What is the point of a release clause if the owner can shoot it down? That doesn't make sense. Are you sure it wasn't Yarms himself that shot them down?
Stoke want to complete their transfer business for the summer with a signing of the quality of Yarmolenko, but Surkis last week ruled out selling the Ukraine winger to the club.
"Ultimately, the amount of compensation is not important, but the fact that the level of the club to which he goes on a par with Yarmolenko," Surkis told Sport Express.
"A level this is undoubtedly higher than Stoke."
Yarmolenko, however, believes joining the Potters would represent a step forward in his career.
"Stoke City have made a formal proposal, but the president did not want to let me go.
"It would be interesting to play in the English Premier League, it's a step forward for me.
"Of course I want to play for a bigger club than Stoke City, but I pondered the pros and cons.
"There are some drawbacks, but it's still England where 50,000 people are in the stadiums every week, not 5,000. It would be nice to play again in two weeks against Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool and Arsenal.
"I had an agreement with the president that I would be released, but he did not want to do that. But I think it makes no sense to sign a new contract with Dinamo because I'm already 26.
"The president said that Stoke City is not the right level for me. Their offer is still there, but the president does not want to let go. Well, I have fulfilled my contract. I say everything as it really is."
Although it was not aired until Sunday, Yarmolenko gave the interview on Thursday before reports of an offer from Tottenham emerged
So even though Stoke met this 'release' clause the president just refused to sell - which makes me think its not a release clause at all
