Is this the norm for release clauses…

Just wondering if meeting the release clause means you pay the whole fee up front????
Copied from from BBC Gossips..
Manchester United are expected to meet Joshua Zirkzee’s £34m release clause to sign the Netherlands forward, 23, from Bologna. (Mail), external

United are deliberating over whether to trigger that release clause or negotiate a higher fee that would allow payments by instalments. (Guardian.

 

There's no set clause for these types of deals and it's open to the parties (or, rather, their lawyers) to draft the contract as they see fit.

You would imagine the club would want to protect itself by ensuring that any offers have to be up front in order to trigger the clause. That does 2 things. 1) Ensures the club aren't blindsided by silly offers like "30 million total, paid at 1m a year for 30 years); and 2) it sets the benchmark for negotiations if the offer doesn't trigger the clause.

There's also probably provisions about what currency the offer has to be in, league and position of the offering club, requirement for a sell on clause etc.

 

It's probably not a set thing, just that Bologna want the money up front if its £34m. Presumably they'd be open to United paying in installments if the fee was, say £50m for example.

 

I'd be wanting 1 instalment of £34m, and then 4 x £4m monthly for the remainder. It's Manyoo after all!

 

If they offer the £34m up front though there’s no room to negotiate further payments. The clause has been met and must be accepted.

They’ll think it’s Christmas getting that much for an unproven kid to be fair.

 

It was a tongue in cheek response to Archery.

Agree though, lot of money for him, but that's modern football for you. Look at Brighton signing that Minteh from Newcastle for about £30m, not played a game for Toon, but did have last season on loan at Feyenoord.