The objective of minimum fee release clause

Throughout the FM series, SI has missed the point of having a minimum fee release clause, to the point of it being rather useless most of the times.

The situation is extended because this clause is (or should be) closely linked with the chairman's interference when selling your players.

The idea of the minimum fee release clause is really to protect the club from losing their players. This means that if a player has a minimum fee release clause - and if you, as a manager, are in good terms with your chairman - offers bellow that value are most likely going to be rejected.

I would like to see this feature developed, by:

1) Improve the minimum fee release clause (MFRC) influence on contract negotiations. If a player agrees on a 100 million MFRC, he's basically saying he agrees to play there unless someone offers 100 million.

2) Likewise, the MFRC should also be negotiated with your board. If the board agrees on 100 million as MFRC, they're agreeing that's a fair price. And therefore SHOULDN'T interfere if someone offers 50 million.

3) You should therefore have a "negotiate with board" option for MFRC's when signing players/offering new contracts, on the one hand. On the other hand, you should also have the possibility to negotiate with them something like "look, if you want me to achieve this objective, you'll need to agree not to sell players A, B and C for less than their MFRC. OK???"

4) Also, usually the MFRC has a "date limit", in relation with the transfer window (eg.: is only valid until 1 month before the transfer window). This prevents clubs from losing their players on the last day of the transfer window.

Minimum fee release clauses protect players more than clubs in my opinion - it is no protection whatsoever for a club - it just means you have to accept bids above that level. Without one you can reject every bid if you want.

I agree they are bad at the moment though - some players seem to demand a minimum fee release clause, but when push comes to shove they don't care what its value is - they ask for a min fee release of £7 million, I change it to £100 million and they sign the contract anyway, whereas if I take the clause out altogether they complain.

I agree, in principal, but everything you've mentioned is how it "should" be, not how it actually is. When was the last time a team forced another team to meet the MFRC when negotiating a player sale?

SI just have to make it easy to search for the clause like in CM 01/02 and I'd be happy with it myself.

I think the OP has a point; in practice, MFRCs are used (primarily in Spain) as a form of insurance against the club losing the player. They're typically set at a sum well in excess of the player's current market value on the assumption that, if the clause is ever activated, the player will have become so valuable to the club that a very large fee will be required to compensate for his departure. Sometimes these figures are set so high that they're effectively symbolic. I believe Raul's was something like £100m in the mid 1990s. The idea is that if the player leaves, it will be on the club's terms. This has never really been accurately modelled in FM.

Throughout the FM series, SI has missed the point of having a minimum fee release clause, to the point of it being rather useless most of the times.

The situation is extended because this clause is (or should be) closely linked with the chairman's interference when selling your players.

The idea of the minimum fee release clause is really to protect the club from losing their players. This means that if a player has a minimum fee release clause - and if you, as a manager, are in good terms with your chairman - offers bellow that value are most likely going to be rejected.

I would like to see this feature developed, by:

1) Improve the minimum fee release clause (MFRC) influence on contract negotiations. If a player agrees on a 100 million MFRC, he's basically saying he agrees to play there unless someone offers 100 million.

2) Likewise, the MFRC should also be negotiated with your board. If the board agrees on 100 million as MFRC, they're agreeing that's a fair price. And therefore SHOULDN'T interfere if someone offers 50 million.

3) You should therefore have a "negotiate with board" option for MFRC's when signing players/offering new contracts, on the one hand. On the other hand, you should also have the possibility to negotiate with them something like "look, if you want me to achieve this objective, you'll need to agree not to sell players A, B and C for less than their MFRC. OK???"

4) Also, usually the MFRC has a "date limit", in relation with the transfer window (eg.: is only valid until 1 month before the transfer window). This prevents clubs from losing their players on the last day of the transfer window.

i dont agree.

if a player accepts a 100million release clause they aren't saying that they agree to play unless someone offers 100million. all players in real life know that the release clause, if set that high, is merely for the club to exercise some control over the player. the player can still generate a move if he wants to.

if the board agrees on a 100mill release clause they aren't agreeing that that is a fair price either. they're saying 'if you want our player then cough up this amount'.

if someone offers 70mill though i doubt they'd turn it down.

