Release clauses.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Don''t like them.

They''ve been around for a while but seem to be getting more common.

They put even more power into the hands of the player and his agent at the expense of the selling club.

A club takes a risk on signing a player (all signings have an element of this) and if the player comes off then their hands are tied financially.

I notice that it is reported that Shaun Raggert of Lincoln has one in his contract and that it is set quite low. Unfair on Lincoln?

It has been suggested, but not substantiated, that Jacob Murphy has one in his contract as well.

If we are set to become a club that relies somewhat on sales to survive then release clauses will inhibit our financial clout somewhat. We take a risk on the likes of a Shaun Raggert but will be unable to capitalise fully if he stars because of contractual limitations on his marketable value.

I suppose add-ons can be a crafty way around the problem ... another million after the player puts on his new shirt or plays a couple of first team games or has a pee in the changing room toilet etc. but it would be better if they didn''t exist.

[Mason 47 1,925]

I''m not 100% on this- people with a better grasp on footall in other countries probably will know for sure- but I think in some places, the release clause is actually a compulsory part of the contract.

As a result, it''s usually something like £68,000,000 and never actually factors in to their career in any way because they''re crap; but I think that''s where this concept has leaked from.

In theory, it''s just another negotiating tool- it''s up to those sorting out the contract to gamble on what the player might be worth in future.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

Release clauses are still the exception rather than the norm, and although increasing, they have been around a very long time. Due to increased media attention on football fans are just more aware of clauses now than they were 20+ years ago.

Without them many players would be reluctant to sign new contracts, knowing that it could be incredibly hard to move on to a larger club should the chance arrive. I''d rather Jacob sign a contract with a release clause than refuse to sign a contract and leave on a ''free''.

If the club feel that the clause is detrimental to themselves they don''t have to agree to it.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Quite, they''re far from being novel and we know why they exist but it does seem to me to be another of the many factors that weigh in the player''s favour that came about after the Bosman ruling.

Good or bad is a question of debate but I would anticipate such clauses being more against the interests of our club than in it''s favour in future dealings.

[norfolkngood 1,174]

the worst one i remember was Robert Earnshaw when he was here !!! bought for 2,7 mill rising to 3.5 million sold for 3.5 million after scoring 19 goals and a good season !! how did we not make a profit on him !

But what can the club do ? if they want josh or jacob murphy to sign a contract and they say yes everything is fine but i want a 10 million release clause you either put it in or they let the contract run down

it is player power a lot of old school managers didn''t like them as it seemed the player was open to a move at some point and not 100 % on staying for the full contract

same as Naismith i will only sign if i have no wage drop in contract you either sign him or not