LJJT
Full Member
If he’s got a release clause and he’s really so good can we not just buy him in summer?
The difference is extreme. One is the best goal per minute ratio ever and the other one is just very good.A goal every 91 minute isn't just as good as a goal every 46 minutes, is it?
According to the Athletic, the clause is only activated towards the end of his contact:If he’s got a release clause and he’s really so good can we not just buy him in summer?
Not really...effectively double the money for a hugely effective loan equivalent!I mean obviously they don't care but in 2 years time if Dortmund are forced to sell what could be a 30 goal a season striker for that then they've obviously had their pants down
Thanks for the info, seems an interesting move by him then if he’s prepared to stay there for so long. I still find it odd he rejected us if indeed he did.According to the Athletic, the clause is only activated towards the end of his contact:
"For the first time since the acrimonious departure of Mario Gotze to Bayern in 2013, Dortmund also had to insert a release clause in one of their player’s contracts. The fee is substantially higher than the £50 million figure quoted in the English press, however, and only becomes active towards the latter stages of Haaland’s four-and-a-half-year contract."
If they are smart they are going to triple his wages in the summer and triple the buy out fee as well. I'm almost certain that in 2-3 years the big clubs are going to be willing to break the bank for this kid no matter what.According to the Athletic, the clause is only activated towards the end of his contact:
"For the first time since the acrimonious departure of Mario Gotze to Bayern in 2013, Dortmund also had to insert a release clause in one of their player’s contracts. The fee is substantially higher than the £50 million figure quoted in the English press, however, and only becomes active towards the latter stages of Haaland’s four-and-a-half-year contract."
Same here (didn't watch him before his move) - another promising sign is the willingness to track back he showed so far.I have to admit one of the things that probably impresses me the most about this guy is apart from his natural eye for scoring and his physical presence he is super fast.
Hello Ed.If they are smart they are going to triple his wages in the summer and triple the buy out fee as well. I'm almost certain that in 2-3 years the big clubs are going to be willing to break the bank for this kid no matter what.
Hello Ed.
No one actually knows the contents of this (supposed) release clause. It could be €100m or higher for all we know. But even if it's a rather moderate amount the club will be happy. They signed Haaland for say €25m and now they are looking to shift the player they upgraded on (Alcacer) for €30m-€40m to Valencia. Unless Haaland falls off a cliff they are already winners in this, the question is just how big their win is.
Seriously though, they know they won't be able to keep him forever but everything below 100M in 2-3 times will feel like a bad deal for Dortmund reckon but in order to get his buyout fee up they will need to offer some compensation I reckon.
The player needs to agree to this deal, Agreeing to remove the clause defeats the purpose of including it in the first placeIf they are smart they are going to triple his wages in the summer and triple the buy out fee as well. I'm almost certain that in 2-3 years the big clubs are going to be willing to break the bank for this kid no matter what.
Fans still pretending it's 2013.If he’s got a release clause and he’s really so good can we not just buy him in summer?
If you meet his release clause surely Dortmund don’t have a say in it?Fans still pretending it's 2013.
Dortmund are going to be in the CL. We aren't. Why on earth would he come to us from them? It would be a backwards step now.
The player does though. That's what @Nou_Camp99 is saying.If you meet his release clause surely Dortmund don’t have a say in it?
He chose guaranteed playingtime/development, 100k/w + 50M release clause kicking in after 21/22 season, excellent service and less pressure over us and 170k/w and no release clause, more pressure, less minutes and not so good service. Understandable.I sure hope we missed out on him because he preferered Dortmund for development and his career rather than we turned him down because of his demands. Now we are without Rashford and this guy looks like the best young striker in the world.
Is it a Dortmund forum ?No one actually knows the contents of this (supposed) release clause. It could be €100m or higher for all we know. But even if it's a rather moderate amount the club will be happy. They signed Haaland for say €25m and now they are looking to shift the player they upgraded on (Alcacer) for €30m-€40m to Valencia. Unless Haaland falls off a cliff they are already winners in this, the question is just how big their win is.
