To reduce the spam of reports regarding the same move during transfer windows we try to allow **only one submission about each transfer saga per day**. The submission in question also needs to contain relevant new information regarding the potential move, and not just being a "no/minor developments" report.
If there are important/official developments or new valuable information about a saga, we will allow extra threads in the same day, but for the rest of minor news please just comment them as a reply to this comment. Please help us reporting unnecessary threads for being duplicates.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are probably only 2 UCL teams that have actually shown interest in him city and bayern so not sure how this will shape up if true, but the fact he is saying words like may means he isn’t totally sure and the fact that Ornstein or Fab haven’t mentioned the fact it has to be a UCL team gives me pause on this story
Except we wouldn't be obligated to sell him to you for 65m, and the player himself isn't really fussed about leaving unless it's to a big CL club from what I've heard
No, you cant dictate anything - you have to agree on a payment structure with Palace. If there are CL teams in for him, you have nice position as Palace would have to accept 60 from them and then you can come in with a bigger offer - but if it just so happens that all CL teams are looking elsewhere you are shit out of luck and release clause might as well not exist.
This is all under assumption that release clause is really CL specific.
If even one club is willing to pay the release clause, it forces Palace's hand and they will have to sell to someone. Imagine you are Chelsea and you would like to buy Olise for 60 million. Palace says fuck off, we want 75. Chelsea would just say no way, City will just buy him for 60. So just sell him to us for 60 since he would prefer to come here, you'll get the same money, and get a reputation for doing right by your players.
The reason Palace is being so strict about the process and secretive about the clause is to make it ambiguous as to whether a club like city could just swoop in and pay 60. Without that knowledge, other clubs lose the bargaining leverage they would otherwise have.
I'm not following this. So in this scenario "one club is willing to pay the release clause", presumably you mean Chelsea right? Why will City buy him for £60m, I thought you said "one club"? Why would City buy him in this scenario?
Also, even if both Chelsea and City both want him and both bid £60m, if the player wants to go to Chelsea (weirdly, maybe he likes London) then he doesn't have to go to City just because they can access the release clause. He'll just tell them no and Palace can negotiate Chelsea up.
If Olise wants to move, he wouldnt straight up reject City as that weakens his/buying team negotiating power. So if Man City offers 60 millions, and he wants to move to Chelsea - his best move would probably be to get Palace to accept Chelsea offer that is bit higher (but maybe spread over couple of years, lets say 65 millions) or else he would accept City offer, as in the end there are worse faiths than playing under Pep for a dominant team. Outright rejecting City just gives Palace incentive to price chelsea out.
No, because Olise will tell Palace to sell him to Chelsea or he'll go to City for 60. Having City bidding means Olise has all the leverage he needs to force Palace to sell him to any other club for 60 (assuming he wants to go).
Villa just sold a great player in Douglas Luiz to balance the books. You lot sold a hotel to yourself. Not every club is the footballing equivalent of Saul Goodmann before he had any character development.
True but Chelsea aren’t joining the ranks of the 115 in suing the PL either. They might be playing dirty but they’re actively playing within the rules still.
This season sure, but with UCL money coming in next year we should be able to spend pretty freely from the 1st of July (as FFP year end runs until 30/06).
Is it legal for a club to pay villa like 5m to buy olise for them? Villa buys him for 60m then instantly resell him to MU or tottenham for 65m. I imagine it would help their FFP a lot too cuz of how bookkeeping works
That’s wild - it would be unprecedented in English football but simlar-ish things happen in the NBA where there’s massive financial regulation. Three team trades are the norm there.
Also in Serie A in the 90s teams would often buy players in co-ownership deals which seemed really murky.
It sounds unlikely but given that Chelsea are allowed to sell hotels to themselves to circumvent the rules you start seeing how teams act when financial regulation becomes such an important part of running a club.
Would be surprised if true because Ornstein definitely would have included that in his report, especially since he also said that Newcastle were interested too. I think it's just Law seeing how weird the clause was last season, and just trying to put 2 and 2 together
Yes.
He said on the recent podcast.
Olise's agent has been telling clubs to go to Palace to discuss the fee and then come to them once there is an understanding.
Bloody hell is his agent feeling alright? Must be one of the only ones not gagging at the bit to tell everyone exactly what to pay and how to get his client! Shame they aren’t all like that
Olise doesnt seem in a rush to leave. Agents just do what their clients tell them, and then take the bad PR for the players. If Olise is in "get me out of here" mode, his agent would act more scummy. That is why Kanes brother looked so incompetent (in part, probably experience would help too) - as he had a "client" that wanted to both eventually leave the team and remain in good standing. Those 2 hardly work.
You can still buy him if you're not a UCL club, you just can't activate the release clause. If it's in there, it's to give Palace leverage because they can charge extra to clubs like Chelsea and Newcastle who have the money but not the ability to activate it.
