Speculation Hiroshi Kiyotake (1. FC Nuremberg)

[Con]

Okay, sorry to DDID, it is actually sarcasm. I have just dipped into this thread and that wasn't clear to me.

 

The explanation is still the same to DK.

 

We bid under in case they are tempted to sell, because we don't want to start a bidding war.

 

If we have now bid over the release clause there may be a bidding war in progress.

[HalfTimePost]

Our story so far, allegedly:

 

"Hey, give you guys 7 1/2 million for Kiyotake."

 

"We are sorry, but the player is not for sale."

 

"Okay... Will you take 8 1/2 million?"

 

"Well that reaches the release clause, so legally we have to say yes, but on this occasion, we wont'

 

 

 

 

 

(Yes I know there isn't a release clause, im joking)

Edited July 7, 2013 by HalfTimePost

[Rob182]

Cheers Ryu

2) They are attributing the story to their print edition rather than to European papers or nebulous websites.

This interesting part, do you think it makes the story more likely or unlikely? Or does it not make a difference?

[Pelle]

Okay, sorry to DDID, it is actually sarcasm. I have just dipped into this thread and that wasn't clear to me.

 

The explanation is still the same to DK.

 

We bid under in case they are tempted to sell, because we don't want to start a bidding war.

 

If we have now bid over the release clause there may be a bidding war in progress.

 

There would still be no bidding war if a player has a release clause that has been met. It would be like going to the store and pay more for something than the price they've originally asked for. And you can't forbid a player to go to a team that has met the release clause even if another club has offered more.

 

Having said that, I too doubt that there even is a release clause. I don't think there are any hard evidence pointing at that.

[Dodgyknees]

Okay, sorry to DDID, it is actually sarcasm. I have just dipped into this thread and that wasn't clear to me.

The explanation is still the same to DK.

We bid under in case they are tempted to sell, because we don't want to start a bidding war.

If we have now bid over the release clause there may be a bidding war in progress.

Mine was an observation, not a question.

[sne]

 

Okay, sorry to DDID, it is actually sarcasm. I have just dipped into this thread and that wasn't clear to me.

 

The explanation is still the same to DK.

 

We bid under in case they are tempted to sell, because we don't want to start a bidding war.

 

If we have now bid over the release clause there may be a bidding war in progress.

 

There would still be no bidding war if a player has a release clause that has been met. It would be like going to the store and pay more for something than the price they've originally asked for. And you can't forbid a player to go to a team that has met the release clause even if another club has offered more.

 

Having said that, I too doubt that there even is a release clause. I don't think there are any hard evidence pointing at that.

 

Well there is the risk if more clubs get involved that there will be a bidding war over wages, and we won't win that

[Pelle]

 

 

Okay, sorry to DDID, it is actually sarcasm. I have just dipped into this thread and that wasn't clear to me.

 

The explanation is still the same to DK.

 

We bid under in case they are tempted to sell, because we don't want to start a bidding war.

 

If we have now bid over the release clause there may be a bidding war in progress.

 

There would still be no bidding war if a player has a release clause that has been met. It would be like going to the store and pay more for something than the price they've originally asked for. And you can't forbid a player to go to a team that has met the release clause even if another club has offered more.

 

Having said that, I too doubt that there even is a release clause. I don't think there are any hard evidence pointing at that.

 

Well there is the risk if more clubs get involved that there will be a bidding war over wages, and we won't win that

 

 

That's another worry, and it might get very real, but it doesn't have anything to do with Nürnberg.

[sne]

 

 

 

Okay, sorry to DDID, it is actually sarcasm. I have just dipped into this thread and that wasn't clear to me.

 

The explanation is still the same to DK.

 

We bid under in case they are tempted to sell, because we don't want to start a bidding war.

 

If we have now bid over the release clause there may be a bidding war in progress.

 

There would still be no bidding war if a player has a release clause that has been met. It would be like going to the store and pay more for something than the price they've originally asked for. And you can't forbid a player to go to a team that has met the release clause even if another club has offered more.

 

Having said that, I too doubt that there even is a release clause. I don't think there are any hard evidence pointing at that.

 

Well there is the risk if more clubs get involved that there will be a bidding war over wages, and we won't win that

 

 

That's another worry, and it might get very real, but it doesn't have anything to do with Nürnberg.

 

Nope, none whats so ever.

Just pointing out that if more clubs know they can get him for a certain sum it can cause problems for us

[samjp26]

Its quite obvious really, until we sell Bent and get rid of his 70k a week salary, Lambert can't move his finance slider from wage budget to transfer budget.

He's probably tried to adjust the budget but it just won't work until Bent goes, the option to get the board to complete the signing isn't appearing either.