I agree, in principal, but everything you've mentioned is how it "should" be, not how it actually is. When was the last time a team forced another team to meet the MFRC when negotiating a player sale?

maybe teams don't force other teams but me as a manager tend to force other clubs especially when i know that the player has ....let's say a 100 million MFRC

maybe teams don't force other teams but me as a manager tend to force other clubs especially when i know that the player has ....let's say a 100 million MFRC

In that case, it's the user who is using the MFRC in an unrealistic manner, not the game.

i dont agree.

if a player accepts a 100million release clause they aren't saying that they agree to play unless someone offers 100million. all players in real life know that the release clause, if set that high, is merely for the club to exercise some control over the player. the player can still generate a move if he wants to.

totally agree with you

if the board agrees on a 100mill release clause they aren't agreeing that that is a fair price either. they're saying 'if you want our player then cough up this amount'.

if someone offers 70mill though i doubt they'd turn it down.

you're right again but i think if a club is putting a 100mill release clause then they realy want to hold on to that player and they would'nt want to sell him for any amount of money (see c. ronaldo[although he will leave at the end of the season i'm sure] or see kaka for example i don't think milan would want him to leave for any amount of cash )

In that case, it's the user who is using the MFRC in an unrealistic manner, not the game.

well yes that's my point to that it can be an advantage for us, a legal cheat to put it this way

I believe Raul's was something like £100m in the mid 1990s. The idea is that if the player leaves, it will be on the club's terms. This has never really been accurately modelled in FM.

I don't agree. The period of time you're talking about is also a time when the record transfer fee was £15m, so even if someone had come along with £30m for Raul, Real would have accepted it IMO. AFAIC the MFRC in real life has the same effect as squad status in FM, £100m means that the player is "indespensible", not unselleable.

totally agree with you

you're right again but i think if a club is putting a 100mill release clause then they realy want to hold on to that player and they would'nt want to sell him for any amount of money (see c. ronaldo[although he will leave at the end of the season i'm sure] or see kaka for example i don't think milan would want him to leave for any amount of cash )

in an ideal situation the club will be able to dictate who stays and who goes in their club. in teh real world though its the players that dictate.

so the board will have to think about the repurcusions of rejecting a bid of 70million for one of their players just because the release clause is 90mill.

if the player wants to leave then they may as well cash in. otherwise the players unhappiness could actually drop the amount a team is willing to offer because they know the player is close to leaving.

you wave 100 million in front of any team and I bet he is off regardless of who it is. That sort of money in this day and age would not be rejected by many team, especially out of england.

Its law in spain that all players have release clauses so I just think they are set so high to stop players just bidding on them and there is nothing the teams can do. If there were all set realistically then none of the clubs in spain would have any control over who the sell. This way they get an obscene amount of money or they can still negoiate the fee they want.

On the other hand the MFRC can be used by a player who moves to a club he see's as a stepping stone. Saying I will join you but I want a MFRC, see the recent Carlos Cuellar deal that was the case with him and was more for the player than it was the club.

The minimum fees that Owen and Martins had in their contracts seemed much more like keeping their value reasonable for a more attractive club to bid.

I agree, in principal, but everything you've mentioned is how it "should" be, not how it actually is. When was the last time a team forced another team to meet the MFRC when negotiating a player sale?

Sergio Ramos from Sevilla to Real. Real had to pay his MFRC

That is the whole purpose of a minimum fee release clause - protection for the player. The club is far better off without any of them in anyone's contract at all.

Sergio Ramos from Sevilla to Real. Real had to pay his MFRC

Ha, £21m is a little different to the £100m MFRC's discussed in this thread.

another thing is that you can't see this feature for other players.

Minimum release clauses are put in by the players not the club. It is for the players benefit not the clubs. It is so that a player who has confidence in his ability can use a lesser club as a stepping stone to further his career without the fear of being held back. An example of this was Mark Swartzer (? spelling) who went to Bradford City on the condition that he had a MRC of £1m. The club agreed as they thought no one in their right mind would pay that for an unknown Gk. He played fantastically and they had to sell him to Middlesborough. If the MRC was not there he would not have signed for Bradford City as they would have refused to sell him at such a low price.

