What benefits are there to release clauses?

They seem a tad pointless...

Anyone care to explain?

They may be useful (not to me) if you set it at a certain figure that is silly but not silly enough for some club like Manchester City to think about spending a little extra to do away with the silly negotiation period. For example, if you set a £30m release clause on a player that is valued at £10m (and he's not worth £30m, not at all), you may lose him for £30m (after everyone else bids in the £20m range) if the clause-triggering club are desperate to sign the player, but you will have at least £10m more than you expected. If you set it at, say, £100m, then you may only attract bids at the most £25m, for example, as nobody is going to trigger the £100m clause.

So if you have a player that you don't really want to lose but are willing to lose for absolutely silly amounts, then set it at a figure that is tempting to exert but sounds modestly silly, except for filthy rich clubs willing to pay way over the odds.

I don't know if the AI takes advantage of this though, or simply favours negotiations, so it might just be a player-player thing.

The player can be bought for a certain price. What's the problem?

It's common for players to require buyout clauses to ensure that if a bigger team then the one they are signing for comes calling, they'll be able to transfer to the bigger club without hassle.

It is also a legal requirement in spain - hence why all players in the spanish league have one. They are pointless IMHO.

They're an incentive for the player to join your team. It's like offering a higher wage, or bonuses or so on: it might be what convinces the player to join you, particularly if you're not a massive club.

Think of it like this: there's this talented young Brazillian, lets call him Daveinho, who's expected to go onto big things, but the major clubs aren't sure how well he'd perform in Europe, so they're nto willing to take a risk on him. In come, say, Wigan. They make an offer of £6m which his club accepts. Now, Daveinho doesn't really want to spend his career at Wigan, but he thinks it'd be a good chance to show that he can perform in a major European league, in the hope of attracting a big club. The only problem is that, if he does perform well, then Wigan might well price him out of the market. Hence Daveinho asks for a release clause of, say, £10m. What do Wigan get out of it? Well, they get a potentially very talented player, which they otherwise would've been unlikely to get, for a season and some level of profit.

Release clauses are pointless especially in Spain, they just put massive release clauses on their players knowing full well that no club will bid that much, i mean £820m for Ronaldo is just insane.

Release clauses are pointless especially in Spain, they just put massive release clauses on their players knowing full well that no club will bid that much, i mean £820m for Ronaldo is just insane.

No it's just a statement of intent, "if you want to buy this player then you'll have to bankrupt 10 third-world countries". Also a player like CR7 will have his ego boosted by such a clause.

Another good thing about clauses is that you can steal players. I bought a 199PA regen (didn't look until well after purchase) of Atletico for £11m jsut because he was still on his first pro contract and he was 2 years away from Atletico 1st team.

Oh right cheers, well I certainly won't be using them.

Sometimes non-promotion or relegation clauses can be useful, players will often ask for these just in case the club he joins has a poor season, he can get out at a cheaper price.

Oh right cheers, well I certainly won't be using them.

Not even if using them helped you sign a player you might otherwise not been able to sign?

release clause pointless?

when the player is yours you can actually "lock" the player for no one to buy him

when the player is in another team and you can match the clause , you buy him without talking to his team

Personally, I use minimum release clauses as a deterrent.

Currently climbing up the leagues in Spain on my save and have managed to sign some great prospects. Because I've placed high release clauses on all my best signings, when clubs are interested and enquire about a transfer price, I always quote the minimum release clause figures. Not one club has yet stumped up the cash to match the clauses and none of the players have yet complained that I've rejected bids, over-priced them, or blocked moves to bigger clubs. They're all happy.

So purely from the aspect of a deterrent, the minimum release fee clause has worked wonderfully for me. If of course a club matches my ludicrous clause valuations, then that's fine.

Not even if using them helped you sign a player you might otherwise not been able to sign?

I'll buy players with release clauses.

But I won't use them myself unless I put a release clause of about £100million on a player.

They're an incentive for the player to join your team. It's like offering a higher wage, or bonuses or so on: it might be what convinces the player to join you, particularly if you're not a massive club.

Think of it like this: there's this talented young Brazillian, lets call him Daveinho, who's expected to go onto big things, but the major clubs aren't sure how well he'd perform in Europe, so they're nto willing to take a risk on him. In come, say, Wigan. They make an offer of £6m which his club accepts. Now, Daveinho doesn't really want to spend his career at Wigan, but he thinks it'd be a good chance to show that he can perform in a major European league, in the hope of attracting a big club. The only problem is that, if he does perform well, then Wigan might well price him out of the market. Hence Daveinho asks for a release clause of, say, £10m. What do Wigan get out of it? Well, they get a potentially very talented player, which they otherwise would've been unlikely to get, for a season and some level of profit.

this.

good players like it because it gives them the chance to be bought right away by bigger / richer clubs.

bad players like it because it gives them the security of earning their current wage at their current club for the length of the contract - (if you want to terminate his contract, you need to pay the release clause).

in theory, some players should be more willing to accept lower wages in exchange for a fair and attracting release clause for them.

I'll buy players with release clauses.

