Micah Richards

[StanBalaban]

3 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

I'm just amazed at some of these clauses (if true)

 

What Bobzy is trying to say, and has been said many times before, is that these clauses aren't drawn-up with figures that the club have plucked out of the air.

They're inserted after negotiations with the player and his agent and a compromised is reached so that the player signs in the first place. A club fighting relegation year-on-year may actually go down (as happened with us). Players don't want to be trapped in that situation and may chose not to sign with Villa at all, unless a reasonable release clause is put in place. 

Basically, put this clause in or don't sign the player at all. And before someone says, "just go and get another player then..." virtually all players would want such a clause barring those that have been perhaps recruited above their wildest dreams - think Bowery, Tonev, Sylla et al.

[markavfc40]

15 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

On a side note-WTF pencilled in these release clauses?£5million for a player we signed on a free yet only £7million for a player we signed for £9 million.

Richards could not even get into Villas starting line up at the end of last season-Nobody is going to pay anywhere near £5 million for him. Anything, just to get him away from the place will do, even if we let him go on a free. 

That release clause would have been put in when he negotiated the contract so we didn’t know how things would pan out (well maybe some did).

In fairness 5 mill doesn’t get you a fat lot so it was hardly an extortionate release clause. Despite what happened last season I wouldn’t be surprised if another club was willing to stump that up for him.

As for the release clauses some of the other players have I am sure the club would have loved to slap 20 mill release clauses on every player we signed but the players had other ideas and those were the figures we had to accept to convince them to sign in the first place.

[Butterfingers]

4 minutes ago, sparrow1988 said:

So if one goes for 7 and cost 9 - Loss of 2mill

The other signed for free and goes for 5 - Profit of 5mill

Overall Profit/Loss - 3mill. Sounds like good business to me.

It sounds like excellent business.

The only problem we have is that nobody is going to pay anywhere near £5million for Richards. When talking about understanding "the basic premise of negotiations", lets analyse the Richards deal, assuming the figures we have are correct.

We get him for nothing and put him on ludicrously high wages-Fair enough.
He may have a clause that sees his wages halve if we go down-This would still leave him on wages that are higher than many PL players and money that many Villa players were on last season.
To place a release clause of £5million on someone who would ideally be moved on due to his high wages is absolute idiocy. We are effectively placing barriers in front of something that we would want to happen.

Richards being on twice as much as Gana would see that gap in profit diminish over a two year period.

Gana was our first signing last summer. We had plenty of time to do the deal-There was no need whatsoever to place such a low release clause-It is almost unheard of when negotiating these deals. Gana was desperate to join us-It can never be argued that he held the upper hand in negotiations regarding his release clause.

Regarding it being good business, with the benefit of hindsight, do you honestly, hand on heart think that being stuck with Richards on high wages and loosing Gana at a loss is good business?

Personally, if we could get £12 million for both of them, I would be very happy as I don't rate Gana as highly as many on here do. I also think you have to be on drugs to think that someone will pay £5 million for a troublemaker who couldn't even get into the starting line up of one of the worst ever PL teams in history.

[markavfc40]

10 hours ago, Butterfingers said:

To place a release clause of £5million on someone who would ideally be moved on due to his high wages is absolute idiocy. We are effectively placing barriers in front of something that we would want to happen.

 

The release is 5 mill. We can still sell him for 50p if we want.

Edited July 20, 2016 by markavfc40

[Butterfingers]

7 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

That release clause would have been put in when he negotiated the contract so we didn’t know how things would pan out (well maybe some did).

In fairness 5 mill doesn’t get you a fat lot so it was hardly an extortionate release clause. Despite what happened last season I wouldn’t be surprised if another club was willing to stump that up for him.

As for the release clauses some of the other players have I am sure the club would have loved to slap 20 mill release clauses on every player we signed but the players had other ideas and those were the figures we had to accept to convince them to sign in the first place.

If these foreign players had better offers, they would not have joined Villa. We were in the driving seat regarding negotiations. If (as transpired) we went down, we would not want to be stuck with a player on such high wages-Especially given there was no inckling of a takeover at the time. Placing a £5million release clause on a player that you would ideally like to get rid of makes no sense to me. Gana on the other hand will be earning championship wages next season and subsequently is not such a financial burden. There is little to be gained by selling him at a loss, especially when we would have been in a strong position during the negotiations.

[StanBalaban]

1 minute ago, Butterfingers said:

It sounds like excellent business.

The only problem we have is that nobody is going to pay anywhere near £5million for Richards. When talking about understanding "the basic premise of negotiations", lets analyse the Richards deal, assuming the figures we have are correct.