Does pep win a lot of trophies? Yes. Has he been closely affiliated with known PED pedlers? Also yes. Has his club been let off of financial doping charges on technicalities in the past? Yea. Does he make his world class players play football that consistently makes me sleepy? Yes Yes Yes.
>it would be limiting.
That's the point. Olise agreed to it because he wants to be able to move to a CL team but still wanted a pay raise. Palace agreed because they wanted to lock him down for longer so they get something for him.
A non-CL team can still come in for him but they'd have to pay more AND Olise would have to agree to it.
what i dont get, and im not sure how these things work, but couldnt he just refuse to move to a non cl club, or are you saying palace wanted that clause in there?
He could refuse yes. The point is he wouldn't sign a new contract without that clause because otherwise it means palace could've charged a fuck off price to anyone including CL clubs
I understand that in theory, but I don’t think it actually makes that much sense in practice given one year ago he was so close to leaving for Chelsea. It’s somewhat clear the sources are speculating here. I just don’t buy it.
i thought the telegraph was journalism? because i sure as hell know that no reputable news agency outright puts stuff out they knowingly can't confirm.
>But this has never been confirmed and is the subject of some confusion
This type of release clause has been rumoured for a while so I don’t know why so many think it’s crazy talk. Ultimately no one knows what the release clause is as no reporter has been able to categorically say.
I don’t see why it’s so hard to understand that we would want to keep our best player and a release clause that is harder to meet for more clubs gives us a better chance of keeping hold of him or selling him for a much higher fee. If a clause like this is true, we don’t have to bend to the wills of clubs and there’s a good chance Olise is still a palace player at the end of the transfer window.
That doesn’t make sense because normally any club can trigger the release clause, it’s up to him if he accepts the club or not. But Palace themselves have no benefit to limit their options of buyers
> But Palace themselves have no benefit to limit their options of buyers
That's not what this clause would do though? A release clause is already a concession to the player. Limiting buyers is a concession to the club.
It's making it easier for Champions League clubs to purchase Olise but clubs outside that qualification would have to pay more. Given how rich the Premier League (or even Saudi) is the clause as described is better than a flat 60m for any club.
Especially given the state of clubs like Chelsea and United.
Because it means that Palace aren't forced to sell him to a direct rival for the European spots.
It also means that Palace are able to negotiate a price that allows them to take advantage of the market. Two of the teams interested in him, Manchester United and Chelsea, have a reputation for basically paying anything you quote them, so it makes sense to have a clause that means that, if they aren't in the Champions League, they need to negotiate directly with Palace.
Olise has said he wants to play in the Champions League, so Palace have inserted a mechanism into his contract that allows him to make that a very real possibility. However, they've protected themselves by saying that non-Champions League clubs will need to cough up the dough.
Grealish had this same thing inserted into his contract at Villa when he extended for an extra year. He would be able to leave for 100million only if a team in the champions league activated the clause
I might be wrong but i believe it was the reverse. Grealish got a 100M price tag ONLY if Villa didn't qualify for the CL, which they didn't. If they had qualified, the price tag clause would have become void and he could only leave if Villa got the price they felt was good enough.
They knew Chelsea were interested because of last summer, could very well be meant to make them pay more than the clause if it’s really just for CL teams. Makes total sense to me.
CP: we don't want you to leave
MO: I want a release clause if I sign a contract
CP: but we don't want RC.
MO: I want to be able to leave if a CL club comes asking.
CP: what if RC is applicable for CL club only
MO: done.
They wouldn't *want* someone to trigger the release clause and this simply reduces options. It's weirdly specific, but it's not completely nonsensical since I can see a player saying "whatever" and agreeing to it.
Seems like it’s for exactly this kind of situation lol. If rich, underperforming teams like Chelsea or United want him, Palace either get more money or get to keep him. Olise probably only imagined himself going to a CL club anyway, so it was likely fairly easy to get him to accept in the contract negotiations.
If it was a Europa League or Conference League club came in for him Palace might say they're trying to occupy that space themselves so don't want to strengthen a team they're trying to be rivals to
Rumor for last season that his release clause is mega complicated which is why Chelsea backed off, because it would've been impossible for us to have been able to know it without inside knowledge.
Not in the slightest.. it gives us room to negotiate if the only teams bidding aren't in the Champions League. We wouldn't accept £60m if it weren't the release clause because Olise is outrageously talented.
Gives us the ability to bargain with Chelsea and Man U - and even if a CL club comes in to activate the clause, we could still ask for more from a non-CL club (e.g would Chelsea play £70m to stop him moving to Arsenal, even though Arsenal can pay £60m).
It gives the selling club far better options.
We can also decline bids from non-CL teams if they bid too late in the transfer window (although this might be a factor in the release clause too)
Any club bidding 10m over the release clause would be weird, unless they get extremely favourable payment conditions. Non-CL clubs know that 2m above the release clause is still better for Palace than the release clause.
