Eze to spurs?

With Gibbs-White signing a new contract with Forest, the topic title may be back in play or at least force Arsenal to meet the release clause
 
It'd be sad if he were to go but at the same time we must ensure we start getting top value for players leaving (which doesn't look likely in Guehi's situation) otherwise things could start getting tricky PSR wise.

If it were up to me I'd bring in both Guessand and Nusa as replacements. Both offer pace and creativity but they could share the burden left by Eze departure... There might even be a bit of cash leftover too.
 
samprior said:
It'd be sad if he were to go but at the same time we must ensure we start getting top value for players leaving (which doesn't look likely in Guehi's situation) otherwise things could start getting tricky PSR wise.

If it were up to me I'd bring in both Guessand and Nusa as replacements. Both offer pace and creativity but they could share the burden left by Eze departure... There might even be a bit of cash leftover too.
Click to expand...
The purpose of a release clause is clarity for all parties involved- the selling and buying clubs and the player.
The fee and the payment terms involved explicitly set out.

So with Eze now we have stories that Arsenal want to pay less, change the payment terms, offer us players we don’t want.
That ‘good boardroom relationships’ will smooth the negotiations is one of the stories.

It’s a release clause - negotiations should be unnecessary.
The idea of a release clause is to avoid this nonsense; if you want the player meet the terms.
I know some of the stories may well be emanating from Arsenal , but the fact they haven’t met the release clause would seem to indicate that they are haggling.

It would be a dangerous precedent too i.e Palace have release clauses for players, but of course you can negotiate with them.

Some on here may take a different/ pragmatic view.
That we can’t have another situation with a player with a declining value as a contract runs down.
That we may need to funds to allow the purchase of new players.
Take £60m rather than £68m if it gets the deal done.

Personally I don’t subscribe to that view.
 
PatrickA said:
The purpose of a release clause is clarity for all parties involved- the selling and buying clubs and the player.
The fee and the payment terms involved explicitly set out.

So with Eze now we have stories that Arsenal want to pay less, change the payment terms, offer us players we don’t want.
That ‘good boardroom relationships’ will smooth the negotiations is one of the stories.

It’s a release clause - negotiations should be unnecessary.
The idea of a release clause is to avoid this nonsense; if you want the player meet the terms.
I know some of the stories may well be emanating from Arsenal , but the fact they haven’t met the release clause would seem to indicate that they are haggling.

It would be a dangerous precedent too i.e Palace have release clauses for players, but of course you can negotiate with them.

Some on here may take a different/ pragmatic view.
That we can’t have another situation with a player with a declining value as a contract runs down.
That we may need to funds to allow the purchase of new players.
Take £60m rather than £68m if it gets the deal done.

Personally I don’t subscribe to that view.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, in short we need top value i.e his full release clause. The only thing I'd be mildly willing to negotiate on is a payment structure.

As for player exchanges I think that's just in AI generated click-bait fantasy land.
 
Like anything else in a players contract the release clause figure was negotiated by Eze's agent. If he now thinks it's too high and is stopping his move to arsenal then he should not have agreed it.

Unless Arsenal meet the number I don't think the club will allow Eze to move, it sets a bad precedent. Unlike some foreign clubs who have ridiculous numbers e.g. Real Madrid player can go for 1bn I think Palace have set a reasonable figure.

If we let him go for less then it's pointless having a release clause.
 
Badger11 said:
Like anything else in a players contract the release clause figure was negotiated by Eze's agent. If he now thinks it's too high and is stopping his move to arsenal then he should not have agreed it.

Unless Arsenal meet the number I don't think the club will allow Eze to move, it sets a bad precedent. Unlike some foreign clubs who have ridiculous numbers e.g. Real Madrid player can go for 1bn I think Palace have set a reasonable figure.

If we let him go for less then it's pointless having a release clause.
Click to expand...
It's a well beaten drum but release clauses benefit players and big clubs.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
It's a well beaten drum but release clauses benefit players and big clubs.
Click to expand...
And smaller clubs who can guarantee a decent pathway to a player they might not usually have been able to attract. I.e us with Olise.

I've got no problem with release clauses. Everyone knows where they stand when they're signed.
 
samprior said:
And smaller clubs who can guarantee a decent pathway to a player they might not usually have been able to attract. I.e us with Olise.

I've got no problem with release clauses. Everyone knows where they stand when they're signed.
Click to expand...
But they virtually guarantee smaller clubs stay as smaller clubs. If, maybe a stretch but a possibility, they become more common what's to stop a club our size, let alone those in other divisions, losing half the team in a window?
 
Teddy Eagle said:
But they virtually guarantee smaller clubs stay as smaller clubs. If, maybe a stretch but a possibility, they become more common what's to stop a club our size, let alone those in other divisions, losing half the team in a window?
Click to expand...
Parish is a shrewd operator.
I can't say for sure, but I doubt he would allow release clauses for four or five key players to kick in at the same time to mitigate the very real risks that you highlight.
It's more likely they would be staggered for key players over a number of seasons to prevent the exposure.
 
PatrickA said:
The purpose of a release clause is clarity for all parties involved- the selling and buying clubs and the player.
The fee and the payment terms involved explicitly set out.

So with Eze now we have stories that Arsenal want to pay less, change the payment terms, offer us players we don’t want.
That ‘good boardroom relationships’ will smooth the negotiations is one of the stories.

It’s a release clause - negotiations should be unnecessary.
The idea of a release clause is to avoid this nonsense; if you want the player meet the terms.
I know some of the stories may well be emanating from Arsenal , but the fact they haven’t met the release clause would seem to indicate that they are haggling.

