Jordan Amavi

[dn1982]

15 minutes ago, AlwaysAVFC said:

If I was an agent and a club wanted to put a relegation wage drop in the contract of my player, I would be be negotiating for as low a release clause as possible and wouldn't be accepting the same as what was paid.

Relegation drops are pretty standard. Why pay £9m but have a £4m release clause? You may aswell scrap the wage drop. To be worth a £5m drop he'd have to be on £10m a year in the first place!! 

[allani]

14 minutes ago, AlwaysAVFC said:

If I was an agent and a club wanted to put a relegation wage drop in the contract of my player, I would be be negotiating for as low a release clause as possible and wouldn't be accepting the same as what was paid.

If I was an agent I'd want to sell the players on my books for as much money as possible as often as possible.  I think I'd still be aiming for a high(ish) release clause so that I get a decent cut - I'd rather get my cut of £10m initial sale, my cut on the players new bumper wages, then get another cut on another £10m sale the next year.  It's not in my interest to negotiate a stupidly low release clause of say £5m.  I'd be backing my ability to be able to persuade another club that my player is worth signing post relegation - certainly for a lot more than 50% of what he was bought for 12 months before - after all the club only got relegated because the other 10 players were **** and no-one can keep winning points on their own.  Even if I had negotiated a 50% release clause I'd not be making that public knowledge until late August and would instead be hoping that buying clubs would value the player more and put in an offer well above the release clause and / or would be trying to trigger a bidding war (I don't think this is illegal?). Unless of course I knew that the player was **** and was only worth £5m to start with - in which case maybe I'd be thinking of grabbing the cash and running.  Agents are looking after themselves not the players they have on their books.

[AlwaysAVFC]

44 minutes ago, dn1982 said:

Relegation drops are pretty standard. Why pay £9m but have a £4m release clause? You may aswell scrap the wage drop. To be worth a £5m drop he'd have to be on £10m a year in the first place!! 

Surely you're just thinking from the clubs point of view. A player isn't going to want to play on less money in a lower profile, lower league and isn't going to want to be priced out of a quick exit.

I'm not suggesting it was a good move by Villa if true, but it's a likely possible scenario.

[Ginko]

I'm sure he does have a release clause but he did post that video of him training on twitter saying he was on his way back and hashtagged AVFC if I remember correctly.

Could have just been club PR though I suppose, just a strange move if he planned on moving on since we were relegated by that point I think.

Then again previous history has not been kind in this respect as we've been burned before with the likes of Delph and Downing. I think he'll go and he'll be immense wherever he ends up. Such a shame that we get a talent like him and he gets a season ending injury. Typical of our luck the last few years.

[AlwaysAVFC]

36 minutes ago, allani said:

If I was an agent I'd want to sell the players on my books for as much money as possible as often as possible.  I think I'd still be aiming for a high(ish) release clause so that I get a decent cut - I'd rather get my cut of £10m initial sale, my cut on the players new bumper wages, then get another cut on another £10m sale the next year.  It's not in my interest to negotiate a stupidly low release clause of say £5m.  I'd be backing my ability to be able to persuade another club that my player is worth signing post relegation - certainly for a lot more than 50% of what he was bought for 12 months before - after all the club only got relegated because the other 10 players were **** and no-one can keep winning points on their own.  Even if I had negotiated a 50% release clause I'd not be making that public knowledge until late August and would instead be hoping that buying clubs would value the player more and put in an offer well above the release clause and / or would be trying to trigger a bidding war (I don't think this is illegal?). Unless of course I knew that the player was **** and was only worth £5m to start with - in which case maybe I'd be thinking of grabbing the cash and running.  Agents are looking after themselves not the players they have on their books.

There's many ways for agents to get their money. I've just kept my client happy and got him out of a relegated club that he wasn't sure about going to with little fuss, got him a bigger signing on fee than he would have otherwise at his new club in a top league in Europe, took my cut and got a good reputation amongst some potential new clients.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stevo985]

53 minutes ago, dn1982 said:

Relegation drops are pretty standard. Why pay £9m but have a £4m release clause? You may aswell scrap the wage drop. To be worth a £5m drop he'd have to be on £10m a year in the first place!! 

 

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

People still see clauses as being inserted into contracts purely at the buying club's discretion.

It isn't. A lot of the time it's intended to persuade the player to join us. If we really wanted Amavi and his camp insisted on that clause or he wouldn't sign, then I can see why we've put it in.

Clauses don't come from the selling club all the time!

We don't just chuck buy out clauses in because we feel like it. If this clause is true then it would have come from Amavi's camp to ensure we couldn't force him to see out his contract if an offer came in for him.

It's the same as the Delph buy out clause last year. People moaned that we were stupid to put that in, but it would have come from Delph's side and was probably a deal breaker in getting him to sign an extension. It effectively made us £8m.

[dn1982]

37 minutes ago, AlwaysAVFC said:

Surely you're just thinking from the clubs point of view. A player isn't going to want to play on less money in a lower profile, lower league and isn't going to want to be priced out of a quick exit.

I'm not suggesting it was a good move by Villa if true, but it's a likely possible scenario.

My point is it'd be better for the club to keep him on full wages than to sell him for such a loss. Any decent agent would want a release clause but we'd be mad to do it unless it suited both parties. Taking a £5m loss when his wages wouldn't even be half that is stupid. 

