nope, just extremely common to the point near enough every player has one
it just means that if a club wants to sign him and the club refuse, then Unai Simon could take it to a tribunal and they'd set a price for him (which whilst I don't think it's happened yet with any other player that I've heard, it's speculated that it'd be a considerably lower price than Athletic Club would generally be willing to accept), and that'd be the final fee
it essentially shows he's loyal to the club and that he's not willing to fuck them over, as he could likely force his way out for considerably less than his worth at any point if he so wished
I'd speculate that the reason for that not being the case is that if the club then 'wrongs' the player, that it's a show of good faith from the club to know that the player is there by choice and not that they're essentially locked in with an egregious release clause
the only reason you wouldn't have a release clause when it's almost mandatory in Spain is if you and the club both trust each other implicitly which often seems to be the case with Athletic Club and their players, so it's unlikely to ever be an issue for either side
For clubs you can consider it as mandatory as it protects them, without a buyout clause (the absence of one), the fee would be determined by the court. The fee therefore becomes substantially less than without a club-player agreed buyout clause.
No they aren't. You can choose not to have a release clause but that means that the player can tgo to court and get the contract anulled for a low fee
So that is why you see loyal players get contracts without them. They could technically fuck over their clubs and leave for nothing but they would never do that which is the whole point here.
They are "mandatory" in that it suits the *club* better, but not mandatory in the full sense of the word.
A player can have no buy-out clause, so a court determines the buy-out clause (termination fee per se) if necessary.
In Simon's case, it's goodwill on the club's part that Simon won't leave at least under current conditions as the compensation to Athletic would be minimal.
Isn't it mandatory to have a release clause in La Liga or am I missing smth
If both parties insist on not having one it is possible but very rare since you need 100% trust.
Bruh, Real Madrid was getting ppl to sign 1 billion peseta release clauses
right but with RM there is an implicit understanding that they don’t keep you against your wishes
nope, just extremely common to the point near enough every player has one it just means that if a club wants to sign him and the club refuse, then Unai Simon could take it to a tribunal and they'd set a price for him (which whilst I don't think it's happened yet with any other player that I've heard, it's speculated that it'd be a considerably lower price than Athletic Club would generally be willing to accept), and that'd be the final fee it essentially shows he's loyal to the club and that he's not willing to fuck them over, as he could likely force his way out for considerably less than his worth at any point if he so wished
Even in that case won’t a ‘fuck you’ release clause amount be a better solution?
I'd speculate that the reason for that not being the case is that if the club then 'wrongs' the player, that it's a show of good faith from the club to know that the player is there by choice and not that they're essentially locked in with an egregious release clause the only reason you wouldn't have a release clause when it's almost mandatory in Spain is if you and the club both trust each other implicitly which often seems to be the case with Athletic Club and their players, so it's unlikely to ever be an issue for either side
It's a show of faith towards the player
For clubs you can consider it as mandatory as it protects them, without a buyout clause (the absence of one), the fee would be determined by the court. The fee therefore becomes substantially less than without a club-player agreed buyout clause.
Oso ondo
>No release clause. Rather "release clause didn't change"
What release clause? He didn't have one lol
Release clauses are mandatory for every player in La Liga.
No they aren't. You can choose not to have a release clause but that means that the player can tgo to court and get the contract anulled for a low fee So that is why you see loyal players get contracts without them. They could technically fuck over their clubs and leave for nothing but they would never do that which is the whole point here.
They are "mandatory" in that it suits the *club* better, but not mandatory in the full sense of the word. A player can have no buy-out clause, so a court determines the buy-out clause (termination fee per se) if necessary. In Simon's case, it's goodwill on the club's part that Simon won't leave at least under current conditions as the compensation to Athletic would be minimal.
It's mandatory to have a release clause in LaLiga. >No release clause. It's no change in release clause
He already didn't have a release clause
No change to release clause, not no release clause
His previous contract didn’t have one either.