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

[Flounce]

Watching Kudus this season it occurs to me we might have shot ourselves in the foot by refusing to agree to a release clause. He looks exactly what we have been missing.

I have no idea how these work but assumably you pay 30 million for example and then agree that if someone comes in with a pre agreed release fee that is substantially more than you paid, they can leave? As long as you can put a minimum period before it kicks in, one or two years maybe it could help us get the quality of player we need but struggled to get last summer. Not ideal but better than having to rely on non PL ready players in positions we are short in.

Anyway long and short of it, should we consider signing PL ready players and agree a release clause?

 

[Hiheidi]

It will be interesting to see what happens with Kudus this summer or next (some say his release clause doesn't kick in until next season), and how much the clause actually was. I guess only then will we know if we messed up or not.

 

[GT49er]

Ticked option 4 by mistake - meant to go 'fence'.

 

[Springal]

It does seem a bit odd to limit ourselves if we really believe in the player. Given Mac went chip, Caicedo still went after 18 months, Gross potentially goes with a year left - we don’t seem to have the control people think anyway.

Depends what the release clause is of course …

 

[KZNSeagull]

There doesn't appear to be an upside to release clauses. If the player turns out to be crap no-one is going to pay it anyway and if the player is brilliant then a bigger club is getting a bargain. If the player wants to leave they may well throw a strop irrespective of whether they have a release clause or not, forcing the selling club to act.

 

[LamieRobertson]

It does seem a bit odd to limit ourselves if we really believe in the player. Given Mac went for a chip, Caicedo still went after 18 months, Gross potentially goes with a year left - we don’t seem to have the control people think anyway.

Depends what the release clause is of course …

I believe Liverpool paid more than this

 

[nickbrighton]

It does seem a bit odd to limit ourselves if we really believe in the player. Given Mac went chip, Caicedo still went after 18 months, Gross potentially goes with a year left - we don’t seem to have the control people think anyway.

Depends what the release clause is of course …

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.

 

[AstroSloth]

There doesn't appear to be an upside to release clauses. If the player turns out to be crap no-one is going to pay it anyway and if the player is brilliant then a bigger club is getting a bargain. If the player wants to leave they may well throw a strop irrespective of whether they have a release clause or not, forcing the selling club to act.

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.

 

[Hometownglory]

As long as the release clause is substantially more than you paid and only becomes active after a period of time/close season, then fine. I mean, there is only so long you can keep turning down bids until a player goes on strike and becomes toxic. You have to sell then anyway. I'd rather have the quality of a player for a year a two than not have it at all.

 

[KZNSeagull]

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.

Maybe. I got the impression he was never seriously interested in moving to us. If he was that keen he would have signed whether he had a release clause or not.

 

[studio150]

No from me, as if the player is that good we potentially miss out on a higher fee, given it removes a bidding war, with any interested clubs just offering the release clause amount.

 

[albionalex]

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.

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

 

[Whitechapel]

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

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

 

[albionalex]

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

Exactly.

 

[Bold Seagull]

There doesn't appear to be an upside to release clauses. If the player turns out to be crap no-one is going to pay it anyway and if the player is brilliant then a bigger club is getting a bargain. If the player wants to leave they may well throw a strop irrespective of whether they have a release clause or not, forcing the selling club to act.

If the release clause is a decent enough mark-up on what you pay, then you’ve had the benefit of the player and a profit - even if that means they go for a bargain. Only downside is you can’t control when the transfer happens.

 

[Lurchy]

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

Not just money but also the location. A lot of players would still prefer London over other UK cities.

Kudus is on a reported 90k a week which is doable for a club of our size.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Watching Kudus this season it occurs to me we might have shot ourselves in the foot by refusing to agree to a release clause. He looks exactly what we have been missing.

I have no idea how these work but assumably you pay 30 million for example and then agree that if someone comes in with a pre agreed release fee that is substantially more than you paid, they can leave? As long as you can put a minimum period before it kicks in, one or two years maybe it could help us get the quality of player we need but struggled to get last summer. Not ideal but better than having to rely on non PL ready players in positions we are short in.

Anyway long and short of it, should we consider signing PL ready players and agree a release clause?

Was it that he really wanted that release clause inserted, or a way to delay any deal and create extra time for other clubs to show an interest (especially if our interest is made public)

Would he really have still insisted on a release clause if only West Ham offered one, but clubs like Man City or Arsenal had looked to sign hm, but refused to include a release clause? - would he really turn them down and sign for West Ham?

He would have seen that we take players and develop them, with some moving onto big clubs for good fees, so he knew by joining us he could have gained a good move out of his time here and likely to a good club if he did well (not likely someone would pay a release clause if he had done badly anyway) So it makes it sound more like he wasn't that keen to join us, and the release clause was his way of being able to get away from us when the first opportunity arose (so would the clause, or more money really have made that much difference to his wanting to come here as some mentioned these options above, or would he have looked for a bigger club to hopefully come in whilst we were still negotiating)

 

[Lurchy]

If the release clause is a decent enough mark-up on what you pay, then you’ve had the benefit of the player and a profit - even if that means they go for a bargain. Only downside is you can’t control when the transfer happens.

You can to an extent. Clubs can and do put in a window when the clause is active (which is becoming more and more common).

 

[Littlemo]

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

He wanted to go to London apparently.

 

[Coldeanseagull]

Won't partake in this poll as I'm not in charge of player recruitment