Minimum release clauses are put in by the players not the club. It is for the players benefit not the clubs. It is so that a player who has confidence in his ability can use a lesser club as a stepping stone to further his career without the fear of being held back. An example of this was Mark Swartzer (? spelling) who went to Bradford City on the condition that he had a MRC of £1m. The club agreed as they thought no one in their right mind would pay that for an unknown Gk. He played fantastically and they had to sell him to Middlesborough. If the MRC was not there he would not have signed for Bradford City as they would have refused to sell him at such a low price.

i doubt messi thought I will put my MFRC to over 100 million to benefit me. How does that benefit him? It is there to benefit both depending on the country i think.

Ha, £21m is a little different to the £100m MFRC's discussed in this thread.

lol yeah i know but it can be fun being a smart arse some of the time

I think the MFRCs are probably so high as when it was made compulsory (as when other things are made compulsory) the clubs just found a work-around, and that was just to give them insanely high MFRCs, despite the fact that they wouldn't make a difference when say somebody offers £30mil for say... err Robinho? For example

EDIT: They do serve a better purpose in other league as person 2 posts above stated while i was writing my post

i doubt messi thought I will put my MFRC to over 100 million to benefit me. How does that benefit him? It is there to benefit both depending on the country i think.

Spain is different because min fee release clauses are compulsory so obviously the club will look to set them unrealistically high so that they aren't forced to sell the player.

Spain is different because min fee release clauses are compulsory so obviously the club will look to set them unrealistically high so that they aren't forced to sell the player.

yeah sorry I wasn't disagreeing with you hence the "It depends on the country". Didn't mean it to come across like that

i doubt messi thought I will put my MFRC to over 100 million to benefit me. How does that benefit him? It is there to benefit both depending on the country i think.

It's different for a player like Messi who is highly regarded around the world, if it was a lesser player it could suit him. These figures of £100m are all just fantastical rubbish, if we're honest, and only serve to indicate how essential certain players are to teams. Figo probably had a ridiculous MRC when at Barca and look what happened there.

The MFRC only benefits players who, as has been discussed, look at a club as a stepping stone and when you consider the players that have been involved in transfers that MFRC's were involved, a majority are players who are moving on to "bigger and better things", not moving from one elite club to another.

Throughout the FM series, SI has missed the point of having a minimum fee release clause, to the point of it being rather useless most of the times.

The situation is extended because this clause is (or should be) closely linked with the chairman's interference when selling your players.

The idea of the minimum fee release clause is really to protect the club from losing their players. This means that if a player has a minimum fee release clause - and if you, as a manager, are in good terms with your chairman - offers bellow that value are most likely going to be rejected.

I would like to see this feature developed, by:

1) Improve the minimum fee release clause (MFRC) influence on contract negotiations. If a player agrees on a 100 million MFRC, he's basically saying he agrees to play there unless someone offers 100 million.

2) Likewise, the MFRC should also be negotiated with your board. If the board agrees on 100 million as MFRC, they're agreeing that's a fair price. And therefore SHOULDN'T interfere if someone offers 50 million.

3) You should therefore have a "negotiate with board" option for MFRC's when signing players/offering new contracts, on the one hand. On the other hand, you should also have the possibility to negotiate with them something like "look, if you want me to achieve this objective, you'll need to agree not to sell players A, B and C for less than their MFRC. OK???"

4) Also, usually the MFRC has a "date limit", in relation with the transfer window (eg.: is only valid until 1 month before the transfer window). This prevents clubs from losing their players on the last day of the transfer window.

Frankly, let me ,as someone who writes minimum fee release clauses for a living, tell you that you apparently don't have the faintest idea about what a mfrc is and how it works.

It's different for a player like Messi who is highly regarded around the world, if it was a lesser player it could suit him. These figures of £100m are all just fantastical rubbish, if we're honest, and only serve to indicate how essential certain players are to teams. Figo probably had a ridiculous MRC when at Barca and look what happened there.

