Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 176 of 176

Thread: Can - Increase or reduce his playing time?

  1. #151  
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    964
    Can anybody explain the Club's reluctance to put a big buyout figure in Can's contract? Surely it gives us a greater hold over the player, does it make it difficult for us if we need to ditch him? Presumably we could sell for less than the buyout figure if that suited us? I always thought that buyout clauses were introduced by the clubs to be used at their discretion when they needed to ward off predators so why should this type of clause be a problem for any club?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #152  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyal View Post
    Can anybody explain the Club's reluctance to put a big buyout figure in Can's contract? Surely it gives us a greater hold over the player, does it make it difficult for us if we need to ditch him? Presumably we could sell for less than the buyout figure if that suited us? I always thought that buyout clauses were introduced by the clubs to be used at their discretion when they needed to ward off predators so why should this type of clause be a problem for any club?
    I think the issue may be that he wants a low clause, if he wanted s 200 million clause inserted in the contract I doubt we would have a problem with that.

    It is a buyout clause meaning if a club comes and pay it then they can get the player regardless to whether we want to sell him or not. It is worth mentioning that we actually brought Can triggering his clause, so he is not exactly stranger to them.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #153  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    15,288
    All a demand for a buyout clause says to me is that they player is not committed to the cause.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #154  
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Batteries View Post
    All a demand for a buyout clause says to me is that they player is not committed to the cause.
    Waiting on a better offer.....
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #155  
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Batteries View Post
    All a demand for a buyout clause says to me is that they player is not committed to the cause.
    That is a two way street though.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #156  
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    I think the issue may be that he wants a low clause, if he wanted s 200 million clause inserted in the contract I doubt we would have a problem with that.

    It is a buyout clause meaning if a club comes and pay it then they can get the player regardless to whether we want to sell him or not. It is worth mentioning that we actually brought Can triggering his clause, so he is not exactly stranger to them.
    If it is the issue then it would be the obvious course of action to simply insert a buy-out clause. But there are Pros and Cons to that.
    The pro’s for it means we will get some money for him when he does decide to go.
    The Con’s being; can you build a team including a player with a low buy-out clause whereby he could be courting with other Clubs during every window?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #157  
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyal View Post
    Can anybody explain the Club's reluctance to put a big buyout figure in Can's contract? Surely it gives us a greater hold over the player, does it make it difficult for us if we need to ditch him? Presumably we could sell for less than the buyout figure if that suited us? I always thought that buyout clauses were introduced by the clubs to be used at their discretion when they needed to ward off predators so why should this type of clause be a problem for any club?
    The way the market is going itís incredibly hard for a club to insert a realistic buy out clause.

    Before the Neymar deal last summer, the club could have put a £70m clause on Coutinho and it would have been about right. Suddenly Neymar signs for PSG followed by Mbappe for crazy money. £70m for Coutinho is a bargain (relatively speaking). Weíd have lost Coutinho for a lot less than his new market value.

    Swansea would never have got £50m for Sigurdson if he had a clause.

    Itís also how we managed to get Keita for a relatively low price.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #158  
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyal View Post
    Can anybody explain the Club's reluctance to put a big buyout figure in Can's contract? Surely it gives us a greater hold over the player, does it make it difficult for us if we need to ditch him? Presumably we could sell for less than the buyout figure if that suited us? I always thought that buyout clauses were introduced by the clubs to be used at their discretion when they needed to ward off predators so why should this type of clause be a problem for any club?
    Doesnít make sense and canít be the only reason Can hasnít signed a new contract. At present he is free to walk away for £ZERO!

    But if heís prepared to sign a contract with a release clause then we are quids in.

    All LFC need to do is start winning trophies and players will want to stay.

    Can is a great midfield player, who at his best (and will get better) could play for any of the top clubs in this country. We should do all we CAN to keep hold of him.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #159  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    25,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Batteries View Post
    All a demand for a buyout clause says to me is that they player is not committed to the cause.
    Possibly.