You'd obviously accept and prefer 20m over the release clause, but why would any club bid that, when they know Palace would prefer to make 62m when the alternate is 60m.
Only way it goes to 70m or higher is if the payment terms are super favorable for buyer.
We don't want to accept £60m though, so if *only* non-CL clubs bid we wouldn't accept £60m.
Equally in the situation I described Parish knows that Chelsea would rather pay more than £62m and get the player instead of letting them go to Arsenal for £60m.
Basically it's not a "weird asf clause" like the person before said.
On the other hand, Chelsea also knows that Parish would rather take 62m than 60m, and Arsenal would not bid over 60m.
Obviously if no CL clubs come in for him, the situation changes dramatically. It is a weird clause though, doesn't mean it's wrong or stupid, just very different from how most release clauses are structured.
And on the first hand again, Parish would know that Chelsea would rather spend more than that instead of losing a player to a rival. Therefore there's room to negotiate, just like I said.
With all due respect, I don't think that makes sense.
If Club A (let's say Man City) offer 60m for Olise, Chelsea knows that City would never go higher, because that bid's been already accepted. We'd offer 62m, knowing that Parish has 2 options - either accept the slightly higher bid for more money, or reject it and accept lower money for some reason.
I don't see any incentives for Chelsea to go up to 65-70m, unless the payment terms become extremely friendly. Why would they, when they know their offer is already the best offer and there's 0 chance anyone else is going to outbid them, so the only way it gets rejected is if Parish for some reason hates Chelsea and would rather accept a lower amount.
The only way offer would increase is if for some reason another club outbids Chelsea, in which case it'll probably be an all out bidding war like Caicedo saga.
Chelsea: "I don't see any incentives for Chelsea to go up to 65-70m"
Palace: "Okay, let us know if you change your mind"
Arsenal: \*agrees deal with Olise*
Chelsea: "We've just lost Olise by haggling over £3m."
Chelsea: \*teleports back in time and offers £65m*
Do you understand the idea of what I'm trying to explain? Or is it just the exact numbers that you don't think work?
Chelsea : offers 62m for Olise
Palace director rejects it
Arsenal agrees deal with Olise for 60m
Crystal palace board to director - why did you reject an extra 2m?
Director - Because I'm funky like that
\*phone rings*
Parish: "Chelsea just called and upped their bid because they aren't going to let Olise go to Arsenal without putting up a fight."
I don't know why you're ignoring the other side of the deal despite me explaining it like 5 times.
Chelsea's case could not be "Accept our bid or we will shoot ourselves in the foot by letting him go to Arsenal" because they obviously wouldn't do that. It's better for Chelsea to player a price above the release clause (but well below the player's value) instead of letting a rival sign him. They wouldn't have to pay full value because of the reason you've described, but Palace could still hold off for a decent increase because of the reason I've described.
This is correct, but Palace may think there is some value in sending Olise to a club like City, who will fight for the title, rather than a club like Newcastle, who may be fighting Palace for Europa Conference.
It’s a common clause put in players contracts by mid table clubs and has been used by Crystal Palace before. Stops players being snapped up by rivals (Chelsea and Newcastle were 3 and 4 places above Crystal Palace). Lets the player advance career and have access to top level European competition, but gives protection from clubs around them.
I think it would be much more beneficial for Palace if they sold Olise to Chelsea or Man City than, say, Wolves or Everton. Not to say that they could afford him, but it limits his availability to clubs who are not direct rivals for league position. Also, I imagine Palace won't want to sell him whatsoever so the least amount of clubs can reach him the better.
I never said it would happen, but it definitely cuts them out 100%. Even an ambitious team with buckets of money for wages like Newcastle is effectively out of the running with a deal like this.
Because it most likely isn’t true. Notice the wording “may only be triggered.” Matt Law does this all the time. He has no sources left so he hedges his bets by using words like “may” so he’s more speculating than reporting
Usually I assume it would be:
Player asks for release clause but club doesn’t want to, they then meet in the middle for both sum and this sort of thing.
At least that’s how it works in FM :)
Maybe to keep him at the club longer and thus restrict the pool of teams that can buy him? It was probably added via negotiations. The club probably wanted no clause and olise’s agent wanted a completely open release clause, and then they met in the middle.
It’s a standard clause in football
Wonder why we’re not even considering him atm. Seems like a no brainer with Salah slowing down a bit and we have so many options up front, but none that can play on the right except Salah.
Reminder that Matt Law hasn’t accurately reported anything Chelsea related for years now
Edit: and Matt Law says, within a few hours, that Chelsea are confident of not having to pay over the release clause. Like I said, he has no sources
I don’t like the guy but I’m 99% sure what you just said is complete bullshit. He’s had some exclusives lately too I’m pretty sure. He’s just not as accurate as he used to be
He hasn’t been accurate since the new owners came in. It’s clear we brief everything through Fabrizio and Ornstein.