The MFRC only benefits players who, as has been discussed, look at a club as a stepping stone and when you consider the players that have been involved in transfers that MFRC's were involved, a majority are players who are moving on to "bigger and better things", not moving from one elite club to another.

yeah I agree with that as I mentioned on another post

so then if a player asks for £12M MFRC and i don't want to lose him to a bigger club so i change it to £35M, should the player then reject the contract the same way he would if his appearence fee is lower than he asked for?

yes he should. but it would not work on FM, simply because players would be rejecting contracts all the time as far as my teams are concerned.

if a player asks for a MFRC of £12M, he is suggesting that he wants to be priced in real madrid or barcelonas price range. £35M still would be in their price range tbh, but it would be a sign to the player of how reluctant the club would be to sell him.

i've learnt my lesson in the past in spain and lost pivotal players for less than £15M, so i always set a high release clause, even with teams outside of spain.

I agree, in principal, but everything you've mentioned is how it "should" be, not how it actually is. When was the last time a team forced another team to meet the MFRC when negotiating a player sale?

The problem with your point of view - and most of the people who've posted here disagreeing with my opinion - is that you're looking at this from the side of rich clubs, as are, for example, all teams in the English league.

Answering your question, in Portugal Sporting did that this summer for João Moutinho. He has a MFRC of 25 million euros, and rejected all the attempts from Everton to sell him for less than that (and they offered around 18 million euro).

Nani was also sold for 25 million euro, when his MFRC was 20 million euro (he was about to sign a new contract with a MFRC of 30 million).

If your managing a team in a lower European league (probably all except Spain, Italy, England and Germany), players WANT to move to bigger leagues. And in this case, the MFRC is an assurance for the club, more than for the player. The club has a real way of saying "look, you want to leave, true, but you signed this saying you'd stay with us unless someone pays X. No one is paying that, and we won't give up on you for half that value".

In Spain, the MFRC is not used as it SHOULD. But that's due to the fact that it is a very powerful league. If someone signs a contract for Real or Barcelona, they're pretty much at the top of the football World, so they don't really care nor want to leave.

People always protest on FM's chairmen selling their best players. In my opinion, the only difference between FM and real life on this issue is:

1) We have no way of telling the chairmen "do NOT sell him for less than this, because THAT'S WHAT WE AGREED"

2) We can't talk to the chairmen and negotiate with them which players are REALLY indispensable

This would be solved by adding this feature to the game:

- When defining the goals for the season, associate a screen of "player status". For every player, negotiate what you BOTH think should be a "too good to refuse" offer. If they have a MFRC, then it would be easier to set the basis for that "too good to refuse".

- The "set goals for season" would therefore be a combination of the two screens. Which would be an implementation of an opinion like "look, if you tell me you're not going to sell these players for less than the agreed values, I believe I can win the title. If you say you can't promise to let me keep my star striker if someone offers 20 million, then I can only promise you a spot in Europe"

In my opinion, this would have a great deal of "managerial" depth to the game.

Frankly, let me ,as someone who writes minimum fee release clauses for a living, tell you that you apparently don't have the faintest idea about what a mfrc is and how it works.

Frankly, as someone who sees how MFRC affect the transfers in less powerful leagues, let me tell you that apparently you have no clue on how these clauses affect the preparation of the season on these leagues.

so then if a player asks for £12M MFRC and i don't want to lose him to a bigger club so i change it to £35M, should the player then reject the contract the same way he would if his appearence fee is lower than he asked for?

yes he should. but it would not work on FM, simply because players would be rejecting contracts all the time as far as my teams are concerned.

if a player asks for a MFRC of £12M, he is suggesting that he wants to be priced in real madrid or barcelonas price range. £35M still would be in their price range tbh, but it would be a sign to the player of how reluctant the club would be to sell him.

i've learnt my lesson in the past in spain and lost pivotal players for less than £15M, so i always set a high release clause, even with teams outside of spain.

