22 Jul 2015 10:47:36 Hi eds are any of these samper rumours true that we have met his buyout clause

{Ed002's Note - Putting aside any nonsense about "buy out" clauses it is hard to see how Samper would be ready for the first team at Aesenal. There is certainly interest but it makes little sense right now.}

1.) 22 Jul 2015
22 Jul 2015 13:32:43
Thanks for reply

2.) 22 Jul 2015
22 Jul 2015 13:46:55
Eds can you expand slightly on your comment about buy out clauses? Curious as to what you mean and after the Suarez 'slap round the face' am unsure exactly what one is!

Cheers mate.

{Ed002's Note - {Ed002's Note - This is a horribly complex area not least because they are written under individual national laws.

The "buy out" clause is legally binding between a club and a player. The "buy out" is effectively what it says - a means for the player to buy himself out of the contract. As an example, if a player wishes to buy himself out of a contract, he pays the applicable FA the amount of the "buy out" clause effectively becoming a free agent. The problem is that in most cases a player would need to obtain that money from the buying club - and this is fraught with issues regarding "tapping up" and, of course, taxation as it can be seen as income for the player and would therefore be subject to income tax. There was a test case about the taxation issue in Spain about three years ago. So "buy out" clauses are very rare.

A "release clause" is far more common in that it gives a figure that the club would accept for the sale of a player to another club - but it is not legally binding except where both parties are in the same country (for the sake of argument I should say that Spain and Portugal count as the same country as do England and Wales). These are normally unreasonably high figures (Messi at Barcelona for example) introduced to act as a deterrent for hostile bids - and even then the club could easily block a move. However, if a club does agree to match a release clause then the selling club would be obliged to ask the player if he is interested - there is no obligation on the player to make a move. Examples are Goetze who decide he wanted to move and Cavani who, regardless of two offers that were made in 2012 that matched or equated to his then "release clause" recognised Napoli did not want to sell and could block a move abroad and he accepted a new package. Since then Napoli said they will listen to offers of €60M or so and indeed accepted a bid the following summer - which is of course different.

There is then the becoming popular "termination clause" which is binding between the player and the club and if met would see an offer from anywhere accepted and the player given the opportunity to make a call on a move. This overcomes the issues associated with "buy out" clauses as the money would be paid by one club to another.}

3.) 23 Jul 2015
23 Jul 2015 07:00:28
If a release clause is legally binding, how were Liverpool able to reject a bit over Suarez's release clause without consequence?

Thanks edward the second.

{Ed002's Note - Suarez threatened to sue them but in the end didn't.}