    But I understand why the club doesn't want to give him one...as it opens the door for everyone else to demand one.

    And the club obviously feels, that to do so, isn't in the clubs best interest.
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #160  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by hj77 View Post
    The way the market is going it’s incredibly hard for a club to insert a realistic buy out clause.

    Before the Neymar deal last summer, the club could have put a £70m clause on Coutinho and it would have been about right. Suddenly Neymar signs for PSG followed by Mbappe for crazy money. £70m for Coutinho is a bargain (relatively speaking). We’d have lost Coutinho for a lot less than his new market value.

    Swansea would never have got £50m for Sigurdson if he had a clause.

    It’s also how we managed to get Keita for a relatively low price.
    When Keita got the 48 million clause in his contract nobody would have paid that money for him. If the rumours about how the deal is structured are correct, we may end up paying around 66 million for him, quite frankly I don't think he would go for more than if they were to sell him in the market.

    It is worth remembering that Neymar had a clause in his contract and that's why he went for that money. Mbappe's case is slightly different because by all accounts RM had already agreed deal with Monaco for slightly lets money but the player's agents apparently demanded either Bale or Benzema to be sold (which on hindsight was rather stupid no to do so) to go there. As RM didn't want to do that then PSG only had to improve the offer slightly. Why Monaco facilitated that move (with the deferred payment, etc) is a mystery to me.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #161  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by GrottonRed View Post
    Possibly.

    But I understand why the club doesn't want to give him one...as it opens the door for everyone else to demand one.

    And the club obviously feels, that to do so, isn't in the clubs best interest.
    I think an increasing number of players are asking for clauses to put in their contracts. Obviously this is in the interest no just of the players but also the agents as well. It would no surprise me if Firmino would also ask for one (by all accounts he has one already in his current contract).
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #162  
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    When Keita got the 48 million clause in his contract nobody would have paid that money for him. If the rumours about how the deal is structured are correct, we may end up paying around 66 million for him, quite frankly I don't think he would go for more than if they were to sell him in the market.

    .
    Thats kind of my point. We would not have signed Keita yet without his release clause. Weíve seen RB did not want to sell him until this summer. Heís not out of contract this summer but the clause meant RB knew he would go this summer for £48m. We paid more so we didnít risk losing out to another buyer in the summer.

    There is no way without that clause that Keita would have left for £48m (thatís less than a Sigurdson) this year or even whatever we ended up paying.

    A clause takes away so much power from the club that owns the player. And itís the precedent. Imagine if when we signed Salah he had a clause of about £80m. Real Madrid come calling meet the clause and we have no option but to sell.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #163  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by hj77 View Post
    Thats kind of my point. We would not have signed Keita yet without his release clause. We’ve seen RB did not want to sell him until this summer. He’s not out of contract this summer but the clause meant RB knew he would go this summer for £48m. We paid more so we didn’t risk losing out to another buyer in the summer.

    There is no way without that clause that Keita would have left for £48m (that’s less than a Sigurdson) this year or even whatever we ended up paying.

    A clause takes away so much power from the club that owns the player. And it’s the precedent. Imagine if when we signed Salah he had a clause of about £80m. Real Madrid come calling meet the clause and we have no option but to sell.
    As we have seen multiple times if the player really wants to leave then he would go regardless but yes, if there is a clause there then the club has little flexibility.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #164  
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    15,246
    I don’t have an issue with a release clause provided it’s not something stupidly low and an amount we’d be willing to sell him for. Given that we stand to lose (and seem prepared to lose) him for nothing, is a release clause of £30-£40m so bad?

    Let’s be realistic, whilst there is interest on a free, it’s not like clubs were falling over themselves to sign him prior to that in his time with us.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #165  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by ToTaLxTc View Post
    I don’t have an issue with a release clause provided it’s not something stupidly low and an amount we’d be willing to sell him for. Given that we stand to lose (and seem prepared to lose) him for nothing, is a release clause of £30-£40m so bad?

