The objective of minimum fee release clause

[jayahr]

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.

spot on (ten)

[wild_oscar]

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.

So, as someone who writes these clauses, what in your opinion is the best way for a Portuguese club to keep their star players until they are 23 or 24 years old. As I understand, you're saying they're better off without the MFRC?

How will you reject an offer from Chelsea or Milan and expect the player to be happy with it? How do you keep the player and prevent him from having a low morale, play worse or not apply as much because he's unhappy with you being the only thing that kept him from going to one of the best clubs in the world?

[glamdring]

How will you reject an offer from Chelsea or Milan and expect the player to be happy with it? How do you keep the player and prevent him from having a low morale, play worse or not apply as much because he's unhappy with you being the only thing that kept him from going to one of the best clubs in the world?

You can't. Simple as that.

Look at SPL clubs - Rangers and Celtic are constantly poaching players from the smaller SPL clubs knowing that the player will want to move there and often for a piddling fee. Only after a few years when the player realises they aren't really a part of the plans of the Old Firm club do they realise they were actually at a good club for them previously (e.g. Derek Riordan now back at Hibs after a move to Celtic that caused his career to stall completely)

[jayahr]

Also, in the bigger leagues the big clubs usually don't have mfrcs in their contracts because where would they players want to go? Any such clause will only be demanded if they hopes to rise over his club's stature one day. In that case he wants to be able to force his transfer from a certain fee on.

Thus as smaller clubs are more affected in the big leagues it is actually the same situation like for top teams of smaller leagues IMO.

[wild_oscar]

You can't. Simple as that.

Well, as a football fan where the options are

1) You can't. Simple as that.

2) You can set a MFRC of 25 million instead of the 5M, and force any club to meet that value

...I'll DEFINITELY take my chances with option 2.

[jayahr]

So, as someone who writes these clauses, what in your opinion is the best way for a Portuguese club to keep their star players until they are 23 or 24 years old. As I understand, you're saying they're better off without the MFRC?

How will you reject an offer from Chelsea or Milan and expect the player to be happy with it? How do you keep the player and prevent him from having a low morale, play worse or not apply as much because he's unhappy with you being the only thing that kept him from going to one of the best clubs in the world?

Indeed I would.

I would tell him that the club who made the offer obviously does not appreciate his real worth when making such a ridiculous offer and that he should consider whether he really wants to move to a club that apparently doesn't rate him appropriately as we do.

then I would tell him that if they bid 15 million we would accept because we understand his desire to move and because we consider that to be his realistic valuation.

So then he knows that he is important to us, both know our valuation and we are still free to negotiate. If we reject all offer we will have more pressure the year after because indeed morale might suffer and then the player will be closer to the expiry of his contract.

If we had a 15 million mfrc the only difference to us is that for sure we won't be able to get any more than that if he is worth more or if we get lucky and a transfer race between various clubs hots up.

[Nomis07]

Well, as a football fan where the options are

1) You can't. Simple as that.

2) You can set a MFRC of 25 million instead of the 5M, and force any club to meet that value

...I'll DEFINITELY take my chances with option 2.

Be prepared to have a very upset player in your team then and expect to get a slap in the chops from your chairman.

[wild_oscar]

Be prepared to have a very upset player in your team then and expect to get a slap in the chops from your chairman.

If he's agreed to have signed the contract with that MFRC, he can only be upset at himself. That's what contracts are for. It's to protect both sides. The club invests a lot in a player by offering him high wages, and expects to have the MFRC assurance of keeping him for the duration of the contract unless they want to sell him for that price (or lower/higher...). Their investment is protected from "prima donna" actions like "I'm upset because you won't let me go".

[Nomis07]

That's what contracts are for.

Sorry, but this thread keeps going and going and you keep going round in circles. Have you been living in a bubble this summer? Contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on, and the proof is in the summer transfer market.

[Hamenaglar]

If he's agreed to have signed the contract with that MFRC, he can only be upset at himself. That's what contracts are for. It's to protect both sides. The club invests a lot in a player by offering him high wages, and expects to have the MFRC assurance of keeping him for the duration of the contract unless they want to sell him for that price (or lower/higher...). Their investment is protected from "prima donna" actions like "I'm upset because you won't let me go".

