Xtratime Community banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What is a buy-out clause? and is it true that Raul has the highest buy-out clause. And finally whats the deal with Barcelona and Ricardo Quearsema? He's he heading back to the catalan giants in a few years or wat??
 

·
First Place winner, June 2010 Photo Contest
Joined
·
38,110 Posts
I've moved this post from the Q&S forum here. I'm sure the people of this forum will be able to answer your questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,528 Posts
A buy-out clause is a fee if a certain club managed to pay then the club can't say no to the transfer and its all down to the player.

Example Figo to Real Madrid. Real Madrid payed the buy-out clause and Barca couldn't do anything to stop it and it all went to Figo.

I think Raul's buy-out clause is around 180m, one of the highest true.

Barcelona has a first option on Ricardo Quaresma. Its up to Barcelona if they want him back or not, but they don't have to..
 

·
Honorable Mention, February 2013 XT Photo Contest
Joined
·
21,026 Posts
Real_Madrid said:
Example Figo to Real Madrid. Real Madrid payed the buy-out clause and Barca couldn't do anything to stop it and it all went to Figo.
It went to Figo? :nono:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
a buyout clause is an amount that another club can pay to buy that player, the original club cannot turn down the bid

they are usually very high to prevent this. I think ronaldhino is well over 200 million for example
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
Can someone tell me why this buy out clause is only in la liga ....i havent seen it in epl or serie a.
 

·
Honorable Mention, February 2013 XT Photo Contest
Joined
·
21,026 Posts
Real_Madrid said:
LOL, the decisson not the $$ ;)
Got you:cool:

aod said:
Can someone tell me why this buy out clause is only in la liga ....i havent seen it in epl or serie a.
I am pretty sure is there as well.
 

·
Honorable Mention, February 2013 XT Photo Contest
Joined
·
21,026 Posts
Real_Madrid said:
No, In the EPL and Seria A the buy-out clause isn't a must, but in La Liga EVERY player must have a buy-out clause.
Uhm, I didn't know that. So, for example, lets say that Madrid wanted to buy RVN from Man U, its always up to Man U if RVN is under contract?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,528 Posts
barça said:
Uhm, I didn't know that. So, for example, lets say that Madrid wanted to buy RVN from Man U, its always up to Man U if RVN is under contract?
Yup...
If English teams had a buy-out clause you wouldn't have seen Henry still at Arsenal and Gerrard at Liverpool ;)
 

·
Senior Poster of the year 2007
Joined
·
40,147 Posts
aod said:
Can someone tell me why this buy out clause is only in la liga ....i havent seen it in epl or serie a.
In La Liga, the buy our clause exists since the early 80s, when the football players did a strike to protest for their situation. At that time, they had few rights, everything depended on the clubs decisions.

Among other issues, they wanted to have the right to break a contract, before its term. Theorically, the buyout clause should be related with the salary. That means that the buyout clause should be higher with higher salaries. It's an indemnization for the club for breaking the contract before its end.

That ballanced the situation, because before that, the club could break a contract paying an indemnization, but the players didn't have this right. The club could force a player to stay there until the end of the contract.

Obviously, nowadays most of the contracts are a fraud. First of all, there is not relationship between salaries and buyout clauses. The indemnization is too big most of the times, compared with the salaries. Why is this a fraud? The buy out clause is an indemnization that THE PLAYER has to pay to his club to get the "freedom".

For example, theorically, it was Figo who paid the 60M € to Barcelona, not Real Madrid.

According to the Spanish Civil Laws, it doesn't matter if both parts agreed the contract, the "strong" side can't impose a unbalanced clauses to the "weak" side.

For example, imagine a player that has a salary of 1,2 M € per year, in a 4 year contract with a buy-out clause of 30 M €. If the club wants to break the contract after 2 years, they would only have to pay 2,4 M €. If the player wants to break the contract, he would have to pay 30 M €. A bit strange, don't you think? This is a fraud.

Finally, the last fraud it's related with the taxes. I'll use 2 examples, because I don't want you to call me biased.

First example, Figo again. Theorically, the player is the one that has to pay the buy-out clause, ok? Do you think that Figo had 60 M € at that time? It was not a transfer, Figo bought his freedom using the buy out clause. The tax treatment is different.

Second example, Rivaldo. He "paid" the buyout clause to Deportivo (27M €) and he signed for Barça. I don't know which was his salary in Palmeiras and Deportivo, but I doubt that he had 27M in a current account.

This is something that makes me sick. Because it's a fraud that noone denounces. The buy out clause should disappear, because no one respects it. No one denounces it, because it would take too long in a Court, and everyone use it, after all.

The problem is that there Tax Responsibles look to another place in everything related with football. Too many payments done in "fiscal paradises" to strange Ltd. companies, image rights, etc. It seems that football is untouchable in Spain... at the end, it's always the same, the worker must fight for their rights alone against the Tax Inspections for a miserable amount of 600 € and the ****in' rich people are increasing their current accounts in Gibraltar or any Pacific Island.
 

·
Senior Poster of the year 2007
Joined
·
40,147 Posts
borzayga86 said:
What is a buy-out clause? and is it true that Raul has the highest buy-out clause. And finally whats the deal with Barcelona and Ricardo Quearsema? He's he heading back to the catalan giants in a few years or wat??
Raul's buy-out clause is the highest: 180 M €, along with Zidane, Figo and Ronaldo. Beckham's one is private, I don't know it.

Barça bought Ricardo Quaresma in 2004 to Sporting for 6 million. Last year, we used him in the deal for Deco, Barça paid 12 millions and valued Quaresma in 6 millions again.

We don't own the player, but we have an option on him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,636 Posts
The buyout clause is yet another evidence of how inefficient and outdated the transfer system is. K4 is right that it was supposed to be pro-player but, in the end, the clubs just found a way to impose their will once again.

Too bad though; sometimes I wonder who would move where if buyout clauses were more realistic, at fair transfer value, and applied on to all players from all leagues? Then we would all find out who the players are who actually have club loyalty. Something tells me though that there wouldn't be a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Spainish law

Every working stiff has a buy-out clause in his contract because it is man-dated by law. Usually the employee pays the fee ( I doubt it really matters if the new employer actually paid), that was the compensation given so the employee could get a better job. In football circles, that fee was relatiely low. There was no scale that tie in with the worth of the contract. The buy-out fee became higher because the Spanish clubs were losing players outside of Spain! I think Bayern and Depotivo were in a row because Bayern paid Lizarazu's clause. Deportivo demanded (rightly) for a transfer fee because he was under contract and this was not a "bosman". Bayern countered (wrongly) that they paid the buy-out clause that freed the player from his contract. Deportivo countered that stating that they were obligated under law to post a buy-out clause and that this was not a fee to make a player "free" (which is corect). Deportivo also argued that this fee was only if the player was staying in Spain (???). Uefa/Fifa had to put their heads together to solve the problem. Ever since, the the buy-out clauses have been high to keep poachers off their players.

For the average person's clause, I don't how high the fee is, but I will guess that the employee's new bosses either are paying the fee or "loaning" the monies to pay the fee. I think that is why no one says anything.

For the record, Spain is the only country that has this clause. I do not think that the EU can rule it illegal because it's an agreement between the parties for employment.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top