    Let’s be realistic, whilst there is interest on a free, it’s not like clubs were falling over themselves to sign him prior to that in his time with us.
    I think the club reluctance on this is not down to including a clause per se, we have done that several times already. As I said earlier I don't think we would have any issue of putting a clause of 150 million there, for example. The problem is that he wants a low buyout clause and we don't want to set a precedent in future contract negotiations with other players and to be fair I think the club is doing the right thing, in this instance.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #166  
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    15,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    I think the club reluctance on this is not down to including a clause per se, we have done that several times already. As I said earlier I don't think we would have any issue of putting a clause of 150 million there, for example. The problem is that he wants a low buyout clause and we don't want to set a precedent in future contract negotiations with other players and to be fair I think the club is doing the right thing, in this instance.
    That’s fine, but it then comes down to defining what “low” means. Are we talking 10-15m here?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #167  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by ToTaLxTc View Post
    That’s fine, but it then comes down to defining what “low” means. Are we talking 10-15m here?
    Even the figure you mentioned earlier is low, any club can come and pay 30-40 million for him.
    Something like 70-80 million could be a good compromise, I guess.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #168  
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    15,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    Even the figure you mentioned earlier is low, any club can come and pay 30-40 million for him.
    Something like 70-80 million could be a good compromise, I guess.
    Sure, but I don’t see how that’s an issue if we’d be happy to sell him for 30-40m. Given that we appear happy to let him leave for nothing at present, I’d have thought we wouldn’t have too many issues with a clause of 30-40m.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #169  
    Fowi is online now Hall of Fame Resident and Top Poster Who Shook The Boards
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    122,827
    I still don't understand why Can would ask for a release clause. Surely if he wants to leave it is much easier - and better financially - for him to do it now than after he's signed the new deal. He's 24. Basically the only question is does he want to spend his prime at Liverpool or not.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #170  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Fowi View Post
    I still don't understand why Can would ask for a release clause. Surely if he wants to leave it is much easier - and better financially - for him to do it now than after he's signed the new deal. He's 24. Basically the only question is does he want to spend his prime at Liverpool or not.
    The answer to that is that he is probably not sure, hence that he wants to leave the door open. Either way I think we are wasting our time as I get the feeling he has already made up his mind and may have been signed with Juve.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #171  
    Fowi is online now Hall of Fame Resident and Top Poster Who Shook The Boards
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    122,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    The answer to that is that he is probably not sure, hence that he wants to leave the door open. Either way I think we are wasting our time as I get the feeling he has already made up his mind and may have been signed with Juve.
    He has to be sure. Either you want to play for Liverpool or you want to play for Juventus. It's not that difficult.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #172  
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    28,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    The answer to that is that he is probably not sure, hence that he wants to leave the door open. Either way I think we are wasting our time as I get the feeling he has already made up his mind and may have been signed with Juve.
    I don’t think he’s already decided. I still think there’s a chance he could stay. I think there’s a greater chance of him leaving though.
    YNWA
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #173  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Fowi View Post
    He has to be sure. Either you want to play for Liverpool or you want to play for Juventus. It's not that difficult.
    I think he will go to Juve but he has probably been advised no to say anything. If he was keen to stay he would have signed a contract by now.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #174  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Gegenpressing View Post
    I don’t think he’s already decided. I still think there’s a chance he could stay. I think there’s a greater chance of him leaving though.
    I think he has, only way to change that is if we make him an offer he just canít refuse. Assuming he has not signed a contract already.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #175  
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Alon1 View Post
    As we have seen multiple times if the player really wants to leave then he would go regardless but yes, if there is a clause there then the club has little flexibility.
    Very true, players usually get the move they want. Player power is so strong, no clause shifts a tiny bit of power back to the club. Not much mind, as you say the player will usually get their move eventually
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #176  
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,181
    My suspicion is heís decided to go, but doesnít see the benefit of announcing it now. I hope Iím wrong, Iíd rather he stays - heís a bit frustrating at times but still think heís got a level or two to go
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •