When a player won't negotiate a higher release fee clause?

I signed a GK at the beginning of the season who has now exceeded both expectations, and his release fee value.

When I try to offer him a new contract, his agent has locked his minimum release fee at just above his market value (which is easily affordable by any top team) and is only a few million above his current minimum release fee.

Giving him a new contract seems pointless when he's a new player on good wages already, and the proposed increase in release fee is negligible and renders a new contract meaningless anyway.

How do I secure him? For what it's worth, he is absolutely my #1 GK (I'm BvB) and he does seem very happy at the club. I'm just starting to get news items about his release fee clause and I'm worried other clubs will take note.

He's conceded 6 goals in 17 matches. Which is, frankly, remarkable...

I always wondered about non-negotiable terms in the game. My impression of including the "non-negotiable" option for individual clauses was something to speed things up a bit for the player in lieu of actually being able to speak to the AI directly. Making it so the AI could, and so they'd be so tetchy I always thought was a mistake and lead to a lot of unreasonable results. There's no way a consistent long term player at a club would turn down a new contract with 3 years remaining because he didn't suddenly gain a very specific release clause. Maybe making it so you had to include such a clause, but them opening negotiations with "it must be £27 million!" comes across poorly.

This said, I don't think either party should kill the negotiations over a single clause. If you put a non-negotiable clause for the AI that they can't accept, it should just tell you, "we can't accept this clause, and if you insist on it, the discussions end here" rather than it suddenly ending negotiations, and I'd have the same thing back on the AI.

Yeah it's kinda messing with my head a bit. The GK is currently worth £16m with a minimum fee release clause of £13.5m (it was non-negotiable when I signed him, and I desperately wanted to sign him so agreed).

In the new contract negotiations, they are insisting on a £20m release fee, which I think is just LUDICROUS for a key GK who has, I'm not kidding, now kept 10 clean sheets in his last 11 matches.

I wish I could just say "look, that release clause is really unfair... let's talk about it."

It's making me sad lol

I often found it annoying when a club demanded a non-negotiable sell on clause of usually 20% when you won't match their asking fee for a player.

Who is the goalkeeper anyway?

Ask him to sack his agent?

Ask him to sack his agent?

Where is this option? I've seen it so many times but now that I want to use it (for the first time) I can't find the bloody thing.

You just need to offer him a lot more in basic wages for him to agree. Clearly the agent would rather he moves on for a bigger payday so is insistent in keeping the clause in. As someone else said, either get him to sack the agent or if he's as important as you say he is, for the first offer remove the minimum fee release clause and offer him a boatload of cash.

He really is what I would consider the absolute "first name on the team sheet" player. My backup GK is half the player.

When I go to offer a new contract, the release clause is automatically non-negotiable. I can't remove it. This is incredibly frustrating.

You just need to offer him a lot more in basic wages for him to agree. Clearly the agent would rather he moves on for a bigger payday so is insistent in keeping the clause in. As someone else said, either get him to sack the agent or if he's as important as you say he is, for the first offer remove the minimum fee release clause and offer him a boatload of cash.

The problem is that (at least what I experienced on FM15) was that the clause is entirely non-negotiable, even after sacking their agent. There will always be that clause from the moment you start negotiating and you have no power to sway them at all on it. You can't make it higher, you can't make it lower, it must be exactly that amount and it must be there. You can't offer them megabucks instead of it, you can't offer them a different type of release clause, they must have that release clause, for exactly that amount. It's just really odd that the game does that, as realism wise that would be the equivalent of a player coming to negotiations and walking away because we didn't have the right brand of biscuits on the table.

I wouldn't be too bothered. If someone wants to give me 20 million for a goalkeeper then I am probably coming out ahead. In FM15 it was easy enough to find quality goalkeepers for well under 20 million.

I wouldn't be too bothered. If someone wants to give me 20 million for a goalkeeper then I am probably coming out ahead. In FM15 it was easy enough to find quality goalkeepers for well under 20 million.

It's more the case that it happens, rather than it happening with this particular goalkeeper for this particular player.

Agents are annoying IRL and the game.

Agents are annoying IRL and the game.

Yes, but they won't ruin a negotiation where they stand to make a lot of money because they have religious fervor for an extremely specifically valued release clause.

Them demanding that there must be one, that makes sense. Them demanding that there must be one "of exactly £21,500,000 or else! No more, no less!!!", considerably less so. You can say what you want about agents, but there is at least an end game to their actions.

Also, the player sacking their agent tends not to change this situation. I've had a case where a player demanded a release clause of exactly £110 million, wouldn't accept a cent more or less. Personally, I don't like release clauses, and I got them to sack their agent before renegotiating with them. Still had it, ended up agreeing a deal with them anyhow, as... well, I wouldn't complain if a team paid that fee for anyone. It's just really jarring to the realism of the game when things like that happen.

Yes, but they won't ruin a negotiation where they stand to make a lot of money because they have religious fervor for an extremely specifically valued release clause.