Just a few weeks ago, he reported Chelsea may opt out of conference league. Literally within the hour, Chelsea confirmed they would be in conference league. He knows nothing
The Athletic journalists that cover Chelsea had been saying they thought it might happen for well over a month before, it wasn't as big a surprise as some fans made out. Matt Law remains the first actual serious journalist to break the story.
I agree but if he moves to a top club chances are there is already an elite RW there. Olise can play across the front line and they could play together
If you're Olise you ain't thinking you're behind Saka or worse than him.
It's the Trossard mentality, Ramsdale said it in an interview, it was scary when Trossard came as he didn't come to be a squad player, he came to take a shirt.
12 months later he was Arsenal starting LW.
Which is weird because 75% of the time he couldn't give a shit when he was here.
Move was best for all parties as Mitoma was outperforming him, he wanted to leave and he's been great for Arsenal.
To reduce the spam of reports regarding the same move during transfer windows we try to allow **only one submission about each transfer saga per day**. The submission in question also needs to contain relevant new information regarding the potential move, and not just being a "no/minor developments" report. If there are important/official developments or new valuable information about a saga, we will allow extra threads in the same day, but for the rest of minor news please just comment them as a reply to this comment. Please help us reporting unnecessary threads for being duplicates. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are probably only 2 UCL teams that have actually shown interest in him city and bayern so not sure how this will shape up if true, but the fact he is saying words like may means he isn’t totally sure and the fact that Ornstein or Fab haven’t mentioned the fact it has to be a UCL team gives me pause on this story
A club not in the UCL paying more can get the deal done.
For sure I could see chelsea paying 65 to get it done
Couldn't see us accepting it
Exactly, and Chelsea got the funds to spend.
Which would be smart anyway because we could then dictate the payment structure
Except we wouldn't be obligated to sell him to you for 65m, and the player himself isn't really fussed about leaving unless it's to a big CL club from what I've heard
I wonder how his recent injury record is impacting teams going to that fee. 65m for 20 games a season isn't worth it.
No, you cant dictate anything - you have to agree on a payment structure with Palace. If there are CL teams in for him, you have nice position as Palace would have to accept 60 from them and then you can come in with a bigger offer - but if it just so happens that all CL teams are looking elsewhere you are shit out of luck and release clause might as well not exist. This is all under assumption that release clause is really CL specific.
If true, it means he is a palace player next season unless a champions league team really wants him and is prepared to pay the release clause
If even one club is willing to pay the release clause, it forces Palace's hand and they will have to sell to someone. Imagine you are Chelsea and you would like to buy Olise for 60 million. Palace says fuck off, we want 75. Chelsea would just say no way, City will just buy him for 60. So just sell him to us for 60 since he would prefer to come here, you'll get the same money, and get a reputation for doing right by your players. The reason Palace is being so strict about the process and secretive about the clause is to make it ambiguous as to whether a club like city could just swoop in and pay 60. Without that knowledge, other clubs lose the bargaining leverage they would otherwise have.
I'm not following this. So in this scenario "one club is willing to pay the release clause", presumably you mean Chelsea right? Why will City buy him for £60m, I thought you said "one club"? Why would City buy him in this scenario? Also, even if both Chelsea and City both want him and both bid £60m, if the player wants to go to Chelsea (weirdly, maybe he likes London) then he doesn't have to go to City just because they can access the release clause. He'll just tell them no and Palace can negotiate Chelsea up.
If Olise wants to move, he wouldnt straight up reject City as that weakens his/buying team negotiating power. So if Man City offers 60 millions, and he wants to move to Chelsea - his best move would probably be to get Palace to accept Chelsea offer that is bit higher (but maybe spread over couple of years, lets say 65 millions) or else he would accept City offer, as in the end there are worse faiths than playing under Pep for a dominant team. Outright rejecting City just gives Palace incentive to price chelsea out.
Exactly. Having City in the process means Palace are basically stuck selling for around 60 million, even if that sale is not to City.
No it wouldn't, it would only force out hand to sell to the team triggering it.
No, because Olise will tell Palace to sell him to Chelsea or he'll go to City for 60. Having City bidding means Olise has all the leverage he needs to force Palace to sell him to any other club for 60 (assuming he wants to go).
Sup.
Aren't you guys close to the FFP spending limit?
Welcome to Whose Financial Records are they Anyway! Where the rules are made up and the points don't matter.* *Unless you're Everton
Don't like your sarcasm sir. Everton get -9 to start the season
And forest get -4
City to be investigated once peace on earth is achieved.