We get him for nothing and put him on ludicrously high wages-Fair enough.
He may have a clause that sees his wages halve if we go down-This would still leave him on wages that are higher than many PL players and money that many Villa players were on last season.
To place a release clause of £5million on someone who would ideally be moved on due to his high wages is absolute idiocy. We are effectively placing barriers in front of something that we would want to happen.

Richards being on twice as much as Gana would see that gap in profit diminish over a two year period.

Gana was our first signing last summer. We had plenty of time to do the deal-There was no need whatsoever to place such a low release clause-It is almost unheard of when negotiating these deals. Gana was desperate to join us-It can never be argued that he held the upper hand in negotiations regarding his release clause.

Regarding it being good business, with the benefit of hindsight, do you honestly, hand on heart think that being stuck with Richards on high wages and loosing Gana at a loss is good business?

Personally, if we could get £12 million for both of them, I would be very happy as I don't rate Gana as highly as many on here do. I also think you have to be on drugs to think that someone will pay £5 million for a troublemaker who couldn't even get into the starting line up of one of the worst ever PL teams in history.

He was able to get his high-waged contract as he cost us nothing. With a release clause, it simply means that, if activated, the club cannot stand in the way of the player talking to the bidding club. It is at the club's discretion if they wish to entertain lower offers however.

If the manager wants rid of Richards but no one wants to pay £5m, the owner can decide to accept whatever offers come. Obviously the player has to agree to the terms of the bid too.

[bobzy]

5 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

It sounds like excellent business.

The only problem we have is that nobody is going to pay anywhere near £5million for Richards. When talking about understanding "the basic premise of negotiations", lets analyse the Richards deal, assuming the figures we have are correct.

We get him for nothing and put him on ludicrously high wages-Fair enough.
He may have a clause that sees his wages halve if we go down-This would still leave him on wages that are higher than many PL players and money that many Villa players were on last season.
To place a release clause of £5million on someone who would ideally be moved on due to his high wages is absolute idiocy. We are effectively placing barriers in front of something that we would want to happen.

Er, no?

The fee is a release clause.  It means that once that amount is reached, we have to let the player discuss terms with the bidding party.  It doesn't mean the other team has to bid £5m.  They could make a £2m bid and we could accept it.  The security aspect is from the players' point of view - they have a guarantee of moving clubs should the release clause be met.

[Butterfingers]

Just now, StanBalaban said:

He was able to get his high-waged contract as he cost us nothing. With a release clause, it simply means that, if activated, the club cannot stand in the way of the player talking to the bidding club. It is at the club's discretion if they wish to entertain lower offers however.

If the manager wants rid of Richards but no one wants to pay £5m, the owner can decide to accept whatever offers come. Obviously the player has to agree to the terms of the bid too.

So you're basically agreeing with my first post then?

[Butterfingers]

2 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

The release is 5mill. We can still sell him for 50p if you want.

Correct and that is why I said we should accept a free transfer if an offer is on the table

[StanBalaban]

1 minute ago, Butterfingers said:

So you're basically agreeing with my first post then?

Not really, if you're referring to this

"To place a release clause of £5million on someone who would ideally be moved on due to his high wages is absolute idiocy. We are effectively placing barriers in front of something that we would want to happen"

The barrier is artificial and can be lowered at our discretion, so if therefore not a barrier at all. The release clause comes in to play more if Richards has been the Benteke of the team last season, but we'd still gone down. It allows the player to get his move without the club putting up a "barrier" to stop him.

 

 

[Butterfingers]

18 minutes ago, StanBalaban said:

What Bobzy is trying to say, and has been said many times before, is that these clauses aren't drawn-up with figures that the club have plucked out of the air.

They're inserted after negotiations with the player and his agent and a compromised is reached so that the player signs in the first place. A club fighting relegation year-on-year may actually go down (as happened with us). Players don't want to be trapped in that situation and may chose not to sign with Villa at all, unless a reasonable release clause is put in place. 

Basically, put this clause in or don't sign the player at all. And before someone says, "just go and get another player then..." virtually all players would want such a clause barring those that have been perhaps recruited above their wildest dreams - think Bowery, Tonev, Sylla et al.

Well Bozby should have said that,

To suggest that people aren't aware that negotiations take place is the kind of comment that I'd expect from a 10 year old.

We were in the driving seat with Gana. If there was other interest, he wouldn't have signed so early in the window. As others have alluded to, we don't have to stick out for the figure written in the clause, we can accept a lower bid-To place a low release clause in is almost unheard of-Especially for someone unproven, coming over from France.

