down to new contract to avoid this happening and he says fine but I need a sensible release clause so I know I can definitely go to a big club with no issues in the Summer, otherwise I'm not signing a new deal. Tony Bloom decides that losing him for £45 million in the Summer, while guaranteeing him staying for the rest of the season is better than losing him for £25 million or nothing the following Summer Contract signed, agent informs Liverpool and says see you in the Summer.

What is so implausible about that scenario?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Was Alexis actually going to be out of contract THIS summer as some are suggesting, rather than 2024?

Pretty sure he had a year left - otherwise the signing of the new deal would have been madness on his part.

 

[Bold Seagull]

In the history of football I’ve never heard of or seen another clause where the parameters you’ve mentioned would be included. It’s just nonsensical.

All I can imagine this would have done is piss the club off as it would have made it obvious Mac/his family have been talking to Liverpool already, and that being the case why the hell would Liverpool want that clause when they could have got him for zilch? Or his agent/dad for that matter considering they could have made millions in fees.

The huge risk a footballer takes in running down their contract is a Moder like injury for example or worse. It may seem like a great thing to do, become a free agent in June, but suffering a huge injury in April, and what then?

So it is like playing a hand of cards. I'm sure the October contract extension had lots of goodies and made sense to sign given that if nothing arose or he got injured, he'd have security until 2025 at the very least. The club's hand was that if he doesn't sign it, we getting nothing for him in June. So the contract needed to make him want to sign and stay, but also to ensure he signed, and potentially allow some mechanism for him to leave given in 7 months he could do anyway.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Was Alexis actually going to be out of contract THIS summer as some are suggesting, rather than 2024?

Pretty sure he had a year left - otherwise the signing of the new deal would have been madness on his part.

My understanding was his January 2019 contract was 4.5 years. See post above why it might not have been madness if it had the right terms for him.

 

[The Fits]

Was Alexis actually going to be out of contract THIS summer as some are suggesting, rather than 2024?

Pretty sure he had a year left - otherwise the signing of the new deal would have been madness on his part.

Next.

 

[Triggaaar]

So people believe that our club would sign up to a contract that would severely restrict how much we could gain from an asset?

You've misunderstood the situation. The new contract is not what's restricting how much we can gain, the restriction was that he only had a year left if we didn't agree it. He could be going for less than £40m without the new contract.