|
Post by Lobster on Aug 8, 2018 12:01:58 GMT
I know top footballers are paid obscene amounts, but how and why is this goalkeeper stumping up £71m of his own money to buy himself out of his contract?
Surely something dodgy is going on there, presumably involving Chelsea 'lending' him the money?
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Aug 8, 2018 12:34:22 GMT
Sounds very dodgy, there is no way he has 71 million spare. Why can't Chelsea Just sign him properly? That article also states that if a player has a release clause they have to pay it to move Clubs? that is a ridiculous rule.
|
|
|
Post by bitbbh on Aug 8, 2018 13:02:52 GMT
I know top footballers are paid obscene amounts, but how and why is this goalkeeper stumping up £71m of his own money to buy himself out of his contract?
Surely something dodgy is going on there, presumably involving Chelsea 'lending' him the money?
I don't think it quite works like that. I think what happens is the money is paid to La Liga by the buying club to effect the release clause and then La Liga transfer the money to the selling club.
|
|
|
Post by trublu on Aug 8, 2018 13:37:14 GMT
It's a popular misconception of how minimum fee release clauses work in real life.
In Spain, the player has to have the option to buy himself out of his own contract.
Therefore the minimum fee release clause has to be paid to the club by the player who is then free to move.
Obviously in practice this fee is paid by the buying club in liue of a transfer fee.
|
|
|
Post by dmcnally on Aug 8, 2018 14:46:16 GMT
It’s the same for Jan Oblak’s £89m release clause at Athletico Madrid. He has to buy himself out of it in full. Doesn’t mean it has to be his money.
On another note, the Alisson transfer now looks a bargain!
|
|
|
Post by devablue on Aug 8, 2018 15:32:14 GMT
Silly money for a GK imo. But i suppose they are selling Courtois.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Aug 8, 2018 16:49:20 GMT
It's a popular misconception of how minimum fee release clauses work in real life. In Spain, the player has to have the option to buy himself out of his own contract. Therefore the minimum fee release clause has to be paid to the club by the player who is then free to move. Obviously in practice this fee is paid by the buying club in liue of a transfer fee. It does make you wonder though why the process has to be so convoluted and non-transparent. Why can’t Chelsea just pay the buyout fee to Athletic Bilbao directly? These are enormous amounts of money being passed on from one party to another as though they’re small change. According to the article, the player actually deposits the fee with La Liga until the sale goes through. Am I being cynical in questioning why La Liga would want £71m “resting” in their account for a short while?
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Aug 8, 2018 16:52:31 GMT
Spanish authorities are hot on financial stuff and taxes - look at the Messi and Ronaldo convictions. Much better than our corrupt government and FA.
|
|
|
Post by trublu on Aug 8, 2018 17:16:00 GMT
www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cityam.com/252013/recent-change-spains-tax-laws-could-make-buying-liga-manchester-united/ampA very interesting article on the subject there. It crossed my mind actually. These seemingly ridiculous release clauses were put into the contracts of these players to be just that - ridiculous. They are mandatory in Spain so the club's have been putting in silly figures to make them unattractive to rival clubs. With the recent explosion in transfer fees, there are loads of players in Spain who must have relatively cheap release clauses. One interesting thing about the structure of the deal, is that usually the 2 clubs reach an agreement to pay the value of the release clause directly. The fact that the player has paid the clause in this case means that the selling club is hostile to the bid, because it means the player has to pay income tax on the £71m, I.e, Chelsea are paying a significant amount more than the quoted fee for the player.
|
|