Are you saying that player under MFRC will not be unhappy if a big club comes offering money for him and that offer is rejected? So MFRC have some kind of pleasine efects. Whoa, didn't know that, can I be sign somthing with a MFRC so I can be happy all my life?

Mate, what you are talking makes no sense. Player can be just as unhappy if he is under MFRC as well if he isn't. You can't force him to be happy with a contract. Clubs sell unhappy players because they damage morale, start performing poorly and in general are not worth keeping.

[glamdring]

Well, as a football fan where the options are

1) You can't. Simple as that.

2) You can set a MFRC of 25 million instead of the 5M, and force any club to meet that value

...I'll DEFINITELY take my chances with option 2.

I can do exactly the same with my option 1 if I'm just being stubborn and my board don't interfere. In addition I can also choose to reject a bid of 26 million, again assuming no board interference.

My comment that you can't is based on living in the real world. Occasionally a club will threaten to let a player rot in the reserves for the remaining 3 years of his contract rather than be forced to sell him just because the player has a hissy fit and wants to move, but has it ever actually happened? Not that I'm aware of. In the end the player always gets sold if he really wants to leave and the fee is whatever can be agreed between the two parties, the buying party knowing full well that they have the leverage of knowing the selling club need to sell the player because they can't afford to have an unhappy player not performing whose value may thus drop like a stone (obviously if more than one club is interested there may be a bidding war or they may just both bid the same and the selling club takes it or leaves it).

[jayahr]

If he's agreed to have signed the contract with that MFRC, he can only be upset at himself.

Disagree again. If he has demanded no mfrc he can be as upset with himself. Then the club can demand whatever they want. With a mfrc they can demand anything too, but only up the the clause amount.

[wild_oscar]

Are you saying that player under MFRC will not be unhappy if a big club comes offering money for him and that offer is rejected? So MFRC have some kind of pleasine efects. Whoa, didn't know that, can I be sign somthing with a MFRC so I can be happy all my life?

Mate, what you are talking makes no sense. Player can be just as unhappy if he is under MFRC as well if he isn't. You can't force him to be happy with a contract. Clubs sell unhappy players because they damage morale, start performing poorly and in general are not worth keeping.

He'll be unhappy, of course. But he can't blame the board.

It might not make sense to you. It made perfect sense in Portugal this "crazy summer transfer market". Biggest clubs held on to their star players because they had a MFRC and all offers received were bellow that value.

People talked about it. They talked about the lack of ethics from the players that want the best of both worlds: great contracts, but the ability to leave as soon as another club waves with more money. And, in the world of lack of player ethics, having a MFRC prevented them from leaving on THEIR terms. If that doesn't make any sense to you...

[jayahr]

Another rl thing which is important just comes to my mind.

If a club and a player disagree about the contract duration (player wants a shorter one) he will often get a lowish mfrc applicable only one year before his contract (with the club-preferred duration) expires.

That needs to be possible in FM as well.

We have that case at our club currently. Next summer one of our players will be cheap unless he renews his contract before then. Were I my club's researcher I would be left with the option to have that clause right away or not at all. (I would go for not at all as the player is worth way more than the clause amount and thus would leave for the low amount immediately in summer 08 in the game while in fact we rejected offers which were about 5 to 6 times that amount)

[wild_oscar]

I can do exactly the same with my option 1 if I'm just being stubborn and my board don't interfere. In addition I can also choose to reject a bid of 26 million, again assuming no board interference.

My comment that you can't is based on living in the real world. Occasionally a club will threaten to let a player rot in the reserves for the remaining 3 years of his contract rather than be forced to sell him just because the player has a hissy fit and wants to move, but has it ever actually happened? Not that I'm aware of. In the end the player always gets sold if he really wants to leave and the fee is whatever can be agreed between the two parties, the buying party knowing full well that they have the leverage of knowing the selling club need to sell the player because they can't afford to have an unhappy player not performing whose value may thus drop like a stone (obviously if more than one club is interested there may be a bidding war or they may just both bid the same and the selling club takes it or leaves it).

Anyway, I don't really think your solution to the "board interference" issue is what you suggest here http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=1760316&postcount=44:

Set all your players' asking prices to £0, then the AI will generally bid 0 and you'll always have the chance to reject the bid yourself. Only problem is you'll attract vast amounts of interest by doing that!