It would be a dangerous precedent too i.e Palace have release clauses for players, but of course you can negotiate with them.

Some on here may take a different/ pragmatic view.
That we can’t have another situation with a player with a declining value as a contract runs down.
That we may need to funds to allow the purchase of new players.
Take £60m rather than £68m if it gets the deal done.

Personally I don’t subscribe to that view.
Click to expand...
Are you, then, suggesting that if we want Diomande, we should be paying Sporting Lisbon his release clause rumoured to be 80m euros and not the 55m rumoured to have been our offer?

Whilst release clauses can be set at artificially high levels (as had been seen in Spain) they're usually there to, as you rightly say, set out clarity for all concerned.

If the terms of the clause are offered in full and the player wants to go to the club then end of story, the selling club has to let the player go.

However, pragmatism does enter the equation at times depending on the length remaining on a player's contract. We can happily rebuff offers for Wharton and Lacroix (unless they're too good to reject) because those players still have 4 years left on their contracts. Once the remaining contract length is 2 years, it becomes a matter of weighing up all aspects including whether or not the club and player have had discussions regarding a new contract.

So, I suggest if Eze (with 2 years left on his contract) is happy to stay with us, let him add another year to his contract. Otherwise, if he wants to go to Arsenal and won't extend his contract with us then we should be ready to negotiate with Arsenal (who are rumoured to be willing to pay £60m) and reinvest.
 
doombear said:
Are you, then, suggesting that if we want Diomande, we should be paying Sporting Lisbon his release clause rumoured to be 80m euros and not the 55m rumoured to have been our offer?

Whilst release clauses can be set at artificially high levels (as had been seen in Spain) they're usually there to, as you rightly say, set out clarity for all concerned.

If the terms of the clause are offered in full and the player wants to go to the club then end of story, the selling club has to let the player go.

However, pragmatism does enter the equation at times depending on the length remaining on a player's contract. We can happily rebuff offers for Wharton and Lacroix (unless they're too good to reject) because those players still have 4 years left on their contracts. Once the remaining contract length is 2 years, it becomes a matter of weighing up all aspects including whether or not the club and player have had discussions regarding a new contract.

So, I suggest if Eze (with 2 years left on his contract) is happy to stay with us, let him add another year to his contract. Otherwise, if he wants to go to Arsenal and won't extend his contract with us then we should be ready to negotiate with Arsenal (who are rumoured to be willing to pay £60m) and reinvest.
Click to expand...
I accept the point that you make in your final paragraph.

Perhaps the way around it is to have a sliding scale on the release clauses so there is still certainty e.g for Eze it was £68m at the beginning of last season but £63m now as his contract runs down with no likelihood of renewal.

That being said if the release clause is still set at the reputed £68m that is the fee Arsenal should pay.
I think Rice had only had a year or two left on his contract when Arsenal paid in the region of £100m for him.
If Arsenal are that keen to add Eze then pay up.
 
PatrickA said:
I accept the point that you make in your final paragraph.

Perhaps the way around it is to have a sliding scale on the release clauses so there is still certainty e.g for Eze it was £68m at the beginning of last season but £63m now as his contract runs down with no likelihood of renewal.

That being said if the release clause is still set at the reputed £68m that is the fee Arsenal should pay.
I think Rice had only had a year or two left on his contract when Arsenal paid in the region of £100m for him.
If Arsenal are that keen to add Eze then pay up.
Click to expand...
Yes but, clearly, Ebs wasn't one of their top targets in this window otherwise they would already have gone for him before the likes of Madueke etc. He's clearly a nice to have option for them. No-one else has come in for him and probably because he's been so inconsistent over the years.

As a pure football fan (finances aside) I want him to stay to the end of his contract because he's a player who gets me off my seat but as a fan who recognizes that players come and go and caring about the longer term future of the club, I'm prepared to recognize flexibility when it comes to the finances.
 
doombear said:
Yes but, clearly, Ebs wasn't one of their top targets in this window otherwise they would already have gone for him before the likes of Madueke etc. He's clearly a nice to have option for them. No-one else has come in for him and probably because he's been so inconsistent over the years.

As a pure football fan (finances aside) I want him to stay to the end of his contract because he's a player who gets me off my seat but as a fan who recognizes that players come and go and caring about the longer term future of the club, I'm prepared to recognize flexibility when it comes to the finances.
Click to expand...
They probably have been in for him but Palace haven't budged so it's not necessarily a question of the relevance Arsenal's priorities .
They may well have tried for Eze first.

Release clauses are there partly as a way of protecting the selling club's interests if an interested club come calling.
They are partly there as a deterrent.

If a club like Arsenal can come to a club like Palace and say we want your player but we're not prepared to meet the terms of his release clause, then the clause is not protecting Palace's interests to the fullest extent.

I take your point about flexibility and that the club may take a view on financial imperatives, but feel it's a route fraught with dangers.

Palace might as well say 'this is the fee and these are the terms of the release clause, but if you don't like them we can come up with some others. '
 
Although eze has a buy out clause we don't know if there is a gentleman's agreement outside of the contract where parish will be a bit lenient with terms of how fee is paid after all that ebs has achieved with us.

I don't mean that we'd let him go cheap but if arsenal is his dream move but they can't pay £68m up front then parish may entertain it being paid in stages.
 
There's two things that accelerate this:

Arsenal have wrapped up Gyokeres
MGW is staying at Forest

Neither club will want to be seen as having lost out to the other and we can play the two off against each other. First to £68m wins.

If it's going to happen hopefully we can make it happen this week and get the replacement(s) bedded in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top