That's the issue in FM - it doesn't reflect real life very well, as you can set really high MFRC without much hassle. It should be more difficult to set high MFRC (or they should be accompanied by an increase in the player's wages).

If your managing a team in a lower European league (probably all except Spain, Italy, England and Germany), players WANT to move to bigger leagues. And in this case, the MFRC is an assurance for the club, more than for the player. The club has a real way of saying "look, you want to leave, true, but you signed this saying you'd stay with us unless someone pays X. No one is paying that, and we won't give up on you for half that value".

I think you're ignoring the weight of player power in this and you've created a rather glamorous view of MFRC's. It's a completely ficitious situation that would never happen, you're Moutinho example is about as close as it gets, but realistically moving to Everton from a CL team is a step down, so i'm sure he didn't kick up as much a fuss as he would had Chelsea came in for him.

1) We have no way of telling the chairmen "do NOT sell him for less than this, because THAT'S WHAT WE AGREED"

I think the chairman would laugh in your face if you said that to him, and then remind you that football is a business.

The fact of the matter is, MFRC's are guidelines, but of no real importance.

Frankly, let me ,as someone who writes minimum fee release clauses for a living, tell you that you apparently don't have the faintest idea about what a mfrc is and how it works.

so from a professional perspective, how realistic is the clause system in FM08? i'm genuinely interested to know...

Minimum release clauses are put in by the players not the club. It is for the players benefit not the clubs. It is so that a player who has confidence in his ability can use a lesser club as a stepping stone to further his career without the fear of being held back. An example of this was Mark Swartzer (? spelling) who went to Bradford City on the condition that he had a MRC of £1m. The club agreed as they thought no one in their right mind would pay that for an unknown Gk. He played fantastically and they had to sell him to Middlesborough. If the MRC was not there he would not have signed for Bradford City as they would have refused to sell him at such a low price.

i doubt messi thought I will put my MFRC to over 100 million to benefit me. How does that benefit him? It is there to benefit both depending on the country i think.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The MFRC can benefit both sides, depending on the league, the club's reputation and the player's ambition. And their negotiation should have in consideration all these factors.

I think the chairman would laugh in your face if you said that to him, and then remind you that football is a business.

The fact of the matter is, MFRC's are guidelines, but of no real importance.

In real life, it's easier to deal with this. OK, he would laugh at my face. But I would gain some negotiation leverage when, at the end of the season, I'd finish 2nd instead of 1st.

If you lose your star striker one day before the transfer window closes, won't you mind? Will it not affect your season whatsoever? It will affect my season. And there is no way you can deal with this in the game (except, of course, leaving without saving. I don't like that).

The idea for this post is to offer ways to deal with this issue. People have complained about the "too good to refuse" interference. It would be nice to have a little more "Manager" in FM.

Chairman interference is a whole different issue, and doesn't have much to do with MFRC's.

If you lose your star striker one day before the transfer window closes, won't you mind? Will it not affect your season whatsoever? It will affect my season. And there is no way you can deal with this in the game (except, of course, leaving without saving. I don't like that).

It happens and that's tough cookies tbh. Spurs lost Berbatov and could only replace him with Frazier Campbell, do you think Ramos had given the chairman the go ahead for that deal? I don't think so, I think he was told "this is what's going to happen, deal with it".

A min fee release clause puts a constraint on the club, irrespective of what league they are in. All it says is that they must accept a bid of that amount. With no min fee release clause the club is free to accept or reject whatever bid they wish. Anything else is just semantics between the player and the club or gentleman's agreements about the players worth etc. In no way does that provide any benefit to the club whatsoever, even if they are playing in the poorest league in the world.

Chairman interference is a whole different issue, and doesn't have much to do with MFRC's.

That's the issue, though. It does have to do with the MFRC. Some chairmen say they'll only sell for the MFRC (and keep their word), others don't.

Did Berbatov have a MFRC? Probably not. This was the classic case where a MFRC could protect the club. If he had a MFRC of 40 million, he'd only be gone for that. And Ramos would know that.

In real life, the manager and board interact more than in FM. And, when football is becoming more and more of a business, I think we should have an increase in board - manager interaction as well.