But I won't use them myself unless I put a release clause of about £100million on a player.

You are missing the point. A player may be more willing to join your club in the first place if you offer him a release clause. He may want an escape if the worst happens and the team is relegated, or if a better team comes in for him. Yes, it may mean you lose the player one day but it may be the thing that tips the balance and makes him decide to join your club in the first place.

Interesting.

I'm still not entirely keen on the idea though, I shall think about it.

There's much more to it than meets the eye though.

Interesting.

I'm still not entirely keen on the idea though, I shall think about it.

There's much more to it than meets the eye though.

what clubs have you managed though?

if you manage clubs in argentina or brazil, for instance, there is no way you would convince a hot prospect to re-negotiate his contract without offering either a huge salary or a sensible release clause.

most of the players from those countries are bought by the clubs in europe by meeting the release clause.

Personally, I use minimum release clauses as a deterrent.

Currently climbing up the leagues in Spain on my save and have managed to sign some great prospects. Because I've placed high release clauses on all my best signings, when clubs are interested and enquire about a transfer price, I always quote the minimum release clause figures. Not one club has yet stumped up the cash to match the clauses and none of the players have yet complained that I've rejected bids, over-priced them, or blocked moves to bigger clubs. They're all happy.

So purely from the aspect of a deterrent, the minimum release fee clause has worked wonderfully for me. If of course a club matches my ludicrous clause valuations, then that's fine.

That's exactly how I use the clauses as well. Just set it at some ridiculous amount when negotiating the contract, and then afterward, set the asking price to match the clause, and wish luck to all future bidders

Its quite funny though. Its called minimum release clause when in fact it is not the minimum that a player can go for it is the opposite.....so it should be a maximum release clause!

Its quite funny though. Its called minimum release clause when in fact it is not the minimum that a player can go for it is the opposite.....so it should be a maximum release clause!

Well, whoever is bidding, is always welcome to bid more than the clause. If I set my player's clause at 100 million, and a club comes in with 120 million bid, then by all means

I try not to use release clauses, because I want some sort of control over what price I want to sell the player for. And also sometimes who to sell to.

I try not to use release clauses, because I want some sort of control over what price I want to sell the player for. And also sometimes who to sell to.

I find they give me greater control. I set a key player a high release clause, and quote any enquirers that same high price and that way he can't complain about being priced out of the market or whatever, yet a player I sign as a stopgap will be set a low release clause so that I can easily dispose of him once he has served his purpose.

Its quite funny though. Its called minimum release clause when in fact it is not the minimum that a player can go for it is the opposite.....so it should be a maximum release clause!

It's minimum because it's the minimum fee for which the club has to sell.

I love them personally had so many good players from Spain, that are worth far more then there release clause.

Good stuff.

I can't understand why a player like Gourcuff only has a release clause of

Surely they could get so much more out of him?

Maybe in real life his agent said look we want to ensure that if a big club comes in for him that we can leave. The agent or whoever represents the player probably negotiated the figure and without it may have refused to sign a new contract or even join the club at all.

They allow you to reduce the wage bill but sometimes you have to pay to release the player.

Well, I think the use of a minimum-fee release clause should be pretty obvious irl. Players demand them to be able to move it they want for a certain price.

As a club, both irl and in FM, you obviously don't want them. While irl as a club you have no real choice usually when such clause is demanded (you can really just try to negotiate the fee up or set an early latest date or try to buy the clause by offering way better terms elsewhere, usually a shorter duration) in FM you can freely negotiate it out of the deal for nothing or at least set the fee so high as if it would not exist.

So, in FM terms the clause is useless, unless you find a player with a stupidly low clause at another club (which I just did, signed a world class striker for 3.5m due to his low clause )

They may be useful (not to me) if you set it at a certain figure that is silly but not silly enough for some club like Manchester City to think about spending a little extra to do away with the silly negotiation period. For example, if you set a £30m release clause on a player that is valued at £10m (and he's not worth £30m, not at all), you may lose him for £30m (after everyone else bids in the £20m range) if the clause-triggering club are desperate to sign the player, but you will have at least £10m more than you expected. If you set it at, say, £100m, then you may only attract bids at the most £25m, for example, as nobody is going to trigger the £100m clause.

So if you have a player that you don't really want to lose but are willing to lose for absolutely silly amounts, then set it at a figure that is tempting to exert but sounds modestly silly, except for filthy rich clubs willing to pay way over the odds.

I don't know if the AI takes advantage of this though, or simply favours negotiations, so it might just be a player-player thing.

I disagree. If a clause had any positive effect on other teams' offers in FM, I would clearly consider it as a bug.

Any club will always offer what a player is worth to him and will not offer more than that because there is a clause. If they offer that amount, they would have been ready to offer it without the clause as well.

From the selling club's perpective, the clause is always bad, as it leaves you no choice from a certain offer amount on. Nothing positive about it other than being able to get the player on a contract in the first place.

I was managing athletco madrid when i got offered the manutd job and I delayed it for a week offered aguero a new contract with a release clause of 10m and signed him for manutd when i joind them.. so there is a benefit

If you want to see it that way