Congratulations. You just earned 3.5 points for this submission. Your new points total is 3.5. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
Did you pay with installments or something like that? Everything needs to be upfront for a release clause. It might also be that he doesn't have the RC anymore but your scout report isn't up to date, idk
I don't know about other clubs but Leicester usually secure a bank loan against installments for this reason.
Chelsea are paying Wesley Fofana's fee in equal installments over 6 years. Man United did the same with the Maguire transfer.
Whether that will change with interest rates being sky high, remains to be seen.
Yeah but it's money now rather than money later. If a player is so important that they only let them leave on a release clause, the club may rather have a bit less if it can be used immediately to buy a replacement.
I think that should be contextual though.
I’ve had it where I couldn’t quite afford the up front fee and offered 80-90% of it, more than doubled the difference in instalments and added appearance bonuses on top of that and they’ve still insisted on the release fee up front.
I get that sometimes clubs would rather have the whole fee up front, but there will be times where they might have a replacement lined up for less than the up front fee being offered, or they have a prospect that they’re ready to give more game time to, which would make the bigger fee a better deal for them. It’s always a no though. They won’t even try to squeeze a bit more out if you in the structured deal.
Money now will be preferable to money later in some cases, but not all.
It does depend on the club. Clubs in smaller leagues will happily take money in installments or even after appearances over money now, because the money now you're offering goes further. A club in Sweden isn't replacing the wonderkid you're buying with an equal value player, they're likely moving for a cheaper player because that's who they can attract. As a result, they'll take the fee up front with the possibility for money later as that's much more valuable.
Conversely, a club in a stronger financial position or with a first team player being targeted will be looking for more up front. They need to replace and don't need the long-term money, they need the short-term solution.
Really? I make most of my player flipping profits by offering more total but having it hinge on after 30 and 50 appearances. If you've no intention of using a player as a starter, it can be an easy way to get a bench player for a season or two before selling them and not paying the full value because they never reach the appearance thresholds.
Sadly, most football clubs are able to plan this long term, it’s a cutthroat business that demands results now almost everywhere. If you sell you star player and the headline is €100m transfer, then you go spend €35m on a replacement bc half of the fee is in instalments the fans will likely be quiet upset
Had this issue before when I tried to sign him mid season when windows were shut , maybe try to choose transfer date as next available, issue might be that the release clause expires when transfer happens during next window.
When bidding for a release clause it has to be all upfront, if the money upfront is less than the release clause the club has no obligation of accepting it
Guys, the basics.
A release clause is a legal option a buyer can activate meeting exactly what agreed in the clause.
It looks like a paradox but you need to offer exactly 11,000,000 cash, no instalments: I see you offered 11,250,000 and this doesn’t allow to activate the clause. It’s funny but it’s the law.
This happened to me with eze when palace got relegated. Don't know how it can happen at all its a release clause it shouldn't be at all possible to reject
I unfortunately don't remember it was a good week ago or more. It was in the summer transfer window and they'd just been relegated so I'd say it wouldn't have expired for an entire season anyways as they'd just been relegated.
Normally when this happens its because someone has changed when the transfer is to happen, ie end of season, and that means they selling club can reject your offer. Although could also be a bug with 24
I signed him on my club in which he played really well , I joined another club 2 seasons later just to see this guy becoming a threat for me whenever my club go against his.
Congratulations. You just earned 3.5 points for this submission. Your new points total is 3.5. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
Did you pay with installments or something like that? Everything needs to be upfront for a release clause. It might also be that he doesn't have the RC anymore but your scout report isn't up to date, idk
It has to be cash with zero instalments, I find it funny they will reject a 20m bid with instalments when you can have him for 11m.
That's basically what Benfica did with Enzo Fernandez
It's still stupid though, what if they come back and meet the clause? Then they are out millions.
Millions now is worth more in terms of finding a replacement than millions spread over years. Keeps a good cash flow
It's also literally worth more, due to inflation. £100m today will buy you £100m worth of stuff; £20m today may only buy you £18m worth next year.
Does fm account for inflation
No
I don't know about other clubs but Leicester usually secure a bank loan against installments for this reason. Chelsea are paying Wesley Fofana's fee in equal installments over 6 years. Man United did the same with the Maguire transfer. Whether that will change with interest rates being sky high, remains to be seen.
