Release clauses

Maybe the club should insist on a sliding scale of compensation to try to slow down the revolving door of managers.
Manager gets a three year contract and to leave within the first year the figure to release would be say £10 million the second year £7.5 million and third year £5 million (the figures are just examples and not representative) along side this the manager would be paid a performance related loyalty bonus at the end of each season. If I were negotiating for the club I would also insist on a no compensation if sacked clause which would say that if the manager failed to achieve the agreed level of success the club reserve the right to dispense with the manager services with no compensation being paid. The club have to try and get some stability and control around the managers position and try to make sure any clauses work more in the clubs favour.

 

Managers worth their salt won’t agree to a no compensation if they’re sacked clause though.

 

10 million for a third tier boss? haha really? I doubt the likes of Ten Hag and Arteta would command that kind of money.

If we sack them during the season do we have to pay out 10 mill to them too, or does it only work one way?

 

The trade off with release clauses is roughly that the better managers or players you get, or at least the ones with pedigree to date, will request more favourable release clauses to them.

You can either go down the line of:

1. Bringing in ambitious people that there’s a good chance will perform well, but who are using us as a stepping stone to further moves. Benefit is that you may get a promotion out of them if you’re lucky, or a survival if in Champ. Downside is that as soon as they’ve stood out sufficiently they’ll be off, and they’ll very likely have insisted on a release clause. Then it’s a case of negotiating how big that is, but if the club insists it’s prohibitively high, the bloke won’t sign.

2. Bring someone mediocre in that might not demand a release clause but is less likely to do well. If they do do well, and a bigger club comes in, they’ll still end up leaving anyway. Just you *might* be able to negotiate a higher fee. Though based on our club’s history at selling, probably not.

 

So the cycle of the club being taken for a ride by managers continues. The managers successful ***** off at the first sign of interest. The manager fails gets the sack and gets a nice pay day. It's time the club at least tried to stack a few cards in their favour if we are being treated as just a stepping stone all the time at least try to make sure it's on our terms.

 

The evidence of players and managers leaving at the first sign of interest would suggest that the club is indeed an easy touch and very much a doormat although a doormat where the people leaving wipe they feet on exiting the Club rather than when entering it.

 

Not sure if it's been posted but I read it would cost Swansea £500k.

 

No way we could attract Mick to come here not when the The Red Lion are showing interest

 

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co....-confirm-appointment-michael-duff-7211904.amp

Apparently we paid around £100k compensation for Duff. Decent profit margin.

 

1) No way in the world you would get the LMA etc to agree to a clause that says no compensation if sacked etc.
2) Usually release clauses are relative to salaries so do we pay more money with no clause or lower wages with a clause fee?
3) Being taken for a ride - surely the answer to this is to look at why people want to leave so quick and what can be done to change that. 4 managers under the current ownership have left to go elsewhere.

 

When you look at it like that Duff's come in and steadied the ship, helped to increase the value of a few players and all at no cost to the club maybe even made a small profit on him. It's just a sickner when he's gone at the first opportunity.
Hopefully we appoint someone proven that knows league 1.

 

Duff didn't exactly come from the Dog and Duck but then again he didn't come from Manchester City either. Yet the clause was inserted. Maybe we should ask a potential manager to show he's buying into the long term vision of the club and not entertain the release clause.

 

Just a point when the managerial revolving door you described started we were well positioned in the championship due to the lack of continuity and a few disasterious appointments at managerial level we are now a league lower so the release clause isnt doing the club any favours is it. The club has to try to change things somehow.

 

Like others have said though, if there’s no release clause and he just downs tools we could lose him for virtually nothing. The clause benefits the club as well as the manager. You can argue the clause should be higher, 500k for a league one manager is a lot.

 

It’s a good idea, like others have said no one will agree to 10m, but a sliding scale with more realistic league one figure could work, we have to do something different.

We are desperate for continuity and these realise clauses are killing any hope of that

 

That’s the point though, isn’t it. Russell Martin had a sliding scale.
2m to a Premier League team, 1.2m to a championship team, 500k for a league one team is about right.
And as I said above, if you don’t let a manager move on he’s going to down tools and you’ll end up sacking him and paying him compensation.