Them demanding that there must be one, that makes sense. Them demanding that there must be one "of exactly £21,500,000 or else! No more, no less!!!", considerably less so. You can say what you want about agents, but there is at least an end game to their actions.

It guarantees them a low enough clause so that there may be future bids and more money.

Personally, I don't see an issue with them locking certain aspects in a contract. There would be an issue if the value of the clause they're locking is unrealistically low.

It guarantees them a low enough clause so that there may be future bids and more money.

Personally, I don't see an issue with them locking certain aspects in a contract. There would be an issue if the value of the clause they're locking is unrealistically low.

Except if the player and agent have come to the manager asking for a new contract, then reject it in such a petty manner, they've lost out on a new contract where they stand to make considerable money. If they do this having not had a release clause prior, they've essentially just trashed their own chances of that sweet sweet money. It's very gamey.

Personally I find having "non-negotiable" clauses to be extremely gamey and take away from the experience of negotiating contracts, and the only reason I'd feel that the player should have the ability to do so in the first place is that you can't physically talk with the other party to explain. For future versions what I'd suggest is replacing "non-negotiable" with "high priority", that is, something that won't just stop the negotiation (or prevent you changing it), but rather, something that is flagged as being important and potentially derailing negotiations unless the counter offer is substantially better elsewhere.

No contract negotiation is going to come to a grinding halt over singular clauses like that, but in the game the gameyness seems to have taken over in that regard in recent years. Yes, sides can feel very strongly about particular points, but they're not just going to shut down like 2 year olds over something like that in a multi million pound deal.

Another funny one is "wage after [condition]" where you can't offer a player a better deal in another area because they absolutely must, categorically must, no negotiations about this, be paid exactly £31,500 after playing 1 international game. What, you want to offer them a clause for something slightly more than that after playing 15 games for the club? Tough, we've greyed out the option, just like negotiations in the real world!

I like the "high priority" suggestion. Basically, "I'll only remove it if there's enough of an incentive to do so".

Who is the goalkeeper anyway?

Asmir Begovic (signed because he's not only very good, but speaks fluent German obviously).

Personally I find having "non-negotiable" clauses to be extremely gamey and take away from the experience of negotiating contracts, and the only reason I'd feel that the player should have the ability to do so in the first place is that you can't physically talk with the other party to explain. For future versions what I'd suggest is replacing "non-negotiable" with "high priority", that is, something that won't just stop the negotiation (or prevent you changing it), but rather, something that is flagged as being important and potentially derailing negotiations unless the counter offer is substantially better elsewhere.

This is such a good idea. Non-negotiable clauses can be nearly game-breaking. High priority would be so much more realistic.

Give him the contract with the clause since its your only option. Then a month or 2 later, try to offer him another contract and hope there is no release clause.

This is such a good idea. Non-negotiable clauses can be nearly game-breaking. High priority would be so much more realistic.

Players/agents can have the same dealbreakers that you have. It sounds like you are so opposed to minimum fee release clauses that you want none of them. Why is it so unrealistic that certain players/agents are just as adamant about demanding such clauses?

Players/agents can have the same dealbreakers that you have. It sounds like you are so opposed to minimum fee release clauses that you want none of them. Why is it so unrealistic that certain players/agents are just as adamant about demanding such clauses?

It's so unrealistic because it's not how actual negotiations would go. We're talking about multi-million pound deals for footballers, not children trading Pokémon cards.

If you went into a negotiation and they demanded a release clause and you were opposed to them, in the real world you could go a bit further than that. You could try and increase it, you could offer them other concessions, it mightn't always work to negotiate away from it, but you could at the very least try.

As I said earlier in the thread, it can come up in the most bizarre circumstances as well. I had a player and agent directly ask for a new contract and they were demanding such a term. It was for a very high value, but I'm in general opposed to release clauses and don't usually like giving them out. The thing was though, the player had 3 years left on their contract with no such clause, and they wanted a 250% wage increase. Ultimately I got them to sack their agent and not even that changed their stance over that extremely exact clause (not a penny over or under). The thing was that the time inbetween them asking for a new contract, and it eventually coming arguably cost them £4-5 million, for a needless clause, in a situation where I held all the cards.

To me the logic in play seems to have been:

- Take it or leave it contracts from the player

- Making clauses non-negotiable because negotiations could get tedious otherwise

- How can the human player use something like that if the AI can't? => AI non-negotiable clauses

To me the last step to giving the AI that power is the misstep in logic, as to me the non-negotiable clauses simply gave the human player a way to get across a point they couldn't express to the game, although very crudely. That's why my suggestion is to replace a non-negotiable clause system with a high-priority clause, where one party can flag high priority clauses, which are still negotiable by both sides, but it's clear that without very significant concessions elsewhere that it will likely derail discussions. That way, it would be a slightly more realistic negotiation where both parties can make their needs in it better known.

That doesn't say anything about "take it or leave it" offers (for the whole contract, not a single clause), which is a different thing.

Players/agents can have the same dealbreakers that you have. It sounds like you are so opposed to minimum fee release clauses that you want none of them. Why is it so unrealistic that certain players/agents are just as adamant about demanding such clauses?