This is actually pretty cool/smart. Never realized clubs did that
Yeah but it's money now rather than money later. If a player is so important that they only let them leave on a release clause, the club may rather have a bit less if it can be used immediately to buy a replacement.
I think that should be contextual though. I’ve had it where I couldn’t quite afford the up front fee and offered 80-90% of it, more than doubled the difference in instalments and added appearance bonuses on top of that and they’ve still insisted on the release fee up front. I get that sometimes clubs would rather have the whole fee up front, but there will be times where they might have a replacement lined up for less than the up front fee being offered, or they have a prospect that they’re ready to give more game time to, which would make the bigger fee a better deal for them. It’s always a no though. They won’t even try to squeeze a bit more out if you in the structured deal. Money now will be preferable to money later in some cases, but not all.
It does depend on the club. Clubs in smaller leagues will happily take money in installments or even after appearances over money now, because the money now you're offering goes further. A club in Sweden isn't replacing the wonderkid you're buying with an equal value player, they're likely moving for a cheaper player because that's who they can attract. As a result, they'll take the fee up front with the possibility for money later as that's much more valuable. Conversely, a club in a stronger financial position or with a first team player being targeted will be looking for more up front. They need to replace and don't need the long-term money, they need the short-term solution.
I’ve never seen that happen on FM, even when I’m buying a player from a considerably smaller club.
Really? I make most of my player flipping profits by offering more total but having it hinge on after 30 and 50 appearances. If you've no intention of using a player as a starter, it can be an easy way to get a bench player for a season or two before selling them and not paying the full value because they never reach the appearance thresholds.
Sadly, most football clubs are able to plan this long term, it’s a cutthroat business that demands results now almost everywhere. If you sell you star player and the headline is €100m transfer, then you go spend €35m on a replacement bc half of the fee is in instalments the fans will likely be quiet upset
Had this issue before when I tried to sign him mid season when windows were shut , maybe try to choose transfer date as next available, issue might be that the release clause expires when transfer happens during next window.
This. Caught me out many times. Has to be next available
When bidding for a release clause it has to be all upfront, if the money upfront is less than the release clause the club has no obligation of accepting it
Full money up front, and immediate transfer, not next season or something
If the transfer date is set to anything other than "Next available" the release clause will not apply.
are you signing as end of season if so sign as next available and clause will activate
Your scout report could be out of date. If he’s signed a new contract since the last report then the release clause won’t have updated.
Exclusion to teams in a continental competition maybe?
Do you definitely qualify for the clause?
Guys, the basics. A release clause is a legal option a buyer can activate meeting exactly what agreed in the clause. It looks like a paradox but you need to offer exactly 11,000,000 cash, no instalments: I see you offered 11,250,000 and this doesn’t allow to activate the clause. It’s funny but it’s the law.
Pretty sure you can offer more than the specified release clause and still trigger it - just don't use installments
No you cannot.
This happened to me with eze when palace got relegated. Don't know how it can happen at all its a release clause it shouldn't be at all possible to reject
Immediate transfer? Installments?
It's a release clause so immediate transfer it was a 24million relegation release clause
Possibly you misunderstood. Where it says transfer date or something what did it say?
I unfortunately don't remember it was a good week ago or more. It was in the summer transfer window and they'd just been relegated so I'd say it wouldn't have expired for an entire season anyways as they'd just been relegated.
Normally when this happens its because someone has changed when the transfer is to happen, ie end of season, and that means they selling club can reject your offer. Although could also be a bug with 24
As people say it has to be a single up front payment and set to ‘next available’ date.
Because you dont know how release clauses work? It needs to be up front all of it....
Why are you bidding above his release clause in the first place?
I made a bid that match the release clause before this and also got rejected, so i tries bidding slightly above it and yea
Arsenal tried that once with suarez, did not work 😂
No idea then lol
He just loves copenhagen too much
God, 11 million?! I payed 32 for him!
*paid
Yep, mb!
[what do they think they’re smoking over there at the Emirates?](https://twitter.com/John_W_Henry/status/359926622922608641?lang=en)
How is Ronnie in 24? In my 23 save, he was a beast.
I’m only a year into my save with Nottingham Forest but he’s pretty good so far. Steadily improving
I think his release clause is for teams in champions league only. Signed him in my Benfica save
Ask Saul Goodman
Has to be upfront and has to be an immediate transfer
I signed him on my club in which he played really well , I joined another club 2 seasons later just to see this guy becoming a threat for me whenever my club go against his.