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, dn1982 said:

My point is it'd be better for the club to keep him on full wages than to sell him for such a loss. Any decent agent would want a release clause but we'd be mad to do it unless it suited both parties. Taking a £5m loss when his wages wouldn't even be half that is stupid. 

But the alternative was in all probability to not sign him.

I assume the club thought the risk was worth it.

[dn1982]

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

 

Clauses don't come from the selling club all the time!

We don't just chuck buy out clauses in because we feel like it. If this clause is true then it would have come from Amavi's camp to ensure we couldn't force him to see out his contract if an offer came in for him.

It's the same as the Delph buy out clause last year. People moaned that we were stupid to put that in, but it would have come from Delph's side and was probably a deal breaker in getting him to sign an extension. It effectively made us £8m.

I don't doubt there is a clause and I'd say most of last years signings have them it's just the actual release fee. Most will be on  2-3m a year so why have a clause that loses you 4-5m? Delphs release clause has never been an issue it was the u turn! Anyway let's never speak of him again. 

[dn1982]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But the alternative was in all probability to not sign him.

I assume the club thought the risk was worth it.

If we used that across the board we will be another 20m in the hole!! 

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, dn1982 said:

I don't doubt there is a clause and I'd say most of last years signings have them it's just the actual release fee. Most will be on  2-3m a year so why have a clause that loses you 4-5m? 

Because Amavi (if it's true) insisted on having it or he wouldn't sign.

[dn1982]

30 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Because Amavi (if it's true) insisted on having it or he wouldn't sign.

Exactly if true! My point is why bother having a relegation wage drop if you're just going to allow the player to leave anyway and lose more than you'd save? So effectively in Amavi case he will cost us £14m if he leaves now I know we are not the best run but that doesn't offer anything for us as you'd be lucky to get that back for a top left back anyway!!! 

[John]

I hope we did not agree any relegation release clause let alone a £4m one! If we did agree such a clause I would trust we agreed any such bid would have to include a sell on clause of say a minimum of half of any difference between that fee and what we paid for him as well as say 20% of anything the buying club get in excess of the £9m we paid when he moves on. If not we have been taken for mugs!  

[nick76]

5 minutes ago, John said:

I hope we did not agree any relegation release clause let alone a £4m one! If we did agree such a clause I would trust we agreed any such bid would have to include a sell on clause of say a minimum of half of any difference between that fee and what we paid for him as well as say 20% of anything the buying club get in excess of the £9m we paid when he moves on. If not we have been taken for mugs!  

Mugs or a team that constantly fights relegation trying to attract one of the top young French left backs and knew if we didn't concede on some things we wouldn't get them

[John]

5 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Mugs or a team that constantly fights relegation trying to attract one of the top young French left backs and knew if we didn't concede on some things we wouldn't get them

Then I think we should have looked elsewhere. If this was the deal we agreed it suggests we surrendered rather than conceded.    

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, dn1982 said:

Exactly if true! My point is why bother having a relegation wage drop if you're just going to allow the player to leave anyway and lose more than you'd save? 

Because he might have got a career threatening injury and end up staying with us/nobody wants him.

[nick76]

On 5/9/2016 at 07:19, John said:

Then I think we should have looked elsewhere. If this was the deal we agreed it suggests we surrendered rather than conceded.    

Really, the only way you get better is by getting players better than you already have, getting players better than your current position in the league.  Therefore you have to concede on somethings in hope that with some other players you can move up to that level and those players dont leave or if they do you can then attract players on the next step above that.  Plus we didnt expect, despite recent league positions to be relegated.  Also some of the other concessions we may have had to give may have been worse than this i.e. silly wages, which lock you in for the term of the contract and then you have the Zogbia situation.  At the end of the day we didnt expect at the start of the season to be relegated and then we go and get relegated, there lies in our problem because it was an easy concession.

[lexicon]

A 4mil relegation clause? Don't be ridiculous. 

[Villarocker]

On 5/9/2016 at 17:07, dn1982 said:

I don't doubt there is a clause and I'd say most of last years signings have them it's just the actual release fee. Most will be on  2-3m a year so why have a clause that loses you 4-5m? Delphs release clause has never been an issue it was the u turn! Anyway let's never speak of him again. 

2-3m per year is 40-60k per week. For relatively unknown players from small French clubs. I doubt they're on that much. If they are, the deal brokers our end need an appointment with Mr John Gregory and his pump-action friend! 

[AtkinsonWonderGoal]

To be honest, the football manager game wages are not massively far from the truth given the info from footballers i know that are/were in the game, so you can work out what most people are on within a 5-10k bracket. Amavi is on nowhere near that sort of money being quoted above.

I know this is probably not as correct as you would want it to be, but the following was a good read for a base guide on wages at VP.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/510246/Revealed-Aston-Villa-player-wages

For me, the relegation release clause should be higher than his normal value. Hopefully to increase income if they player does want to go. If we want to keep him and he is not setting the world alight then clubs wont pay it and he stays until someone does. If they decide to take the punt, the buying club makes their choice. Benteke was a prime example. Liverpool wanted him and we put a lightly increased value on his head. "you want him, you pay scenario". If the player has not performed then people wont meet this and the club may denote a new value that will seal the deal. This can be agreed by both parties outside of the written clause, as it was the club who put it in. IT is the players agent to agree to the ceiling that the club want though. Wages, player happiness, team ethic, manager plans and other players available on the market are all taken into account before it is decided to let him go cheaper than release clause values though.