Obviously it was as simple as thatJust think, if our owners weren’t complete greedy leeching pr1cks he could be banging goals in for us now
You're kind of just looking at it like he's going to be a €100+mil player for sure and when he moves on a couple of years down the line Dortmund will have lost the difference between his release clause fee and hypothetical market value. But that money never was on the table, if there was a way to sign him without a clause they would have done it. But Haaland's side had a great bargaining position so there wasn't.Pretty gutting seeing his start in Germany especially coupled with Rashford's injury that being said we cannot sign a player on the basis of a release clause being part of the deal. People can point to Dortmund doubling their money all they want 50m (if that is the release clause) is nothing in the modern game and if Dortmund are forced to sell for that in 18 months time for a player who at that point should be demanding a fee of over 100m then suddenly Dortmund are looking like right mugs (as would we)
Only way this transfer works out for Dortmund is if he renews his contract and wavers the release clause or it at least reflects his true market value
That's 2.5 years in. Told the Dortmund supporters on the forum but they preferred to think otherwise.According to the Athletic, the clause is only activated towards the end of his contact:
"For the first time since the acrimonious departure of Mario Gotze to Bayern in 2013, Dortmund also had to insert a release clause in one of their player’s contracts. The fee is substantially higher than the £50 million figure quoted in the English press, however, and only becomes active towards the latter stages of Haaland’s four-and-a-half-year contract."
Even if this scenario becomes true, from Dortmund's perspective signing him with the clause was better than not signing him at all. They're most likely still making profit from him and on top of that they've sorted out their striker problems for multiple years. And they'll have improved their reputation as an excellent place for the best talents in the world.Pretty gutting seeing his start in Germany especially coupled with Rashford's injury that being said we cannot sign a player on the basis of a release clause being part of the deal. People can point to Dortmund doubling their money all they want 50m (if that is the release clause) is nothing in the modern game and if Dortmund are forced to sell for that in 18 months time for a player who at that point should be demanding a fee of over 100m then suddenly Dortmund are looking like right mugs (as would we)
Only way this transfer works out for Dortmund is if he renews his contract and wavers the release clause or it at least reflects his true market value
If the release clause is true then no, it won't be great deal for United. Release clause might be common in Germany but not in PL, especially for top 6 clubs.Even if this scenario becomes true, from Dortmund's perspective signing him with the clause was better than not signing him at all. They're most likely still making profit from him and on top of that they've sorted out their striker problems for multiple years. And they'll have improved their reputation as an excellent place for the best talents in the world.
This deal is great for Dortmund. And it would've been great for United as well. In your current state, talents in the Haaland tier are out of your reach without such deals.
Apart from the fact that Dortmund would hardly be so stupid to agree to a RC that could be triggered within 6 months: Why would he leave Dortmund for you in the summer, if he could have you joined this winter anyway?If you meet his release clause surely Dortmund don’t have a say in it?
Rejecting the player because of his demand for a release clause makes only sense if there's an alternative. I don't think United has one. The only reason you rejected (if he didn't prefer Dortmund anyway) him is false pride.If the release clause is true then no, it won't be great deal for United. Release clause might be common in Germany but not in PL, especially for top 6 clubs.
You can talk all about making profit on the player but that's not what club wants.
With all due respect, you are thinking as a Leverkusen fan where you think signing player for 20 million and selling for 60 million is a win - win situation. It's not true for all clubs. When you develop a player, you expect him to stick around and win trophies for the club instead of making transfer profit.Rejecting the player because of his demand for a release clause makes only sense if there's an alternative. I don't think United has one. The only reason you rejected (if he didn't prefer Dortmund anyway) him is false pride.
As of yet, I haven't heard one rational explanation of a United fan why release clauses should be a no go for United. You would've been much better off with this deal than without it.
A reasonable release clause can totally be fine. And when I say reasonable I mean huge.Rejecting the player because of his demand for a release clause makes only sense if there's an alternative. I don't think United has one. The only reason you rejected (if he didn't prefer Dortmund anyway) him is false pride.
As of yet, I haven't heard one rational explanation of a United fan why release clauses should be a no go for United. You would've been much better off with this deal than without it.