[AlwaysAVFC]

4 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

Correct and that is why I said we should accept a free transfer if an offer is on the table

Haha I'm glad your not running the club. Your opinion on players ability doesn't come into it, some still have some sale value and just like the club aren't going to pay off several players contracts, they are also not going to just give them away.

[StanBalaban]

1 minute ago, Butterfingers said:

Well Bozby should have said that,

To suggest that people aren't aware that negotiations take place is the kind of comment that I'd expect from a 10 year old.

We were in the driving seat with Gana. If there was other interest, he wouldn't have signed so early in the window. As others have alluded to, we don't have to stick out for the figure written in the clause, we can accept a lower bid-To place a low release clause in is almost unheard of-Especially for someone unproven, coming over from France.

We have literally no idea what our competition was to sign Gana. Do you really think the club chose a lower release clause at their own volition? 

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

If these foreign players had better offers, they would not have joined Villa. We were in the driving seat regarding negotiations. If (as transpired) we went down, we would not want to be stuck with a player on such high wages.

Well, Veretout picked us over Leicester. Gana picked us over Southampton. Adama picked us over Stoke.

I'm guessing that we had to make our contract offers sufficiently attractive to make that happen.

[StanBalaban]

4 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

Well Bozby should have said that,

To suggest that people aren't aware that negotiations take place is the kind of comment that I'd expect from a 10 year old.

We were in the driving seat with Gana. If there was other interest, he wouldn't have signed so early in the window. As others have alluded to, we don't have to stick out for the figure written in the clause, we can accept a lower bid-To place a low release clause in is almost unheard of-Especially for someone unproven, coming over from France.

I would suggest that some genuinely aren't aware that negotiations take place as we keep seeing comments questioning why Gana has a mooted £7m release clause, or comments saying it was stupid of the club to put an £8m release clause in Delph's new contract. "Who's stupid idea was that. It should have been at least twice that..." for instance.

[Michael118]

24 minutes ago, AlwaysAVFC said:

I think it depends what point. My opinion is that he wouldn't have kept us up if he came instead of Sherwood the previous season. Although it was never going to happen If we started the season with him then yes and instead if Garde probably, yes. Although we would have had to of got rid of Sherwwod sooner wouldn't we before Alladyce went to Sunderland?

It was about 2 weeks between Sherwood being sacked and Allardyce being appointed Sunderland manager. We let it drag on though which never should have happened knowing Allardyce was available and Sunderland would probably be interested.

 

[bobzy]

9 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

Well Bozby should have said that,

To suggest that people aren't aware that negotiations take place is the kind of comment that I'd expect from a 10 year old.

We were in the driving seat with Gana. If there was other interest, he wouldn't have signed so early in the window. As others have alluded to, we don't have to stick out for the figure written in the clause, we can accept a lower bid-To place a low release clause in is almost unheard of-Especially for someone unproven, coming over from France.

You post implied exactly this.

"Who is pencilling in a £5m release clause for a player signed on a free but a £7m clause on a player signed for £9m?  Makes no sense!!".  I mean, come on.

 

Edit:  This post shows it too!  It's a negotiation, we're not picking the figures out of thin air.

Edited July 20, 2016 by bobzy

[Butterfingers]

15 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Er, no?

The fee is a release clause.  It means that once that amount is reached, we have to let the player discuss terms with the bidding party.  It doesn't mean the other team has to bid £5m.  They could make a £2m bid and we could accept it.  The security aspect is from the players' point of view - they have a guarantee of moving clubs should the release clause be met.

Great

So why not put a higher clause in Ganas then?

Prey tell.

[bobzy]

Just now, Butterfingers said:

Great

So why not put a higher clause in Ganas then?

Prey tell.

I give up.

 

My answer will be:  this isn't Football Manager.  Think about it.

Edited July 20, 2016 by bobzy

[StanBalaban]

2 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

Great

So why not put a higher clause in Ganas then?

Prey tell.

Because Gana goes and signs for another team in that case.

How do you not get this?

*Edit - Gana doesn't sign for Aston Villa in the first place.

You're confusing getting rid of players we don't want to keep, with retaining players we don't want to leave. After relegation, if we inserted a £15m release clause for someone reasonably successful like Gana, not as many clubs would bid for him, if any, perhaps leaving the player with fewer options. Solution - he doesn't sign that contract in the first place.

With a £7m (if that is the case) release clause, if the player does his job over the season but the shit still hits the fan, the player knows there will be options for him. The Villa contact becomes something he's more willing to sign in the first place.

Edited July 20, 2016 by StanBalaban