Chelsea Rumours Archive April 03 2013

03 Apr 2013 23:34:28
Are we still interested in Schurrle and have any other teams shown interest? {Ed002's Note - Yes and yes.}

Which other teams have shown interest? {Ed002's Note - It is unimportant.}

03 Apr 2013 21:27:34
Ed002, you said in the post about reus that Dortmund said he's not for sale even though he has a release clause in his contract, how can they do that? I thought a release clause is there for a reason, if its met the club has to let the player speak to the other club, or is there ways around it? thanks {Ed002's Note - "Clauses" - an oft misunderstood and a horribly complex area. I hope this helps clarify matters:

The "buy out" clause is legally binding between a club and a player. The "buy out" is effectively what it says - a means for the player to buy himself out of the contract. As an example, if a player wishes to buy himself out of a contract, he pays the applicable FA the amount of the "buy out" clause effectively becoming a free agent. The problem is that in most cases a player would need to obtain that money from the buying club - and this is fraught with issues regarding "tapping up" and, of course, taxation as it can be seen as income for the player and would therefore be subject to income tax. There was a test case about the taxation issue in Spain about three years ago.

A "release clause" is far more common in that it gives a figure that the club would accept for the sale of a player to another club - but it is not legally binding. These are normally unreasonably high figures (Hulk at Porto for example) introduced to act as a deterrent for hostile bids - and even then the club could easily block a move. An example being the case of Cavani during the summer where two offers were made that matched or equated to his then "release clause" but Napoli did not sell. Now of course Napoli say they will listen to offers above €70M.

There is then the becoming popular "termination clause" which is binding between the player and the club and if met would see an offer from anywhere accepted and the player given the opportunity to make a call on a move. This overcomes the issues associated with "buy out" clauses as the money would be paid by one club to another. This is what Malaga are trying to agree with Isco. Malaga are looking to have Isco sign a new long-term contract because they do fear a move for the player this month. Malaga wanted 21M euros and have now negotiated an increase in a termination clause to 42M euros (€35M for the transfer and €7M covering some other costs), using a pay rise to tempt the player to agree.

Hi ed002, thanks for the explanation. I have two questions:

If a release clause is not legally binding, then is it basically just an agreement between the club and the player?

Also, can you confirm the 2 clubs who met Cavani's release clause?

Thanks as always {Ed002's Note - It is a figure that will deter a club from bidding whilst likely giving a player a better wage. One bid was from Chelsea in cash and the other involving Giovinco and Matri plus a pile of cash that was offered by Juventus to no avail.}

Great reply Ed002, interesting reading.

HB

Really interesting Ed thanks or the post. Shame about Napoli regarding the Chelsea bid : (

Thanks Ed great explanation. If a club could easily block a bid meeting a release clause what is the point in a player having one though? {Ed002's Note - See above.}

Shame really I can't help but feel this seasons outcomes would be a lot different if he had signed for us.
Tom

03 Apr 2013 11:32:23
Ed, do you expect us to bid for Dede? {Ed002's Note - Chelsea has already had a recent offer rejected for Dede. The club may well make another bid. There are other interested parties as well, particularly AC Milan and Anzhi.}

03 Apr 2013 02:44:47
Are we interested in benzema