In other words, your opinion is this: board is sometimes more interested in business than in football. Correct? If this is true, shouldn't we, in the game, have more negotiation options with the board, as we have when we want to buy a player from another club or sign new contracts?

Because if you're being strict about that "it happens and it's tough cookies" opinion, then we shouldn't have so much freedom in the game in the first place. Sometimes managers have little or no saying in the club's transfers. They say they need a player for a position, like "I need a striker" and the board comes up with a player and buys him. And if the board chooses F. Campbell, then F. Campbell is what the manager gets. But this is not the way we want FM to go, is it?

Did Berbatov have a MFRC? Probably not. This was the classic case where a MFRC could protect the club. If he had a MFRC of 40 million, he'd only be gone for that. And Ramos would know that.

No he wouldn't. He is being traded in a market place with a buyer and a seller who have to come to an agreed price. Tottenham could have chosen not to sell him, but they didn't want an unhappy player and miss out on all that money. The same would have been true if he'd had a 40 million min fee release clause. The only difference is that they would have had no choice in that case if Manure had offered 40 million.

so from a professional perspective, how realistic is the clause system in FM08? i'm genuinely interested to know...

Well, it is way simpler than irl.

The game correctly has the obligation to have a mfrc in Spain, which is why there they are set to astronomic amounts which are deemed high enough that a club will never come into the situation of having to accept an offer even though they don't want to. (iirc it happened only once irl with Figo that a clause proved not to be high enough) Practically in Spain people try to circumvent the legal need to have one this way.

Clauses irl include certain dates to which those clauses can be used, obviously the earlier the better from a club's perspective (this is also part of negotiations with players - whereas we demand May 31st they want August 31st and often we settle in between). Hardly any mfrc applies in the Juanuary transfer window.

Some also have some extra requirements like a bank guarantee. For instance, I'd never sell to a Turkish club without one (no offense intended, mere statement of facts), so our clauses always contain that requirement just in case. (not an option for FM of course)

Then at times the clause only applies to transfers to special club or only to clubs from abroad.

Also I have seen clauses where a part of the fee went to the agent (those have no financial impact in the game as far as I'm aware while they get piles of cash from the clubs irl) or the player. This again may apply to any transfer fee and depends on negotiations (it's very rare though).

In terms of negotiations in FM the influence of mfrcs is ridiculous. Irl some players just won't sign a contract without a clause which allows them to leave for a realistic amount of money at any time. Whereas players in FM will easily take 10% wage cuts from their demands, they will never sign a contract with no appearance fees although they amount to less than the amount which they would sacrifice asap in basic wages. And to release clauses they seem to pay no attention at all although irl to a player the clause amount is material.

Vice versa for the board. No board would allow a clause below the paid transfer fee (usually boards object any release clause of course and will only include this in a contract unless the player won't sign otherwise (so much for idea that these clauses may actually protect the club )) and if you negotiate a clause just slightly below that amount the board is likely to intervene as well. It would be highly realistic if the board set you a lower limit to any release clause you can negotiate.

I wonder if this is a part of the completely rewritten transfer code. I hope so.

edit: too bad the doesn't work anymore - the OP really made feel like posting this.

Did Berbatov have a MFRC? Probably not. This was the classic case where a MFRC could protect the club. If he had a MFRC of 40 million, he'd only be gone for that. And Ramos would know that.

Sorry, but not a chance.

In other words, your opinion is this: board is sometimes more interested in business than in football. Correct? If this is true, shouldn't we, in the game, have more negotiation options with the board, as we have when we want to buy a player from another club or sign new contracts?

Yes, I agree we should have more negotiation options, but I don't understand what any of this has got to do with MFRC's.

A min fee release clause puts a constraint on the club, irrespective of what league they are in. All it says is that they must accept a bid of that amount. With no min fee release clause the club is free to accept or reject whatever bid they wish. Anything else is just semantics between the player and the club or gentleman's agreements about the players worth etc. In no way does that provide any benefit to the club whatsoever, even if they are playing in the poorest league in the world.