Edited July 7, 2013 by samjp26

[HeyAnty]

Okay, sorry to DDID, it is actually sarcasm. I have just dipped into this thread and that wasn't clear to me.

The explanation is still the same to DK.

We bid under in case they are tempted to sell, because we don't want to start a bidding war.

If we have now bid over the release clause there may be a bidding war in progress.

What you on about, bidding wars. If a release clause is met its down to the player if he wants to go to you. Only war would be wages clubs offer him.

[Daniel]

When i read some of the shit people are putting about release clauses, it makes me think i'm the one being a thick word removed.

 

People are saying that the club has acknowledged our bid, but there is a waiting period for 4 more bids to come in before they will let us talk to him.

 

The club wants more than the release clause.

 

I thought once the release clause is triggered the club have no say?

[P3te]

 

I thought once the release clause is triggered the club have no say?

You're correct. They can't stop the player talking to anyone who has met the release clause, so there's no benefit in a club offering more as they won't have any more rights than a club who bids exactly that

[ryu.yokoi]

Cheers Ryu

2) They are attributing the story to their print edition rather than to European papers or nebulous websites.

This interesting part, do you think it makes the story more likely or unlikely? Or does it not make a difference?

 

I would think more likely if a media source independent of what weve been reading is reporting.

 

 

There would still be no bidding war if a player has a release clause that has been met. It would be like going to the store and pay more for something than the price they've originally asked for. And you can't forbid a player to go to a team that has met the release clause even if another club has offered more.

 

Having said that, I too doubt that there even is a release clause. I don't think there are any hard evidence pointing at that.

Everyone is talking like there is only one way to structure a release clause. Depending who is writing the contract it could be set up a number of ways. Think of every contract negotiation youve ever been involved with (not necesarily sports related), you fight for every word because they matter. We have no idea if a release clause is written (though kiyotake's lawyers will have been dumb not to pursue one given his fee coming to fcn was low), but if it exists we dont know how it written either. Unless you are arguing fifa only allows one treatment of the release clause, but ive heard of variations before (time requirements, favoriticism to particular teams, etc) that makes me think there is likely some flexibility.

[P3te]

 

Everyone is talking like there is only one way to structure a release clause. Depending who is writing the contract it could be set up a number of ways. Think of every contract negotiation youve ever been involved with (not necesarily sports related), you fight for every word because they matter. We have no idea if a release clause is written (though kiyotake's lawyers will have been dumb not to pursue one given his fee coming to fcn was low), but if it exists we dont know how it written either. Unless you are arguing fifa only allows one treatment of the release clause, but ive heard of variations before (time requirements, favoriticism to particular teams, etc) that makes me think there is likely some flexibility.

 

You're right, there are a huge amount of variants on clauses. However everything suggesting that a clause exists says it's a minimum fee clause, they're pretty straight forward. You meet the fee, the player can talk to you. Thinking about it, there could be argument about the structure of that fee. Clubs don't pay for players up front in one go, for example, and the parent club might argue that the fee is only relating to a single cash payment, rather than a structured deal with payment coming in installments. Perhaps that's why we bid £600k below - we might have offered the full price in a structured deal, but they said that doesn't apply to the clause as it's only relevant to an up front payment, so we came back and offered the clause less £600k straight up, which they then rejected

 

However, in both cases, that  would mean the clause was NOT triggered - the alleged ITKs have said that it has  been

Edited July 7, 2013 by P3te

[LondonLax]

There is nothing to say a release clause actually exists.

However if there was a release clause there would be no "bidding war" no club would offer more than the clause as there is no advantage to pay more than you need to.

[ryu.yokoi]

There is nothing to say a release clause actually exists.

However if there was a release clause there would be no "bidding war" no club would offer more than the clause as there is no advantage to pay more than you need to.

If thats how the release clause was written. you could alternatively set it up so the selling club could have first option to match new wages, or for that clause to become activated once a player triggers via performance, or if this speculation is right, you could set it up so that the selling club has to sell once the clause is triggered but can choose amongst the bidders (for example, they might do that to protect from losing a player to a competitor). Contracts are all negotiated individually and anyone claiming to know whats written into kiyotake's is being just as itk as the twitter peeps everyone here is bashing. (I am not claiming to know either, but can imagine ways that a selling club be able to sell above an exit clause depending how its written from when fcn first brought him over).

The only thing we know so far is that there was an enquiry and various media sources have speculated offers and clauses that could be paper talk. That nothing hasnt happened immediately could mean its all rubbish or that negotiations are taking a while, both being scenarios that happen all the time.