[philly_flyer10]

I think you fail to understand the clause, no club wants to put them in, its the players that want them so they can go to a better club for a reasonable fee.

The club would rather they not exist at all.

[jayahr]

I think you fail to understand the clause, no club wants to put them in, its the players that want them so they can go to a better club for a reasonable fee.

The club would rather they not exist at all.

Exactly this seems to be the very and only point of debate in here

And I've chosen my side...

[Hamenaglar]

He'll be unhappy, of course. But he can't blame the board.

It might not make sense to you. It made perfect sense in Portugal this "crazy summer transfer market". Biggest clubs held on to their star players because they had a MFRC and all offers received were bellow that value.

People talked about it. They talked about the lack of ethics from the players that want the best of both worlds: great contracts, but the ability to leave as soon as another club waves with more money. And, in the world of lack of player ethics, having a MFRC prevented them from leaving on THEIR terms. If that doesn't make any sense to you...

I doesn't matter if he should be upset at the board. If he really wants a move he can do the sam thing that players that aren't under MFRC do. He can be uninterested, decide not to try, disrupt morale. MFRC is no magical instrument. Players are sold because they are unhappy.

Are you saying that those portugeese clubs would be forced to sell their players for the money offered if there wasn't MFRC? They can't reject an offer they think is too low just because a player doesn't have MFRC. Ofcourse it doesn't make sense.

[wild_oscar]

I think you fail to understand the clause, no club wants to put them in, its the players that want them so they can go to a better club for a reasonable fee.

The club would rather they not exist at all.

Ideally, I would agree with you. In real life, with lack of players' ethics and high willingness to always leave for bigger/richer clubs, I don't.

Anyway, it ends up being a managerial option and there's no right or wrong answer. Some prefer doing things one way, others chose to do it differently.

A more interesting debate is how would these issues (MFRC, board interference) could be enhanced in future FM versions.

[Amaroq]

jayahr, thank you for the very informative posts. Please keep them coming!

. . .

Can we consider leagues outside the top-tier for a minute?

As a Blue Square Premier manager (in-game), min-fee clauses are very important to me and I spend a lot of time thinking about them even though the "negotiation" aspect isn't there.

I typically have two uses for them:

1. Signing an aging veteran to a multi-year contract for a club whose reputation is lower than he thinks he "belongs" at.

As the club, I use the MFRC as an enticement. Usually I place the valuation high enough that I will turn a profit for his time here, but low enough that any club of the reputation he wants should be able to easily afford it. Sometimes I place it at zero, especially so for things like a relegation-release clause.

From the player's perspective, the clause gives him a guarantee that he can get to a club of the reputation he expects if he can attract their attention.

He should only agree to this sort of contract when he feels like he has exhausted the other options; currently he agrees to it at any time.

2. Signing a young player to a five-year contract.

From the player's perspective, the clause gives him a guarantee that he can move if a big club comes swooping in for him.

As the club, I want this MFRC to be as high as I can get him to agree to.

Negotiation for this sort of contract should center on the appropriate MFRC; the player's long-term earning potential is more likely to be influenced by that than by any per-appearance or annual salary he may command at age 17 for a lower-league club.

. . .

I do agree with the O.P. and jayahr that the board ought to be more involved in those negotiations.

I'd love to see the board step in with a minimum and a maximum MFRC - for example, as a LL club, setting a 100M MFRC is patently ridiculous, especially when our annual budget is down around 1M. The board ought to set it to, say, a maximum of 5M. The thinking there would be "Not only is this more than he is worth now, its more than we think he can become worth in 5 years."

Ronaldo's 15M clause is probably a good example of that.

. . .

I disagree with the O.P. that the MFRC protects the club in any way, or should constrain the chairman in any way.

A contract may exist to protect each side, but the individual clauses within a contract typically have one side that they protect. (If they are too powerful, they may have additional clauses which moderate them - thus the MFRC which applies only after X date. The MFRC protects the player, the date protects the club.)

The idea that the MFRC represents the minimum value which the chairman should accept is nonsense.

An interfering chairman certainly ought to accept a bid that he thinks makes good business sense.