Because money is irrelevant to United at this time? United want to sign players who are at the club for the long haul and committed to staying through the rebuild. What's the point in signing haaland to just give him a platform to look elsewhere at a reduced price? Essentially that's what Dortmund have agreed to do and they will be forced to let him move on at a cheap price in a few years time. And that's not even mentioning the ridiculous agent and signing on fees they paid.Rejecting the player because of his demand for a release clause makes only sense if there's an alternative. I don't think United has one. The only reason you rejected (if he didn't prefer Dortmund anyway) him is false pride.
As of yet, I haven't heard one rational explanation of a United fan why release clauses should be a no go for United. You would've been much better off with this deal than without it.
Because it would make us more succesfull in the meantime. It's like having an awesome striker on a 3 year loan. It's like succes on a pitch doesn't matter unless it's part of a six year plan with players who want to stay here forever.Because money is irrelevant to United at this time? United want to sign players who are at the club for the long haul and committed to staying through the rebuild. What's the point in signing haaland to just give him a platform to look elsewhere at a reduced price? Essentially that's what Dortmund have agreed to do and they will be forced to let him move on at a cheap price in a few years time. And that's not even mentioning the ridiculous agent and signing on fees they paid.
When you take the above into consideration I'm glad the club pulled the plug. We have a top prospect in Greenwood who can develop alongside Rashford who is still a kid himself. Agreeing to the Haarland demands would have been counterproductive to our new approach and would have also seen us basically agreeing to write off millions in fees and development fees to potentially lose him at a base price for a minimum release fee.
What if he struggles for first 2 years and finally becomes good player in the 3rd year and fecks off in the 4th? What exactly do we gain from playing him for 3 years when he was inconsistent and had lot of development to do? Other club will just pick him up for decent fee.Because it would make us more succesfull in the meantime. It's like having an awesome striker on a 3 year loan. It's like succes on a pitch doesn't matter unless it's part of a six year plan with players who want to stay here forever.
All transfers comes with a risk. RVP was bought for 2 mil by Arsenal and gave them tons of goals when he was fit. The fact he joined us does not diminish that he delivered on the pitch for them.What if he struggles for first 2 years and finally becomes good player in the 3rd year and fecks off in the 4th? What exactly do we gain from playing him for 3 years when he was inconsistent and had lot of development to do? Other club will just pick him up for decent fee.
He has started superbly at Dortmund, so fair play to him.
Basically all evidence so far suggests that we would profit a lot more from having haaland than not having him. Even legends like Rooney wanted to leave when we were undervesting so we gave him a big fat contract to shut him up.What if he struggles for first 2 years and finally becomes good player in the 3rd year and fecks off in the 4th? What exactly do we gain from playing him for 3 years when he was inconsistent and had lot of development to do? Other club will just pick him up for decent fee.
He has started superbly at Dortmund, so fair play to him.
Yeah but was close to 8-10 years later, not because of fixed price. Not even sure how they are even related, Arsenal named their price for their player and we paid good money (at that time for a player with only 1 year left on contract).All transfers comes with a risk. RVP was bought for 2 mil by Arsenal and gave them tons of goals when he was fit. The fact he joined us does not diminish that he delivered on the pitch for them.
Because Rooney didn't have release clause, if he had, he would have left us. That's why we shouldn't entertain release clause especially for young players who will be inconsistent and we have to develop them by giving playing time week in week out.Basically all evidence so far suggests that we would profit a lot more from having haaland than not having him. Even legends like Rooney wanted to leave when we were undervesting so we gave him a big fat contract to shut him up.
We have paper thin squad especially in forwards. Would you want haaland in the squad now for the next 3 years or not? Our season is already more fecked than it was because Rashford has a long term injury.Because Rooney didn't have release clause, if he had, he would have left us. That's why we shouldn't entertain release clause especially for young players who will be inconsistent and we have to develop them by giving playing time week in week out.
Of course I want him but not with release clause.We have paper thin squad especially in forwards. Would you want haaland in the squad now for the next 3 years or not? Our season is already more fecked than it was because Rashford has a long term injury.