11 Jun 2016 07:49:12
Ok, its silly season again. I tried searching for that piece by ed002 about the various tyoes of clauses and how they work, but to no avail. Can someone please post it here? Thanks in advance.

{Ed002's Note - This is a horribly complex area not least because they are written under individual national laws.

The "buy out" clause is legally binding between a club and a player. The "buy out" is effectively what it says - a means for the player to buy himself out of the contract. As an example, if a player wishes to buy himself out of a contract, he pays the applicable FA (on behalf of the club) the amount of the "buy out" clause effectively becoming a free agent. The problem is that in most cases a player would need to obtain that money from the buying club - and this is fraught with issues regarding "tapping up" and, of course, taxation as it can be seen as income for the player and would therefore be subject to income tax. There was a test case about the taxation issue in Spain about three years ago. So "buy out" clauses are very rare.

A "release clause" is far more common in that it gives a figure that the club would accept for the sale of a player to another club - but it is not legally binding except where both parties are in the same country (for the sake of argument I should say that Spain and Portugal count as the same country as do England and Wales) for legal purposes. These are normally unreasonably high figures (Messi at Barcelona for example) introduced to act as a deterrent for hostile bids - and even then the club could easily block a move. However, if a club does agree to match a release clause then the selling club would be obliged to ask the player if he is interested - there is no obligation on the player to make a move. For interested clubs outside of the country the selling club may use it as a guide but are under obligation to accept a bid.

There is then the becoming popular "termination clause" which is binding between the player and the club and if met would see an offer from anywhere accepted and the player given the opportunity to make a call on a move. This overcomes the issues associated with "buy out" clauses as the money would be paid by one club to another.}

1.) 11 Jun 2016
11 Jun 2016 10:40:50
Thank you Ed, legend as always. But out of curiosity, does that mean that the Suarez 'Release Clause' that was reported when he was at Liverpool was misleading info (shock horror)?

Arsenal reportedly bid the 40million clause but it was turned down. As they're in the same country that would have been impossible by what you've said, so am I right in assuming that we were given misinformation by the news outlets over this?

{Ed002's Note - The situation with Arsenal was that with Suarez desperate to leave the previous summer Liverpool had agreed that if any offer over £40M was made then Suarez would be allowed to move if he wanted to. This was not a buy out or release clause but what is now becoming more popular – a termination clause. At the time, the expectation was that Real Madrid would step in (which was what Suarez then wanted) with an offer but it was far too low for Liverpool to accept. Arsenal made the offer of £40M plus £1 as Guardiola was unsure whether it was “£40M and above” or “over £40M” – there was nothing wrong with that. At the time, as this was seemingly the only way out of Liverpool, Suarez was willing to accept this as a stepping stone to one of the major Spanish clubs, but the Liverpool board blocked it. Suarez's agents took legal advice and were set to argue that Arsenal matched the clause that allowed to leave and that they should allow the player to discuss the transfer with Arsenal as soon as is possible. They would then look to leverage this legal position to stop Liverpool blocking the transfer and were willing to use the £2M then due the player as an incentive in order to facilitate the transfer. Suarez would have moved to Arsenal given the opportunity and this is when he started his campaign against the club regarding broken promises etc.. That summer, Liverpool agreed that he would be able to leave the following summer, regardless – this was done to avoid any potential legal battle. By the following summer Barcelona were interested and that suited Suarez – better than Madrid he tells the Catalan media when they ask. If the matter had of gone to court there would be no doubt the move could have been forced. An appeal would have perhaps been considered by Liverpool but that would have potentially dragged on long enough to stop Suarez playing for anyone until it was resolved – and that could have had disastrous consequences for Liverpool.}

2.) 11 Jun 2016
11 Jun 2016 10:48:02
Well that cleared up a question I've wondered for years now, so thank you Ed. Always appreciated.

{Ed002's Note - You are welcome Mike.}

3.) 11 Jun 2016
11 Jun 2016 12:17:14
Thank you so much ed
Really appreciate it.

{Ed002's Note - No problem.}

4.) 12 Jun 2016
11 Jun 2016 20:28:15
Ed002,
I'm a big Suarez fan and was always gutted he wasn't allowed to join us.

Your reply has cleared up a lot of issue's.

Glad he didn't join us now.

Thank you Ed.