A weird one

Its not a bug (I dont think) but a weird one and was just wondering what the real life outcome would be. so...

Im playing as Djurgardens in Swedens top flight and coming to the end of season two. My main striker Micheal Mifsud (Maltese legend) is coming to the end of his two year contract and I cant get him to sign a new deal due to lack of funds. Im about 2 million in debt.

So he has decided to do one and signed a pre-contract agreement with Lierse. However when i originally signed him, his contract was a two year deal with a third year if he played 25 games. In the penultimate game of the season I brought him on as sub and this triggering his extra year. So hes leaving me on a free, yet got a year left on his contract. I cant cancel his move to Lierse despite the fact i would still like to have him around.

Thoughts?

I think it is a bug. I do believe someone has brought it up in the bugs forum.

Here is one thread with a similar situation from the Bugs Forum.

Here is the thread started in GD and with the most responses.

Have a read through the second one and you may get your answer .

Nice one, i still cant decide if its right or not thought. I thiink in real life its down to the player to decide if he wants to take "the option" of the extention. In FM its an automatic extention therefore his pre-contract agreement should be cancelled. Anyway Mifsud's getting on a bit despite being a 25 goal a season man so im not too bothered.

Thanks again

I think with any option to extend it comes down to the club, the player has already agreed when he signed the deal. Stephen Kelly had an option to extend his contract at Spurs by 1yr as his contract expired, Spurs took up that option then sold him to Birmingham.

It wasn't based on any criteria, just that they could do it. So in theory he shouldn't be able to accept any offer until the club has made that decision.

The clause in his contract would become null and void because he has agreed a contract with a different club. If he had played in his 25th game before agreeing the contract with the other club then, the clause would still stand.

Not true... the clause has priority (assuming it is not the players option). He can, of course, agree a contract with another team but if he plays in a number of games then the clause takes precedence and he wants to still move he must buy his way out of the contract, or it can go to arbitration/tribunal. But legally, he will remain a player of the club. (It is in some ways similar to, say, the John bostock transfer saga - in that he will have signed with someone but that they would have to agree a fee.) Sadly I don't think this has ben implemented very well, not that it would be easy to implement.

The clause in his contract would become null and void because he has agreed a contract with a different club. If he had played in his 25th game before agreeing the contract with the other club then, the clause would still stand.

This. If you had played him in the requisite games first, he would have the year extention added and then not be "out of contract" for the move. However, he hadn't and so the clause in the contract could not be activated. In essence, the expiry date takes precedence as it is certain and will happen, rather than the clause, which not certain as it is dependent on other events happening.

Imagine if he had a relegation release fee of £2,000,000 and you sold him for £4,000,000 literally the day before relegation had been confirmed, the buying club could not then ask for the price to be reduced because you had been relegated. The new contract takes priority over the old contract.

Not true... the clause has priority (assuming it is not the players option). He can, of course, agree a contract with another team but if he plays in a number of games then the clause takes precedence and he wants to still move he must buy his way out of the contract, or it can go to arbitration/tribunal. But legally, he will remain a player of the club. (It is in some ways similar to, say, the John bostock transfer saga - in that he will have signed with someone but that they would have to agree a fee.) Sadly I don't think this has ben implemented very well, not that it would be easy to implement.

I agree with this. Surely his prior promise takes priority.

This. If you had played him in the requisite games first, he would have the year extention added and then not be "out of contract" for the move. However, he hadn't and so the clause in the contract could not be activated. In essence, the expiry date takes precedence as it is certain and will happen, rather than the clause, which not certain as it is dependent on other events happening.

Imagine if he had a relegation release fee of £2,000,000 and you sold him for £4,000,000 literally the day before relegation had been confirmed, the buying club could not then ask for the price to be reduced because you had been relegated. The new contract takes priority over the old contract.

If the player agrees to it when he signs the contract then it must be honoured... or sufficient compensation reached. Just likeif both clubs agree to transfer the player for £4,000,000 - they have to pay that £4,000,000 irrespective of what clauses are in the players contract. If you agree to something in a contract you have to fulfill it (or pay for it essentially). In this case the transfer was arranged before the clause.... but the player agrees to the extension before signing for another club.