Katarina Doesn't Want To Invest Anymore In The Club - Krueger

[Batman]

Do you have a source for the existence of the two release clauses. I am not disagreeing with you, I would just like to check the information out.

 

It's the new trendy thing to say

Different phrase each week

[View From The Top]

It's the new trendy thing to say

Different phrase each week

 

Shaw and Chambers both had release clauses. Unless the players themselves are lying to their fellow England players and coaches. I'd been saying about Shaw going for £27m since September/October and had also said that Arsenal were after Chambers and had been for ages but the fee and timing came out of the blue and the club could do nothing, hence the statement about doing everything to keep the young players, which in the case of Chambers, appears to be true.

 

JWP has the same clause but has said he's not going anywhere.

 

Take or leave it as you like.

Edited 6 August, 2014 by View From The Top

[SydneyFC]

Fair enough, If I was an invest of this club I would not want to invest anymore.

 

Aim for 1st not below 8th.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

Shaw and Chambers both had release clauses. Unless the players themselves are lying to their fellow England players and coaches. I'd been saying about Shaw going for £27m since September/October and had also said that Arsenal were after Chambers and had been for ages but the fee and timing came out of the blue and the club could do nothing, hence the statement about doing everything to keep the young players, which in the case of Chambers, appears to be true.

 

JWP has the same clause but has said he's not going anywhere.

 

Take or leave it as you like.

 

Which I guess means that we have to build as successful a team as we can because when JWP feels he has developed enough as a player here and the right offer comes in, he will be off too. Maybe next year, maybe not, but we have to aim to take three steps forwards from here in the expectation of two steps back in the following summer - and that's the way it will be for a club of our size.

 

Maybe Cortese's vision (and maybe that of Liebherr snr, I don't know) stretched to enlarging the ground in the understanding that the only way that the FFP rules really enable you to grow as a club is by generating that income through the gates? If Katarina is not investing any more (which is understandable) then there will always be that glass ceiling for us and selling players will always be the way. FFP rules will just make everything more obvious as we have to really get those players going through our books to stop us going backwards.

[shurlock]

No evidence whatsoever of a release clause for Chambers - so what if Arsenal were tracking him? Lots of our players are tracked.

 

The mongboard myth is that release clauses are prevalent in the English game when in fact they are few and far between, as noted by the sports lawyer Ian Lynam . Where they exist, they are generally reported by the media.

 

Ultimately, Chambers wanted to go -at some point, we came to the conclusion rightly or wrongly that the costs of keeping a wantaway player outweighed the benefits "an insane risk" in RK's words- and it was sanctioned by Koeman who didn't feel he was a sufficiently important player to justify going to war over.

 

It's as simple as that.

Edited 7 August, 2014 by shurlock

[Mallagroth]

No evidence whatsoever of a release clause for Chambers - so what if Arsenal were tracking him? Lots of our players are tracked.

 

Chambers wanted to go -at some point, we came to the conclusion rightly or wrongly that the costs of keeping a wantaway player outweighed the benefits "an insane risk" in RK's words- and it was sanctioned by Koeman who didn't feel he was a sufficiently important player to justify going to war over.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

This I reckon.

[Redslo]

I googled Luke Shaw release clause. All the release clause reference were to other players mentioned in the same article. Same with Chambers. Other than Southampton related forums I can't find a mention of releases clauses. Does anyone know of any source for this information other than unsupported rumors and speculations? Wait, I have just excluded the entire internet.

[Saint Without a Halo]

No evidence whatsoever of a release clause for Chambers - so what if Arsenal were tracking him? Lots of our players are tracked.

 

The mongboard myth is that release clauses are prevalent in the English game when in fact they are few and far between, as noted by the sports lawyer Ian Lynam . Where they exist, they are generally reported by the media.

 

Ultimately, Chambers wanted to go -at some point, we came to the conclusion rightly or wrongly that the costs of keeping a wantaway player outweighed the benefits "an insane risk" in RK's words- and it was sanctioned by Koeman who didn't feel he was a sufficiently important player to justify going to war over.

 

 

It's as simple as that.