It does, mate. It allows the club to quantify a "too good to be true" offer. C. Ronaldo had a MFRC of 15 million euro in Sporting. He was sold for that price. If he didn't have, Man Utd would have offered 5 million. Ronaldo would have said "this is a great offer, I'm 18 years old, 5 million is good, LET ME GO". And what would have Sporting say? True, 5M is not a bad offer for an 18 year old. Except, of course, he's on the verge of being the best player in the world some years later...

Because he had a MFRC, if someone offered 5M, they would say "No.". And that would be the end of the discussion. So, objectively, the club may have won 10M€ by having a MFRC at that time.

It does, mate. It allows the club to quantify a "too good to be true" offer. C. Ronaldo had a MFRC of 15 million euro in Sporting. He was sold for that price. If he didn't have, Man Utd would have offered 5 million. Ronaldo would have said "this is a great offer, I'm 18 years old, 5 million is good, LET ME GO". And what would have Sporting say? True, 5M is not a bad offer for an 18 year old. Except, of course, he's on the verge of being the best player in the world some years later...

Because he had a MFRC, if someone offered 5M, they would say "No.". And that would be the end of the discussion. So, objectively, the club may have won 10M€ by having a MFRC at that time.

You really believe this, don't you?

Minimum fee release clauses protect players more than clubs in my opinion - it is no protection whatsoever for a club - it just means you have to accept bids above that level. Without one you can reject every bid if you want.

I agree they are bad at the moment though - some players seem to demand a minimum fee release clause, but when push comes to shove they don't care what its value is - they ask for a min fee release of £7 million, I change it to £100 million and they sign the contract anyway, whereas if I take the clause out altogether they complain.

I agree, they are more for players and not clubs. Look at Carlos Cuellar. It was him that wanted that cluse in his contract, and it's a common thing with spanish players.

Well, it is way simpler than irl.

The game correctly has the obligation to have a mfrc in Spain, which is why there they are set to astronomic amounts which are deemed high enough that a club will never come into the situation of having to accept an offer even though they don't want to. (iirc it happened only once irl with Figo that a clause proved not to be high enough) Practically in Spain people try to circumvent the legal need to have one this way.

Clauses irl include certain dates to which those clauses can be used, obviously the earlier the better from a club's perspective (this is also part of negotiations with players - whereas we demand May 31st they want August 31st and often we settle in between). Hardly any mfrc applies in the Juanuary transfer window.

Some also have some extra requirements like a bank guarantee. For instance, I'd never sell to a Turkish club without one (no offense intended, mere statement of facts), so our clauses always contain that requirement just in case. (not an option for FM of course)

Then at times the clause only applies to transfers to special club or only to clubs from abroad.

Also I have seen clauses where a part of the fee went to the agent (those have no financial impact in the game as far as I'm aware while they get piles of cash from the clubs irl) or the player. This again may apply to any transfer fee and depends on negotiations (it's very rare though).

In terms of negotiations in FM the influence of mfrcs is ridiculous. Irl some players just won't sign a contract without a clause which allows them to leave for a realistic amount of money at any time. Whereas players in FM will easily take 10% wage cuts from their demands, they will never sign a contract with no appearance fees although they amount to less than the amount which they would sacrifice asap in basic wages. And to release clauses they seem to pay no attention at all although irl to a player the clause amount is material.

Vice versa for the board. No board would allow a clause below the paid transfer fee (usually boards object any release clause of course and will only include this in a contract unless the player won't sign otherwise (so much for idea that these clauses may actually protect the club )) and if you negotiate a clause just slightly below that amount the board is likely to intervene as well. It would be highly realistic if the board set you a lower limit to any release clause you can negotiate.

I wonder if this is a part of the completely rewritten transfer code. I hope so.

edit: too bad the doesn't work anymore - the OP really made feel like posting this.

You're basically saying what I said (players want a minimum fee to leave, they only apply at certain dates, etc), so as you see I do have a faintest idea of what MFRC are.

And as I said, you are not looking at it from a lower league's perspective. You're talking about Spain, where the MFRC is mandatory. In Portugal, for example, it isn't.

