Luis Suárez

[dizzycat]

That is staggering from Henry if true. It's a good job it did pan out with everyone happy, Arsene excepted lol

[shanks69]

maybe it did have a 40mil buyout in it,but maybe that was if an overseas club came in for him.

[Mark79]

People are acting like Henry has dropped a bomb but there is nothing new here going by that article.

Here's what the PFA said about the clause in the summer:

"If you are going to have a supposed buy-out clause it should be that, but it is different as it says if there is no qualification for the Champions League and if there is a minimum offer of £40 million then the parties will get around the table to discuss things - but it does not say the club has to sell”

[Chazza]

[Red_Polo]

People are acting like Henry has dropped a bomb but there is nothing new here going by that article.

Here's what the PFA said about the clause in the summer:

"If you are going to have a supposed buy-out clause it should be that, but it is different as it says if there is no qualification for the Champions League and if there is a minimum offer of £40 million then the parties will get around the table to discuss things - but it does not say the club has to sell”

That's very different to the quotes that have come out though, which suggest the clause was simply ignored rather than adhered to but not obligating us to sell. Whether that's true or not is anyone's guess. But events in January have seemingly lent weight to the idea, albeit this time with us the ones unable to complete a transfer.

[dizzycat]

That's very different to the quotes that have come out though, which suggest the clause was simply ignored rather than adhered to but not obligating us to sell. Whether that's true or not is anyone's guess. But events in January have seemingly lent weight to the idea, albeit this time with us the ones unable to complete a transfer.

This was also how I read it. Water under the bridge now anyway.

[Mark79]

That's very different to the quotes that have come out though, which suggest the clause was simply ignored rather than adhered to but not obligating us to sell. Whether that's true or not is anyone's guess. But events in January have seemingly lent weight to the idea, albeit this time with us the ones unable to complete a transfer.

I don't see how that's very different, we knew at the time that Liverpool flatly rejected the +£1 bid, regardless of how the clause was interpreted.

[Red_Polo]

Clearly the interesting point is whether a legally binding buyout clause can actually be ignored by the selling club in practice. Nobody's saying it's news that the bid was rejected!

[G]

Bit like Konoplyanka.We met his buyout clause,he's not here. Clearly these things aren't straight forward.

[DannyMan2006]

Clearly the interesting point is whether a legally binding buyout clause can actually be ignored by the selling club in practice. Nobody's saying it's news that the bid was rejected!

Quite clearly, it can be ignored. But to do so, you risk legal action which can take months, leaving Suarez in no mans land. As such, he didn't fancy being stuck and I'm sure words were said that meant if we failed to be top 4 again it would have been more straight forward end of this season. I think the biggest issue was that it was a rival. Had it been Madrid or Barca I fancy he may have walked.

[Mark79]

Clearly the interesting point is whether a legally binding buyout clause can actually be ignored by the selling club in practice. Nobody's saying it's news that the bid was rejected!

But that's what the PFA said at the time. It was no more than a 'good faith' clause in relation to discussions but it wasn't an actual cast-iron buy-out clause.

I didn't say anyone said the rejected bid was news, I said that it's no great revelation that Suarez had a £40m 'clause' that didn't actually oblige Henry to sell.

[Red_Polo]

Quite clearly, it can be ignored. But to do so, you risk legal action which can take months, leaving Suarez in no mans land. As such, he didn't fancy being stuck and I'm sure words were said that meant if we failed to be top 4 again it would have been more straight forward end of this season. I think the biggest issue was that it was a rival. Had it been Madrid or Barca I fancy he may have walked.

Yep, that may well be the case. As pointed out though, it's at odds with what the club has said previously and indeed the PFA who said it wasn't an actionable clause. So I'm not going to jump to any conclusions yet.

[Red_Polo]

But that's what the PFA said at the time. It was no more than a 'good faith' clause in relation to discussions but it wasn't an actual cast-iron buy-out clause.

I didn't say anyone said the rejected bid was news, I said that it's no great revelation that Suarez had a £40m 'clause' that didn't actually oblige Henry to sell.

You've missed the point. It's not what the PFA said at all.

The new quotes suggest the clause DID oblige us to sell legally but we didn't comply with it.

Because that's at odds with what the PFA said, I'm not inclined to believe that was the case. But what purportedly happened with Kono does raise the question as to how practically enforceable a clause that IS legally watertight can be.

[Kenneth]

Especially with the clock ticking on a transfer deadline.

[Mark79]

You've missed the point. It's not what the PFA said at all.

The new quotes suggest the clause DID oblige us to sell legally but we didn't comply with it.

Because that's at odds with what the PFA said, I'm not inclined to believe that was the case. But what purportedly happened with Kono does raise the question as to how practically enforceable a clause that IS legally watertight can be.

I haven't at all missed the point. If the PFA say it wasn't a genuine clause then what more is there to it?

As for these quotes, it depends how you read them.

I'll agree they appear a bit murky, like the clause itself. But Henry doesn't actually say anything that contradicts his original (PFA approved ) explanation of it.