 

Agreed

 

When a youngster like Chambers gets his first couple of pro contracts the negotiating cards are usually still heavily weighted in the clubs favour. At this stage the player is generally competing with many other young good players for a few valued pro contracts it is therefore highly unlikely a release clause will be asked for or agreed with the majority of under 20 players. Release clauses are usually inserted by players with an established track record in the game who believe they have a much greater worth and potential than at the club they are signing with and the club goes along with it as they require the player at that point in time and they are happy to sell him on at the figure the clause is triggered at. Before last year Chambers had little value in the game!

[Bucks Saint]

That's it, you explain, I moan lol. Yep get 90m in every season of transfer money and you become self sustaining, simples

 

Ok you avoid the question and carry on being deliberately obtuse.

[jasonb]

Glad to see this trolling thread hijacked by so much sense.

 

Indeed. So refreshing to read reasoned, researched posts backed up with accurate evidence.

 

This thread could well be a turning point where decent posters take the forum back.

 

All together now...

[Toon Saint]

No evidence whatsoever of a release clause for Chambers - so what if Arsenal were tracking him? Lots of our players are tracked.

 

The mongboard myth is that release clauses are prevalent in the English game when in fact they are few and far between, as noted by the sports lawyer Ian Lynam . Where they exist, they are generally reported by the media.

 

Ultimately, Chambers wanted to go -at some point, we came to the conclusion rightly or wrongly that the costs of keeping a wantaway player outweighed the benefits "an insane risk" in RK's words- and it was sanctioned by Koeman who didn't feel he was a sufficiently important player to justify going to war over.

 

It's as simple as that.

Bang on.

Agreed

 

When a youngster like Chambers gets his first couple of pro contracts the negotiating cards are usually still heavily weighted in the clubs favour. At this stage the player is generally competing with many other young good players for a few valued pro contracts it is therefore highly unlikely a release clause will be asked for or agreed with the majority of under 20 players. Release clauses are usually inserted by players with an established track record in the game who believe they have a much greater worth and potential than at the club they are signing with and the club goes along with it as they require the player at that point in time and they are happy to sell him on at the figure the clause is triggered at. Before last year Chambers had little value in the game!

Nail on head. Really can't see Cortese, of all people, ceding that much power to a youngster and the potential buying club by allowing such a clause to be inserted.

[Toon Saint]

I googled Luke Shaw release clause. All the release clause reference were to other players mentioned in the same article. Same with Chambers. Other than Southampton related forums I can't find a mention of releases clauses. Does anyone know of any source for this information other than unsupported rumors and speculations? Wait, I have just excluded the entire internet.

The only thing I've ever seen mentioned was a reference to Luke Shaw's agent trying to insert a clause into his contract whereby he could leave if Cortese left. Think that was in a Ben Smith article on BBC website though, so might well just be Cortese blowing his own trumpet. Not sure it actually ended up being formalised in the contract, funnily enough.

Edited 7 August, 2014 by Toon Saint

[OldNick]

Ok you avoid the question and carry on being deliberately obtuse.

Of course you can point to we are going to spend 90 over time. RK gave the impression in his interview and none of the media picked that it it wouldn't be here and now, but over years. Had he said over the years the headlines would have been much different and the fans would not have stomached it so easily, especially in the mood they were in. Using that RL could say he spent 10of millions in his tenure. So you can steady the ship and not spend 90m, they are steadying the ship by deluding the fans that they are doing both at the same time when they are not.

Edited 7 August, 2014 by OldNick

[Turkish]

Franks cousin. You're facts are well off.

 

You say this

 

"There really is a load of mis informed speculative and obviously agenda ridden ****** written on here.... And sadly so much of now seems to be urban myth... "

 

I'm aware of actual numbers. Posting made up numbers doesn't help.

 

It's a typical FC post. Accuse others of having agendas, being misinformed and speculative before then doing exactly that himself in as many sentences as possible.

[Bucks Saint]

Of course you can point to we are going to spend 90 over time. RK gave the impression in his interview and none of the media picked that it it wouldn't be here and now, but over years. Had he said over the years the headlines would have been much different and the fans would not have stomached it so easily, especially in the mood they were in. Using that RL could say he spent 10of millions in his tenure. So you can steady the ship and not spend 90m, they are steadying the ship by deluding the fans that they are doing both at the same time when they are not.