OBVIOUSLY, the club wants the MFRC to be as high as possible. And we agree that it's too easy to set up high MFRC on FM, so:

1) This should be reviewed in future versions of the game, namely when discussing contracts.

If we agree on this, then the main objective of the topic is accomplished.

The second part is what is best the thing for the club, when (as in FM), the MFRC is optional. And, from the experience I have from Portuguese football (filled with great players but poor european reputation), clubs are better served with having a MFRC, if they negotiate it well. If they are able to set up a high MFRC (30 million euro or above), they'll have a better chance of keeping their key players or receive a good deal of money from the deal.

Sporting is the key example of that policy:

Figo - went to Barcelona for 0.3 M€ (no min fee)

Quaresma - went for Barcelona for 6M€ + Rochemback loan (negotiated bellow MFRC)

Ronaldo - went for Man Utd for 15 M€ (min fee)

Nani - Man Utd, 25M€ (above MFRC)

In my opinion, the best deals were made with a combination of MFRC and good board management!

I agree, they are more for players and not clubs. Look at Carlos Cuellar. It was him that wanted that cluse in his contract, and it's a common thing with spanish players.

Though Spain is not a good example as they HAVE to have one, so they negotiate it to so high that virtually there is none as no one will ever be ready to pay ehat the clause stipulates.

You really believe this, don't you?

I'll tell you, it's easier to believe it when you're not looking at things from the German or Spanish perspective.

I've seen a lot of crappy transfer deals in leagues like the Portuguese. When was the last time you saw the likes of Iniesta leave for 5 million euro?

The Portuguese leagues is not comparable to the Sapnish league, in the same way that Iniesta is not comparable to Quaresma or Nani. Of course Portuguese clubs are going to suffer compared, their rep is lower, the league rep is lower etc etc.

You're basically saying what I said (players want a minimum fee to leave, they only apply at certain dates, etc), so as you see I do have a faintest idea of what MFRC are.

And as I said, you are not looking at it from a lower league's perspective. You're talking about Spain, where the MFRC is mandatory. In Portugal, for example, it isn't.

OBVIOUSLY, the club wants the MFRC to be as high as possible. And we agree that it's too easy to set up high MFRC on FM, so:

1) This should be reviewed in future versions of the game, namely when discussing contracts.

If we agree on this, then the main objective of the topic is accomplished.

The second part is what is best the thing for the club, when (as in FM), the MFRC is optional. And, from the experience I have from Portuguese football (filled with great players but poor european reputation), clubs are better served with having a MFRC, if they negotiate it well. If they are able to set up a high MFRC (30 million euro or above), they'll have a better chance of keeping their key players or receive a good deal of money from the deal.

Sporting is the key example of that policy:

Figo - went to Barcelona for 0.3 M€ (no min fee)

Quaresma - went for Barcelona for 6M€ + Rochemback loan (negotiated bellow MFRC)

Ronaldo - went for Man Utd for 15 M€ (min fee)

Nani - Man Utd, 25M€ (above MFRC)

In my opinion, the best deals were made with a combination of MFRC and good board management!

Indeed on the first part we agree.

But sorry, as far as the second part is concerned I wouldn't even consider to agree. Btw I'm talking about Spain only as an exception which is a bad example for these clauses.

I'll tell you, it's easier to believe it when you're not looking at things from the German or Spanish perspective.

I've seen a lot of crappy transfer deals in leagues like the Portuguese. When was the last time you saw the likes of Iniesta leave for 5 million euro?

Players from smaller leagues are always cheaper.

Just look at the game. Any player from EPL will be way more expensive to buy than a player of the same age and quality from Germany already.

Btw Quaresma did not have a mfrc which was matched this time around, did he?

A club can still set a fee that they will accept for a player without having this written into his contract. In the cases were players go for low amounts that is because the club agree to it. In the places where they have high min fee release clause and it actually gets paid the buying club are clearly happy to pay that much.

A clause in a contract isn't something that is just there to avoid teh club having to have any backbone in rejecting offers. If a player has a £15 million release clause clubs can still offer only £5 million and the "small" club decides they can't afford to turn that down.