-100 points for Everclaw! The silly muggles, splashing cash like they own Gringotts.
looking forward to this years Potterside derby against Liverpuff, always a classic
Villa just sold a great player in Douglas Luiz to balance the books. You lot sold a hotel to yourself. Not every club is the footballing equivalent of Saul Goodmann before he had any character development.
True but Chelsea aren’t joining the ranks of the 115 in suing the PL either. They might be playing dirty but they’re actively playing within the rules still.
There was a vote, the teams could’ve stopped it but 9 teams chose not too. Any other team can do the same.
Or Forest
This season sure, but with UCL money coming in next year we should be able to spend pretty freely from the 1st of July (as FFP year end runs until 30/06).
If they buy him after June 30 the champions league revenue will likely offset it
Villa dont get the Champions League money until July next year for PSR purposes, Newcastle get ours this summer.
No way Newcastle are getting their CL money and the best they are gliding is going for Ferran Torres. Olise is perfect as a Almiron replacement
Fuck it if City can why not/s
Tbf I think city’s lawyers make more than your starting 11
I support United not Villa. I was just making s sarcastic comment about the Villa fan.
Ah didn’t realize you were a different guy. Let me rephrase: Tbf I think city’s lawyers make more than Villas starting 11
Is it legal for a club to pay villa like 5m to buy olise for them? Villa buys him for 60m then instantly resell him to MU or tottenham for 65m. I imagine it would help their FFP a lot too cuz of how bookkeeping works
That’s wild - it would be unprecedented in English football but simlar-ish things happen in the NBA where there’s massive financial regulation. Three team trades are the norm there. Also in Serie A in the 90s teams would often buy players in co-ownership deals which seemed really murky. It sounds unlikely but given that Chelsea are allowed to sell hotels to themselves to circumvent the rules you start seeing how teams act when financial regulation becomes such an important part of running a club.
Administration FC speedrun any% (FFP mode) (UCL edition)
Villa are miles from administration, their owners are loaded
And the club have no debt either
and still upvoted, welcome to r/soccer
They never let facts get in the way of shit joke Let it slide if the jokes good like
Would be surprised if true because Ornstein definitely would have included that in his report, especially since he also said that Newcastle were interested too. I think it's just Law seeing how weird the clause was last season, and just trying to put 2 and 2 together
But he did say the release clause was not straightforward right?
Yes. He said on the recent podcast. Olise's agent has been telling clubs to go to Palace to discuss the fee and then come to them once there is an understanding.
Bloody hell is his agent feeling alright? Must be one of the only ones not gagging at the bit to tell everyone exactly what to pay and how to get his client! Shame they aren’t all like that
Chelsea went straight to his agent last year and Palace scuppered the whole deal, he probably just wants to avoid a repeat of that.
Pretty much doesn’t want a repeat
It is probably a complicated clause. Maybe not a straight release for CL team.
Olise doesnt seem in a rush to leave. Agents just do what their clients tell them, and then take the bad PR for the players. If Olise is in "get me out of here" mode, his agent would act more scummy. That is why Kanes brother looked so incompetent (in part, probably experience would help too) - as he had a "client" that wanted to both eventually leave the team and remain in good standing. Those 2 hardly work.
I’d say a release clause for CL clubs is pretty straightforward though
You can still buy him if you're not a UCL club, you just can't activate the release clause. If it's in there, it's to give Palace leverage because they can charge extra to clubs like Chelsea and Newcastle who have the money but not the ability to activate it.
Also United.
Also Spurs.
Also sheffield united
*And my Blades!*
And my axe
No one wants your body spray
And Ajax
I think it was reported a similar mechanism was in place for Grealish ‘s release clause at Villa
Surely Matt Law wouldn't do such a thing?
An interesting omission by Ornstein in any case
Always trust Ornstein or any of The Athletic-affiliated journo over this gimp.
Omission doesnt mean he goes against it.
I mean to be fair he is saying it may not it is
If Ornstein didn't mention it I'm ignoring it
I read that Chelsea is really close to signing him, and there is a chance that it will happen soon.
Allow me to reintroduce myself
Considering his injury history, City is the best place for him in PL because they have the depth to give him proper rest.
he’d just become grealish 2.0, every exciting part of his game forced out to become a backpass merchant
Yh just like Doku!
Does pep win a lot of trophies? Yes. Has he been closely affiliated with known PED pedlers? Also yes. Has his club been let off of financial doping charges on technicalities in the past? Yea. Does he make his world class players play football that consistently makes me sleepy? Yes Yes Yes.
This is what I don’t get. Pep can play fast attacking football like the centurions but idk why he chooses to play like how city plays now
I am sure he doesn’t mind being Grealish. Earning 300k and getting trophies regularly. Plus Grealish contributed to treble as well
No way, he's very different to what Jack was at Villa. He'd absolutely kill it coming on for Bernie and vice versa.
The question is whether City can trigger his release clause.
So do we, to be fair.