My complaint about that would focus on many other aspects:

- chairmen accept bids when the club has no financial need

- chairmen accept bids full stop rather than trying to initiate a bidding war for the player

- the manager can't issue an Ultimatum or press complaint about the chairman's offer.

- chairmen don't push for the other clauses I typically insist on (home friendly, sell-on)

[wild_oscar]

jayahr, thank you for the very informative posts. Please keep them coming!

The idea that the MFRC represents the minimum value which the chairman should accept is nonsense.

An interfering chairman certainly ought to accept a bid that he thinks makes good business sense.

My complaint about that would focus on many other aspects:

- chairmen accept bids when the club has no financial need

- chairmen accept bids full stop rather than trying to initiate a bidding war for the player

- the manager can't issue an Ultimatum or press complaint about the chairman's offer.

- chairmen don't push for the other clauses I typically insist on (home friendly, sell-on)

I didn't say the MFRC is the minimum value the chairman should accept. I said it could be the basis for negotiation with the board. If he has a MFRC of 30 million, it would be easier to settle a "too good to refuse" offer of 27-35 million, probably.

Having such negotiations with a board, and agreeing on what both of you believe is a "too good to be refuse" offer (final decision is the board's, though, but you should be aware of it at season's start) would prevent chairman ruining bid wars, ruining squad when there's no financial need or thinking 20 M is a good deal when you bought him for 18 two years before (just happened to me).

[glamdring]

Anyway, I don't really think your solution to the "board interference" issue is what you suggest here http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=1760316&postcount=44:

That wasn't really a solution to the board interference problem so much as one potential loophole (I've only actually tried it once myself so I have no idea if it would work normally - in my case I put his price back up very soon afterwards, but was still getting bids of £0 3 weeks later!).

Board interference is a totally separate issue to min fee release clauses though.

[Nobby_McDonald]

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

Players at Spanish clubs have to have a minimum fee release clause according to Spanish law.

[Herbie2100]

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.

no no no. i real life no club knows a players min release clause amount, it should be hidden. neither shold we as managers.

[Samsung]

I'm with wild oscar... And to say the least this feature is null so I think it'd be very cool if they revolutionised it with the transfer revolution...

[rusty_u]

In real life clubs are not supposed to know minimum fees, but these things have a habit of getting out.

Mouthy agents mostly.

[antg1985]

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?

luis figo, barca to madrid i think

[Wolveswestoz]

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?

Wolves did when they bought Sylvan Ebanks-Blake from Plymouth last summer.

[LewisQ]

no no no. i real life no club knows a players min release clause amount, it should be hidden. neither shold we as managers.

You can bet your bottom dollar they know every loophole in the player's contract and probably have a copy of it thanks to the player's agent. Not kosher, but everyone does it.

[Nomis07]

luis figo, barca to madrid i think

Wolves did when they bought Sylvan Ebanks-Blake from Plymouth last summer.

One was 9 seasons ago at a time when £38m was crazy money (MFRC or not, I think Barca would have accepted it) and the other was for a low fee, not comparable to the £100m being bandied about this thread.

[rusty_u]

One was 9 seasons ago at a time when £38m was crazy money (MFRC or not, I think Barca would have accepted it) and the other was for a low fee, not comparable to the £100m being bandied about this thread.

And comparing the 2 pretty much shows how an MFRC can benefit a club (Barca) or a player (Ebanks-Blake)

[Nomis07]

And comparing the 2 pretty much shows how an MFRC can benefit a club (Barca) or a player (Ebanks-Blake)

I don't see how it was of any benefit to Barcelona, if his MFRC had been £50m they would still have accepted the £38m fee not held off for £50m. As for Ebanks-Blake, you're right and you have proved my point that it suits the player rather than the club.

[KingKenny]

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.

In the current issue of FourFourTwo the Sevilla chairman (or equivalent) said that they sold two players this summer because their minimum clauses were met. One was Poulsen, can't remember the name of the other.

[michelco]

Poulsen to Juve and Keita to Barca. They had a 10 ME and 14 ME clause respectively.

[bearsy]

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.

Sorry but thats absolute crap. The whole point of the minimum release clasue is to give the player an opportunity to leave, should a club offer the minimum fee. No club will ever willingly put a minimum fee clause into a players contract. Ever.