 

At least you are consistent. You obviously dont understand that the club has other income streams or that the transfer window is not shut

[OldNick]

At least you are consistent. You obviously dont understand that the club has other income streams or that the transfer window is not shut

yes we have other revenue streams, frigging massive ones but we still sold 90m worth of talent and spent little of it. Where is that going? afterall the wages and fees etc are now covered by the blanket 'we will spend every penny of the transfer money coming in'

I would not be as condescending to you as to imply you dont understand of course.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It is just not true that the club have the upper hand when players like Shaw and chambers are offered their first pro contract. The scouting at the big clubs is so good nowadays that these players don't just appear from nowhere, clubs were all aware of how good Shaw, chambers ect are and will have loved to have pinched them before they signed pro contracts as they would have saved a bundle. I don't know if there was official release clauses or not, but how are you going to convince the next Luke Shaw to sign a 5 year deal at 18 ( and protect our investment) if you start denying them " dream " moves to the biggest clubs later on?

[The9]

The only thing I've ever seen mentioned was a reference to Luke Shaw's agent trying to insert a clause into his contract whereby he could leave if Cortese left. Think that was in a Ben Smith article on BBC website though, so might well just be Cortese blowing his own trumpet. Not sure it actually ended up being formalised in the contract, funnily enough.

 

The Ben Smith article after Cortese left indicated that "at least one player" had a Cortese leaving clause. It didn't specify who, though others on here have also said it was Shaw. Given the rumours about Cortese trying to sign all the academy players to Stellar along with Shaw, I wouldn't be surprised.

[badgerx16]

..but we still sold 90m worth of talent and spent little of it. .....

 

I would think with Pelle & Tadic signing, plus the loan agreements, we've probably spent over 25% of it so far. Hopefully there is some veracity in the Rojo story, and that would take us up to over a third of it, with 3 weeks to go. We were never going to get anywhere near spending the lot in this window.

[OldNick]

I would think with Pelle & Tadic signing, plus the loan agreements, we've probably spent over 25% of it so far. Hopefully there is some veracity in the Rojo story, and that would take us up to over a third of it, with 3 weeks to go. We were never going to get anywhere near spending the lot in this window.

Yep could be the case add wages as well.

[Window Cleaner]

Yep could be the case add wages as well.

 

Why, we're no doubt paying them less than those that we've replaced. Aren't salaries and stuff what the PL give us money for, not to mention selling tickets

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for salaries to be subsidised by transfer profits, not at our level of salary anyway. We made 79 odd million from the PL funds and

we no doubt make another 20 million or so from ticket sales. Egg told us that the club had an overall salary mass of about 52 million last season, since then we've shipped out a few no doubt high earners. So what are we doing with our football earnings.

[View From The Top]

It is just not true that the club have the upper hand when players like Shaw and chambers are offered their first pro contract. The scouting at the big clubs is so good nowadays that these players don't just appear from nowhere, clubs were all aware of how good Shaw, chambers ect are and will have loved to have pinched them before they signed pro contracts as they would have saved a bundle. I don't know if there was official release clauses or not, but how are you going to convince the next Luke Shaw to sign a 5 year deal at 18 ( and protect our investment) if you start denying them " dream " moves to the biggest clubs later on?

 

Which is exactly what has happened.

 

Most of us can recall the bedwetting before Shaw signed a pro-contract when it was clear Chelsea were wooing player and parents. Deal is struck between player/agent/parents/club which keeps everyone happy until that clause is activated.

[Redslo]

Why, we're no doubt paying them less than those that we've replaced. Aren't salaries and stuff what the PL give us money for, not to mention selling tickets

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for salaries to be subsidised by transfer profits, not at our level of salary anyway. We made 79 odd million from the PL funds and

we no doubt make another 20 million or so from ticket sales. Egg told us that the club had an overall salary mass of about 52 million last season, since then we've shipped out a few no doubt high earners. So what are we doing with our football earnings.

 

Actually, if we want our payroll to exceed 56 million pounds this year we have to have transfer profits or other increased income excluding TV money. This is from the BPL handbook:

 

E.18. If in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services

Costs and Image Contract Payments:

E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively; and

E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year or

by more than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Season 2012/13;

then the Club must satisfy the Board that such excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises

as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that

it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as

disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year.

 

I analyze this in more detail in my blog:

 

redsloscf.BlogSpot.com