City is getting Savio who play RW. And I think Oscar bob will stay too
I kind of doubt thats the "complication" with the clause. Champions league clubs change every year in England aside from City, it would be limiting.
>it would be limiting. That's the point. Olise agreed to it because he wants to be able to move to a CL team but still wanted a pay raise. Palace agreed because they wanted to lock him down for longer so they get something for him. A non-CL team can still come in for him but they'd have to pay more AND Olise would have to agree to it.
what i dont get, and im not sure how these things work, but couldnt he just refuse to move to a non cl club, or are you saying palace wanted that clause in there?
He could refuse yes. The point is he wouldn't sign a new contract without that clause because otherwise it means palace could've charged a fuck off price to anyone including CL clubs
Thanks for explaining
I understand that in theory, but I don’t think it actually makes that much sense in practice given one year ago he was so close to leaving for Chelsea. It’s somewhat clear the sources are speculating here. I just don’t buy it.
i thought the telegraph was journalism? because i sure as hell know that no reputable news agency outright puts stuff out they knowingly can't confirm. >But this has never been confirmed and is the subject of some confusion
The Torygraph hasn't been journalism for a while now.
This type of release clause has been rumoured for a while so I don’t know why so many think it’s crazy talk. Ultimately no one knows what the release clause is as no reporter has been able to categorically say. I don’t see why it’s so hard to understand that we would want to keep our best player and a release clause that is harder to meet for more clubs gives us a better chance of keeping hold of him or selling him for a much higher fee. If a clause like this is true, we don’t have to bend to the wills of clubs and there’s a good chance Olise is still a palace player at the end of the transfer window.
Why the fuck would Palace care which club pays the £60m? What difference does it make to them if they get their money? Weird asf clause
maybe Olise asked for that clause?
Probably a compromise. Want a release clause without sacrificing much wages? Then clause its for CL teams only. Or something of the likes.
[удалено]
At least try a better joke, he would still need to agree to sign clause or no clause lmao.
That doesn't make sense since Olise will have to agree to any move for it happen.
the release clause is for Palace i can't remember a case when a club triggered a RC without already having an agreement with the player.
Didn't PSG do it once? Or threaten to at least
That doesn’t make sense because normally any club can trigger the release clause, it’s up to him if he accepts the club or not. But Palace themselves have no benefit to limit their options of buyers
> But Palace themselves have no benefit to limit their options of buyers That's not what this clause would do though? A release clause is already a concession to the player. Limiting buyers is a concession to the club. It's making it easier for Champions League clubs to purchase Olise but clubs outside that qualification would have to pay more. Given how rich the Premier League (or even Saudi) is the clause as described is better than a flat 60m for any club. Especially given the state of clubs like Chelsea and United.
Okay wait that makes sense thank you
Maybe Olise only wanted to leave Palace for CL football.
[удалено]
Because it means that Palace aren't forced to sell him to a direct rival for the European spots. It also means that Palace are able to negotiate a price that allows them to take advantage of the market. Two of the teams interested in him, Manchester United and Chelsea, have a reputation for basically paying anything you quote them, so it makes sense to have a clause that means that, if they aren't in the Champions League, they need to negotiate directly with Palace. Olise has said he wants to play in the Champions League, so Palace have inserted a mechanism into his contract that allows him to make that a very real possibility. However, they've protected themselves by saying that non-Champions League clubs will need to cough up the dough.
Smart business from them.
Grealish had this same thing inserted into his contract at Villa when he extended for an extra year. He would be able to leave for 100million only if a team in the champions league activated the clause
I might be wrong but i believe it was the reverse. Grealish got a 100M price tag ONLY if Villa didn't qualify for the CL, which they didn't. If they had qualified, the price tag clause would have become void and he could only leave if Villa got the price they felt was good enough.
He saw what happened with Zaha after extending with Palace, and then Palace asking Arsenal/United a shitload of money for him.
Zaha was fucked by Utd's 45% sell on clause which meant Palace were never going to get remotely good value for selling him
They knew Chelsea were interested because of last summer, could very well be meant to make them pay more than the clause if it’s really just for CL teams. Makes total sense to me.
It doesn't limit Palace at all. If he'd had a crap season, a CL or non-CL club bid £50m, and they wanted to accept it they could do it.
[удалено]
They don't want the release clause at all most likely, so whatever makes it less likely to be triggered is good for them.
CP: we don't want you to leave MO: I want a release clause if I sign a contract CP: but we don't want RC. MO: I want to be able to leave if a CL club comes asking. CP: what if RC is applicable for CL club only MO: done.
We... don't shorten it to CP
Why’s the dialogue between Salah and a slice of pizza?
They wouldn't *want* someone to trigger the release clause and this simply reduces options. It's weirdly specific, but it's not completely nonsensical since I can see a player saying "whatever" and agreeing to it.
