Jump to content

Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17


wild-saint

Recommended Posts

Nope, it is you with the fundamental mistake. There is no need for any club to offer more than the release clause as meeting the release clause means it is automatically accepted.

Sorry, but you are also completely, fundamentally wrong. It is a minimum to trigger, not a maximum. There is no need to offer more to trigger it as you say but that doesn't make it a maximum. Try referring to any literature on the subject, if you don't believe me. Here are some examples to help you, easily found by using Google just to check I was right:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-release-clause-in-a-professional-footballers-contract

http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/

http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/3058/in-european-football-what-exactly-is-a-release-clause

If it were the maximum then offering £1 over the clause limit would not invoke the release clause. But offering under by £1 would not trigger it. Simple use of English/Maths old boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why on earth would you offer more than the minimum required

 

if VvDs release clause is say, £25m, why would anyone who wants him come in at £30m?

 

who cares what the definitions are, means little to the bank balance in this (pretend) case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you are also completely, fundamentally wrong. It is a minimum to trigger, not a maximum. There is no need to offer more to trigger it as you say but that doesn't make it a maximum. Try referring to any literature on the subject, if you don't believe me. Here are some examples to help you, easily found by using Google just to check I was right:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-release-clause-in-a-professional-footballers-contract

http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/

http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/3058/in-european-football-what-exactly-is-a-release-clause

If it were the maximum then offering £1 over the clause limit would not invoke the release clause. But offering under by £1 would not trigger it. Simple use of English/Maths old boy.

Read MLG's post again and tell me what's "completely, fundamentally wrong" about it.

 

Take your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, it is you with the fundamental mistake. There is no need for any club to offer more than the release clause as meeting the release clause means it is automatically accepted.

Liverpool and Luis Suarez suggests no, not always. Arsenal's bid triggered the release clause but Liverpool refused to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just supposing....

 

The £25M release clause does exist.

 

But only takes effect after a certain period of time stipulated (which is what the rag(s) doesn't say).

 

eg: "X year deal, we want X years from you, however, if a club comes in with a bid of £25M after that period you can go".

 

That's likely the case and that's probably his contract. It's unlikely a player is going to commit to a contract of that sort of length without that type of clause in there, those types of clauses are

pretty bog standard and any smart agent worth his salt would request that.

 

Virgil signed a 6 year contract, that's a massive length of time where circumstances can change in that time.

 

They are designed to protect the player and the club. It's common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool and Luis Suarez suggests no, not always. Arsenal's bid triggered the release clause but Liverpool refused to accept it.

 

Because it wasn't a proper release clause.

 

Vectis Saint is correct. There is no need for a club to offer more but the release clause is the minimum bid that can't be rejected by the club. It's quite simple.

 

The reason why a club MIGHT bid more is because they are unaware of the terms of the player's contract. Probably unlikely in reality but that's the theoretical answer and it's why Vectis is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool and Luis Suarez suggests no, not always. Arsenal's bid triggered the release clause but Liverpool refused to accept it.

 

Suarez had a unusual release clause in his contract at Liverpool that said that Liverpool had to respond and engage in any offer that matched the clause. He didn't want to run in the problems he had with his transfer to Ajax where Groningen initially refused to talk to Ajax and he had to go to court and all kinds of shenanigans.

 

It all depends on the clause. Summer/winter window, certain teams/leagues etc, there's all kinds of nonsense in those but that one Suarez had was pretty unusual cause it wasn't really a release clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see him going in Jan, on the grounds that we rarely do major business in Jan (at least lately), and Saints would be bats**t crazy to let him go in Jan.

 

Agree. I'd expect it to be in the summer. I wouldn't say no to throwing in a couple of the Chelsea lads into the deal. (Although Part/Ex's never happen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed up to wasserman. Same agency used by koeman

 

 

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

Oh dear. Gone by next summer latest.

 

Thing is his stock has risen and ours has gone down since he signed. Things have changed a lot not least the appointment a new uninspiring manager playing negative football leading to nights like last night which are hardly likely to inspire him to ignore reported interest from huge clubs willing to double his wages. I'm struggling to identify reasons that he would want to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think we will say no in January. Six year flipping contract signed five months ago. I was realistic enough to know that might only get us to July 2017 but if we sell in January that's a clusterf uck of epic, epic proportions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why on earth would you offer more than the minimum required

 

if VvDs release clause is say, £25m, why would anyone who wants him come in at £30m?

 

who cares what the definitions are, means little to the bank balance in this (pretend) case

 

Because more than one interested club could trigger the release clause at which point it becomes open season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because more than one interested club could trigger the release clause at which point it becomes open season

 

But IF 25m is the release clause they only have to bid that to speak to him then he'll just choose the club with the best terms !?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just softening us up for him leaving in the summer. They'll present it as some kind of victory if we can hang on to him in January. To be honest I'm amazed it's taken this long for other clubs to notice that he's the best defender in the league. Koeman sounds a bit twitchy at the moment. Wouldn't surprise me if he's been on the Dutchphone....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/14961355.Puel__van_Dijk_buyout_talk__not_true_/

 

"Southampton manager Claude Puel says Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract"

 

Did he say "Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract" or "Virgil van Dijk does not have a buyout clause in his contract" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because more than one interested club could trigger the release clause at which point it becomes open season

 

that does not make any sense.

If £25m is a release clause, why would a club bid more to be able to offer a contract to him?

 

Man u could bid £25m and Everton could bid £75m...both could still offer him a deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just supposing....

 

The £25M release clause does exist.

 

But only takes effect after a certain period of time stipulated (which is what the rag(s) doesn't say).

 

eg: "X year deal, we want X years from you, however, if a club comes in with a bid of £25M after that period you can go".

 

That's likely the case and that's probably his contract. It's unlikely a player is going to commit to a contract of that sort of length without that type of clause in there, those types of clauses are

pretty bog standard and any smart agent worth his salt would request that.

 

Virgil signed a 6 year contract, that's a massive length of time where circumstances can change in that time.

 

They are designed to protect the player and the club. It's common.

 

Where have you been? Went very quiet after all those ITK snippets petered to nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he say "Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract" or "Virgil van Dijk does not have a buyout clause in his contract" ?

 

After going through the monumental effort of clicking the link and checking, I have your answer:

"However, Puel was utterly definitive when asked about the existence of a buyout clause.

 

“It’s not true,” he insisted.

 

“After the other thing is just speculation.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/14961355.Puel__van_Dijk_buyout_talk__not_true_/

 

"Southampton manager Claude Puel says Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract"

I'd like to join the club historian and various other assorted dinlows in denouncing this as nonsense.

 

Look, we've already all got together and decided VVD definitely has a release clause and we've already comprehensively berated Les Reed for being such a clueless dribbling moron for putting one in - I mean, how could he be so stupid, I despair of the running of the club by these idiots, I really do - so I for one am not going to let trivial media lies and spin of the manager being directly quoted unequivically saying he doesnt have one get in the way of slagging off the club for being useless, terrible cretins. Clubcall or some website or other said there is one and that, frankly, is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...