Edited July 7, 2013 by ryu.yokoi

[ryu.yokoi]

Everyone is talking like there is only one way to structure a release clause. Depending who is writing the contract it could be set up a number of ways. Think of every contract negotiation youve ever been involved with (not necesarily sports related), you fight for every word because they matter. We have no idea if a release clause is written (though kiyotake's lawyers will have been dumb not to pursue one given his fee coming to fcn was low), but if it exists we dont know how it written either. Unless you are arguing fifa only allows one treatment of the release clause, but ive heard of variations before (time requirements, favoriticism to particular teams, etc) that makes me think there is likely some flexibility.

You're right, there are a huge amount of variants on clauses. However everything suggesting that a clause exists says it's a minimum fee clause, they're pretty straight forward. You meet the fee, the player can talk to you. Thinking about it, there could be argument about the structure of that fee. Clubs don't pay for players up front in one go, for example, and the parent club might argue that the fee is only relating to a single cash payment, rather than a structured deal with payment coming in installments. Perhaps that's why we bid £600k below - we might have offered the full price in a structured deal, but they said that doesn't apply to the clause as it's only relevant to an up front payment, so we came back and offered the clause less £600k straight up, which they then rejected

 

However, in both cases, that  would mean the clause was NOT triggered - the alleged ITKs have said that it has  been

good example.

[maqroll]

Its quite obvious really, until we sell Bent and get rid of his 70k a week salary, Lambert can't move his finance slider from wage budget to transfer budget.

He's probably tried to adjust the budget but it just won't work until Bent goes, the option to get the board to complete the signing isn't appearing either.

And clubs wanting Bent know this, and will drive his fee way down...if we get 6m for him, I'll be surprised.

[LondonLax]

 

There is nothing to say a release clause actually exists.

However if there was a release clause there would be no "bidding war" no club would offer more than the clause as there is no advantage to pay more than you need to.

If thats how the release clause was written. you could alternatively set it up so the selling club could have first option to match new wages, or for that clause to become activated once a player triggers via performance, or if this speculation is right, you could set it up so that the selling club has to sell once the clause is triggered but can choose amongst the bidders (for example, they might do that to protect from losing a player to a competitor). Contracts are all negotiated individually and anyone claiming to know whats written into kiyotake's is being just as itk as the twitter peeps everyone here is bashing. (I am not claiming to know either, but can imagine ways that a selling club be able to sell above an exit clause depending how its written from when fcn first brought him over).

The only thing we know so far is that there was an enquiry and various media sources have speculated offers and clauses that could be paper talk. That nothing hasnt happened immediately could mean its all rubbish or that negotiations are taking a while, both being scenarios that happen all the time.

 

 

That is not actually a release clause then is it? It's just the club agreeing to sell a player at a certain price to some clubs and a different price to others.

 

A release clause implies the club must release the player even if they don't want to, be it to a competitor or any other club. 

[ryu.yokoi]

 

 

There is nothing to say a release clause actually exists.

However if there was a release clause there would be no "bidding war" no club would offer more than the clause as there is no advantage to pay more than you need to.

If thats how the release clause was written. you could alternatively set it up so the selling club could have first option to match new wages, or for that clause to become activated once a player triggers via performance, or if this speculation is right, you could set it up so that the selling club has to sell once the clause is triggered but can choose amongst the bidders (for example, they might do that to protect from losing a player to a competitor). Contracts are all negotiated individually and anyone claiming to know whats written into kiyotake's is being just as itk as the twitter peeps everyone here is bashing. (I am not claiming to know either, but can imagine ways that a selling club be able to sell above an exit clause depending how its written from when fcn first brought him over).

The only thing we know so far is that there was an enquiry and various media sources have speculated offers and clauses that could be paper talk. That nothing hasnt happened immediately could mean its all rubbish or that negotiations are taking a while, both being scenarios that happen all the time.

 

 

That is not actually a release clause then is it? It's just the club agreeing to sell a player at a certain price to some clubs and a different price to others.

 

A release clause implies the club must release the player even if they don't want to, be it to a competitor or any other club. 

 

 

I've read the types of clauses you describe above reported in press as 'release clauses' in the past. More complicated or differently structured release clauses, would likely still be reported as a 'release clause' in the end. P3te gave a nice example above of how fine print in one might lead to extended negotiation, one can easily envision a clause written to favor the selling club by giving them agency to select the winning bid so long as they are above the agreed floor - if you're the players agent you might take that to get some freedom for your player if the club is otherwise unwilling to include one in the contract.  

 

Not claiming to be ITK, or that the above is whats in the guy's contract, but if its whats being reported or tweeted or whatever, the fact you or I haven't seen it done before doesn't mean FCN's lawyers didnt write it in that way. 

Edited July 8, 2013 by ryu.yokoi