Seems like it’s for exactly this kind of situation lol. If rich, underperforming teams like Chelsea or United want him, Palace either get more money or get to keep him. Olise probably only imagined himself going to a CL club anyway, so it was likely fairly easy to get him to accept in the contract negotiations.
Probably because they don't want a rival to sign him? Also, this journalist is Tier 2 acc to United sub so he could be wrong.
Tier 2 is pretty good. Anyway, Matt Law is a good journalist.
If it was a Europa League or Conference League club came in for him Palace might say they're trying to occupy that space themselves so don't want to strengthen a team they're trying to be rivals to
Rumor for last season that his release clause is mega complicated which is why Chelsea backed off, because it would've been impossible for us to have been able to know it without inside knowledge.
I've heard from sources that you have to hit up, up, down, left, right, up, up, X, R1+L1 to be able to unlock it
The lack of critical thinking is astounding
Because then they could ask for more than the release clause if the club is not in CL?
Not in the slightest.. it gives us room to negotiate if the only teams bidding aren't in the Champions League. We wouldn't accept £60m if it weren't the release clause because Olise is outrageously talented. Gives us the ability to bargain with Chelsea and Man U - and even if a CL club comes in to activate the clause, we could still ask for more from a non-CL club (e.g would Chelsea play £70m to stop him moving to Arsenal, even though Arsenal can pay £60m). It gives the selling club far better options. We can also decline bids from non-CL teams if they bid too late in the transfer window (although this might be a factor in the release clause too)
Any club bidding 10m over the release clause would be weird, unless they get extremely favourable payment conditions. Non-CL clubs know that 2m above the release clause is still better for Palace than the release clause.
Why the hell would we accept 2 mil over the release clause from a non champions league team when we could accept 20 mil over the clause?
You'd obviously accept and prefer 20m over the release clause, but why would any club bid that, when they know Palace would prefer to make 62m when the alternate is 60m. Only way it goes to 70m or higher is if the payment terms are super favorable for buyer.
We don't want to accept £60m though, so if *only* non-CL clubs bid we wouldn't accept £60m. Equally in the situation I described Parish knows that Chelsea would rather pay more than £62m and get the player instead of letting them go to Arsenal for £60m. Basically it's not a "weird asf clause" like the person before said.
On the other hand, Chelsea also knows that Parish would rather take 62m than 60m, and Arsenal would not bid over 60m. Obviously if no CL clubs come in for him, the situation changes dramatically. It is a weird clause though, doesn't mean it's wrong or stupid, just very different from how most release clauses are structured.
And on the first hand again, Parish would know that Chelsea would rather spend more than that instead of losing a player to a rival. Therefore there's room to negotiate, just like I said.
With all due respect, I don't think that makes sense. If Club A (let's say Man City) offer 60m for Olise, Chelsea knows that City would never go higher, because that bid's been already accepted. We'd offer 62m, knowing that Parish has 2 options - either accept the slightly higher bid for more money, or reject it and accept lower money for some reason. I don't see any incentives for Chelsea to go up to 65-70m, unless the payment terms become extremely friendly. Why would they, when they know their offer is already the best offer and there's 0 chance anyone else is going to outbid them, so the only way it gets rejected is if Parish for some reason hates Chelsea and would rather accept a lower amount. The only way offer would increase is if for some reason another club outbids Chelsea, in which case it'll probably be an all out bidding war like Caicedo saga.
Chelsea: "I don't see any incentives for Chelsea to go up to 65-70m" Palace: "Okay, let us know if you change your mind" Arsenal: \*agrees deal with Olise* Chelsea: "We've just lost Olise by haggling over £3m." Chelsea: \*teleports back in time and offers £65m* Do you understand the idea of what I'm trying to explain? Or is it just the exact numbers that you don't think work?
Chelsea : offers 62m for Olise Palace director rejects it Arsenal agrees deal with Olise for 60m Crystal palace board to director - why did you reject an extra 2m? Director - Because I'm funky like that
\*phone rings* Parish: "Chelsea just called and upped their bid because they aren't going to let Olise go to Arsenal without putting up a fight." I don't know why you're ignoring the other side of the deal despite me explaining it like 5 times. Chelsea's case could not be "Accept our bid or we will shoot ourselves in the foot by letting him go to Arsenal" because they obviously wouldn't do that. It's better for Chelsea to player a price above the release clause (but well below the player's value) instead of letting a rival sign him. They wouldn't have to pay full value because of the reason you've described, but Palace could still hold off for a decent increase because of the reason I've described.
This is correct, but Palace may think there is some value in sending Olise to a club like City, who will fight for the title, rather than a club like Newcastle, who may be fighting Palace for Europa Conference.
And still non cl clubs can go to olise, and he still can choose.
Yeah exactly. It doesn't stop him going to tower clubs, it just means fewer clubs can sign him (relatively) cheaply.