It's because this particular player's agent is demanding a clause which is set at basically his market value. And given his incredible performances all season, he is attracting attention and any team with a decent transfer budget can buy him for much less than I'd be willing to sell (if the clause wasn't there).

He's valued at almost £20m, has a load of years left at the top, and they are insisting his new release clause is set at £20m.

I know you mentioned earlier that it should be easy to sign another GK for less than £20m, but I like Begovic a lot. He's been a revelation since signing for us, is a fan favourite, and fits the team perfectly. So I don't want to lose him on the cheap.

You could try offering him really high wages (as high as you can go). That way, clubs may be put off by his wages even if they can meet the release clause. If he's as good as you say, then he deserves to be the highest paid player anyway

Of course, this won't really matter to the biggest of clubs, but you've narrowed his (potential) selections at least.

Where are you managing? There are a few countries (Spain being one) where a minimum fee release has to be in a player's contract.

Yeah it's kinda messing with my head a bit. The GK is currently worth £16m with a minimum fee release clause of £13.5m (it was non-negotiable when I signed him, and I desperately wanted to sign him so agreed).

In the new contract negotiations, they are insisting on a £20m release fee, which I think is just LUDICROUS for a key GK who has, I'm not kidding, now kept 10 clean sheets in his last 11 matches.

In all seriousness, in GK market £20m release fee is very reasonable. Remember that Real Madrid didn't want to pay more than 10M euros for De Gea, and he is top 2 keeper in the world. Even the best GK in the world won't command fee more than £30m.

Where are you managing? There are a few countries (Spain being one) where a minimum fee release has to be in a player's contract.

Germany with BvB.

In all seriousness, in GK market £20m release fee is very reasonable. Remember that Real Madrid didn't want to pay more than 10M euros for De Gea, and he is top 2 keeper in the world. Even the best GK in the world won't command fee more than £30m.

The agent is now setting his release clause at £24m, which is an improvement. I don't see the point in renewing his contract though - he's made no indication he wants one and is very happy at the club. I think it's fine.

In all seriousness, in GK market £20m release fee is very reasonable. Remember that Real Madrid didn't want to pay more than 10M euros for De Gea, and he is top 2 keeper in the world. Even the best GK in the world won't command fee more than £30m.

De Gea's case was due to him originally having only 1 year left on his contract, so Madrid tried to force United's hand by lowballing and hoping either they accept or De Gea would move for free in 2016. Both didn't work though:lol:

As for £30m goalkeepers, I believe Buffon costed Juventus slightly more than that when he joined from Parma in 2001. Rare case, but it happens.

As for £30m goalkeepers, I believe Buffon costed Juventus slightly more than that when he joined from Parma in 2001. Rare case, but it happens.

Buffon actually cost one hundred billion so your argument is invalid.

...Italian Lire

Where are you managing? There are a few countries (Spain being one) where a minimum fee release has to be in a player's contract.

That's not the problem here. It's not that they have to have a release clause (which his club, and where I experienced it they didn't need it), it's that they are demanding one for a very specific amount with zero negotiation possible, which isn't something that would happen in real life.

Making the game unplayable, its unrealistic and needs fixed.

Is it really unrealistc that a player only accept to resign with your club if he can get out for a low sum? Perhaps the player in this scenario is really planning on moving on, but "hey, higher wages".

What should be possible however is to change the rules for the clause. For example. "You can move if someone makes a 10 million bid, but not until next summer."

It guarantees them a low enough clause so that there may be future bids and more money.

Personally, I don't see an issue with them locking certain aspects in a contract. There would be an issue if the value of the clause they're locking is unrealistically low.

What I think should happen is a fluid on screen negotiation. When a clause such as minimum fee is locked it should also tie in to other factors and as these are adjusted the minimum fee release also adjusts.

EG The players asks for a 3 year deal on 50,000 a week and a non negotiable minimum release fee of 10,000,000

As I increase the wage, the non negotiable minimum release fee adjusts accordingly until it hits a ceiling.

So at 60k the release fee goes up to 12,000,00

at 75k the release fee is 15m

at 100k the release fee is 18m+

You still cant negotiate the specific release fee, but it self adjusts in-line with the rest of the offer. Performance bonus could still increase the release fee but not to the extent of a basic wage.

Sounds to me like the player/agent thinks he can do a lot better for himself at a bigger club so wants a get-out that reasonable but low enough that any team he's eyeing up will be able to get him. But since you initiated the offer he's just chancing his luck for a bit more cash but doesn't really care much about the outcome (maybe he's just not that motivated by money). At least, that's how I read the 'intent', as it were, of this position. But then I have a tendency to build stories in my head to explain this kind of stuff.

The non-negotiation is a bit rigid I guess, so maybe there's some tweaking needed there, but I guess SI are the ones to answer that.

I reckon you should do a deal; sounds like you're quite likely to lose the player anyway. Might as well squeeze some extra cash out of it if the worst happens and hopefully slightly reduce other clubs' interest through the higher wages and release fee (unless those wages are too high of course).