It’s a common clause put in players contracts by mid table clubs and has been used by Crystal Palace before. Stops players being snapped up by rivals (Chelsea and Newcastle were 3 and 4 places above Crystal Palace). Lets the player advance career and have access to top level European competition, but gives protection from clubs around them.
I think it would be much more beneficial for Palace if they sold Olise to Chelsea or Man City than, say, Wolves or Everton. Not to say that they could afford him, but it limits his availability to clubs who are not direct rivals for league position. Also, I imagine Palace won't want to sell him whatsoever so the least amount of clubs can reach him the better.
Everton, wolves paying 60m? Olise wanting the move? Na He wouldnt
I never said it would happen, but it definitely cuts them out 100%. Even an ambitious team with buckets of money for wages like Newcastle is effectively out of the running with a deal like this.
You realize the player can decide where he goes right?
Because it most likely isn’t true. Notice the wording “may only be triggered.” Matt Law does this all the time. He has no sources left so he hedges his bets by using words like “may” so he’s more speculating than reporting
Reduces the amount of clubs that can trigger his release clause, making him less likely to leave.
Usually I assume it would be: Player asks for release clause but club doesn’t want to, they then meet in the middle for both sum and this sort of thing. At least that’s how it works in FM :)
Maybe to keep him at the club longer and thus restrict the pool of teams that can buy him? It was probably added via negotiations. The club probably wanted no clause and olise’s agent wanted a completely open release clause, and then they met in the middle. It’s a standard clause in football
Are you being for real lol. Like think about it
This is not an uncommon release clause tbf
So it is straightforward. As straightforward as it only applies to champions league clubs. I fucking hate journos man. Stop waffling and padding
Eberl licking his lips then
Sup
Citeh
TNS licking their lips.
Wonder why we’re not even considering him atm. Seems like a no brainer with Salah slowing down a bit and we have so many options up front, but none that can play on the right except Salah.
Doubt it will happen but we've been loving a release clause lately. He could be a great long term replacement for Salah
!flair :Juventus:
Palmer/Noni With Paez and Estevao next year.. Why?
Reminder that Matt Law hasn’t accurately reported anything Chelsea related for years now Edit: and Matt Law says, within a few hours, that Chelsea are confident of not having to pay over the release clause. Like I said, he has no sources
He literally was the first journalist to report Pochettino's departure.
Outside of poch it seems like he's lost his sources
I don’t like the guy but I’m 99% sure what you just said is complete bullshit. He’s had some exclusives lately too I’m pretty sure. He’s just not as accurate as he used to be
He's become the classic case of fans hating him because he has often said unpopular things.
He hasn’t been accurate since the new owners came in. It’s clear we brief everything through Fabrizio and Ornstein. Just a few weeks ago, he reported Chelsea may opt out of conference league. Literally within the hour, Chelsea confirmed they would be in conference league. He knows nothing
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/05/21/mauricio-pochettino-leaves-chelsea-live-updates/ 3 weeks ago before anyone else
Where are you seeing this 3 weeks before anyone?
Sorry I meant like this happened only 3 weeks ago, and it was before anyone else. Not that he called it 3 weeks before anyone else
A random twitter itk called it too.
A random twitter itk calls every possible option in existence, it doesn’t give them any reliability if they happen to get lucky
Im saying Matt Law does the same. He had direct briefings from the club before, but not since Boehly came.
The Athletic journalists that cover Chelsea had been saying they thought it might happen for well over a month before, it wasn't as big a surprise as some fans made out. Matt Law remains the first actual serious journalist to break the story.
Yeah he has his misses too.
Oooof those boys over at Palace got Chelsea real good there. This is funny af.
haha funny as fuck
So we pay 70. Done.
Knowing Palace it’s actually only triggerable by a *Championship* club
Liverpool & Arsenal should go and try to get Olise if this clause is legit
Why would olise agree to play behind Saka?? He would more then likely want to be the starting RW where he goes
I agree but if he moves to a top club chances are there is already an elite RW there. Olise can play across the front line and they could play together
I mean I feel like he would start for Bayern or City if he moved there since Silva is leaving city
Silva has been leaving City for at least a couple of years now
Silva is never leaving. Sure there are teams where he may be more likely to start. I don't think it totally rules it out either though.
If you're Olise you ain't thinking you're behind Saka or worse than him. It's the Trossard mentality, Ramsdale said it in an interview, it was scary when Trossard came as he didn't come to be a squad player, he came to take a shirt. 12 months later he was Arsenal starting LW.
Which is weird because 75% of the time he couldn't give a shit when he was here. Move was best for all parties as Mitoma was outperforming him, he wanted to leave and he's been great for Arsenal.
Liverpool makes alot of sense, room in midfield and at rw (when salah eventually moves)
we have enough injury prone players
womp womp