Regulus Arcturus Black
Full Member
Sure, I mean if City offered one of their dodgy 500k /week double contracts, cause the player would stayWhy not. Maybe the player loves it here, improves and decides to stay
Sure, I mean if City offered one of their dodgy 500k /week double contracts, cause the player would stayWhy not. Maybe the player loves it here, improves and decides to stay
Money talks JP, you know that full well.As many have already said, it's the clubs job to make sure that every player employed by the club is convinced that it's the best place for him. If you are worried that a player may want to leave and for that reason choose to not give him a contract that includes a buy out clause then the problem lies with you, you are basically admitting that you aren't the best place for the player or that at the very least it's not obvious. So for me the answer is obviously yes, we should give generational talents buy out clauses and we should make everything to be worthy of these talents.
And United is one of the best payer. If money is your argument then we are safe.Money talks JP, you know that full well.
And contract renegotiations with a buy out clause involved, wow.. you thought Sanchez got paid handsomely.
So after 2 years City pay the buyout and offer said player 500 k /week, because well, City just would, it'd be miles bigger than their Tevez moment.And United is one of the best payer. If money is your argument then we are safe.
If the player is worth it, yes you match it. If he isn't City are mugs, they paid a big fee for a player that isn't worth it and on top of that gave him a massive wage.So after 2 years City pay the buyout and offer said player 500 k /week, because well, City just would, it'd be miles bigger than their Tevez moment.
How do we answer that? by matching it?
Yeah, very likely scenario.... then rather not buy anyone, you’re rightSure, I mean if City offered one of their dodgy 500k /week double contracts, cause the player would stay
You are kind of wrong, in the sense that these clauses aren't linked and they exist for other players without it being seen as borrowing or even mentioned. These clauses can also disappear if the player signs a new contract, it's not a forgone conclusion that they will ever be used and the easiest way to make them pointless is to be the place where the player is better served. Also from a strictically financial standpoint, these clauses can effectively be bought, if you don't want to see them in the initial contract, you simply give signing and loyalty bonuses that roughtly covers them, it's a business transaction the player has no reason to forfeit future gains.It wasn't 'just' a buy-out clause though was it? As far as I understand, Haaland's father and agent would have taken a significant share of any future transfer. So effectively we would almost be 'borrowing' Haaland until he decided to move on to a 'top' club - at which point we'd get our initial investment back but not much more
If someone can correct me or add to that would welcome it
This all day longBeing scared to give a generational talent like Haaland a 3 year break clause screams insecurity given how desperately we needed a striker this window. It suggests we're not as confident in this "cultural reboot" as we make out. Surely if the current administration had genuine faith in the club's long term trajectory they'd take the risk and bet on our ability to foster an environment where he wouldn't want to leave but they didn't.
The same can be said about the prospect of City or the Scousers swooping in and taking him because it presupposes his 3 year experience here would be so shit that he'd jump at the chance at moving to one of our fiercest rivals. If that was to happen, again it would be a failure on our part for not progressing enough over that 3 year period.
Ole can say "We're Man Utd" until he's red in the face but it doesn't mean feck all if we're still lingering in mid table obscurity after 4 and half seasons in charge.
Because we would have had 3 years of peace from transfer speculation. If they want to buy the player before that then you pay whatever United want. If the player wants to leave after 3 years, at least we have had 3 years of good service and money returned to us to invest again.Why do you say this? Within the three years the player may have developed a lot and then we have a huge risk of losing him. For example Imagine if when Sancho signed for Dortmund and he had a £50mil buy out clause someone would already have an agreement to buy him if they payed out the clause. In the last three years his progression has accelerated and Dortmund would get well over £100mil for him now.
We should not be a stepping stone for anyone, it is always difficult to keep young talented players if you aren't doing well like us at the moment but we need to identify the right players to build us up to that point. We need to get players that want to be with us and play for our club, not so they can build their professional career then jump as soon as they have done so.
Either way, it labels us as a feeder club. Taking raw players, letting them develop and hone their skills, to then go off elsewhere on the cheap when they’re the finished article isn’t how we’re going to get back to the top.This is the issue. I'd personally be ok with it for younger players, as long as there was also a clause prohibiting any lateral move within the PL. Or more specifically, within a 40 mile radius of Manchester.
Agree! Of course it also gives the player more control over his future. In Haalands case I think the buyout clause is way too low, and it will hurt for them to let a 200M player go for 75M in 2,5 years. The player and his agents will fill their pockets again and choose between multiple lucrative offers from eager suitors when that time comes. Good for the player, bad for the clubs.It has nothing to do with helping the player. Buy out clauses exist to make agents money. Period. They don’t make commissions unless they move a player. They are the stock brokers of sport. The more times they can resell the same player the more cash in their pockets. Churn = profit.
It's how Chelsea practically stole Kante from Leicester City.Do any clubs around England even use Buyout clauses? Thought it was a predominantly spanish thing? To answer the thread no, would be another step towards securing mediocrity as a club.
Come on, the original clause I heard was 50m, Dortmund insisted on 75m, out of which I guess Haaland's father might take a cut as well, on top of any agent fee outstanding.Nope.
I might be OK with it is it was a large clause of say 120m. That alone would likely stop the worst thing happening which is them being a worldie and then going to city or Liverpool or something like that.
Al barca players have clauses but they are obscene for a reason.
Big clubs try to hold onto their talent. A release clause takes away the negotiating power from the club. And why do you care about what they rightly do.Yes. If we end up becoming good they will likely stay. If we end up staying average they will rightly look to leave and we will make a profit.
It's a yes from me.Could this be a poll?
The endless back on forths on here since Haaland was supposedly turned down because of his and his agents conditions has raised a talking point in itself. Buy out clauses, or acceptance of them.
For me personally, it's an absolute no - Manchester United being a stepping stone or nurturer of talent that can then be whisked away via buyout would be a new low, one that states you've accepted your position and are no longer part of any footballing hierachy or a final destination club.
The counter-argument is that these same talents can propel you back into the big time, at which point, you simply renegotiate and sign them anyway. The issue, however, is once a precedent is set, it is very hard to break from that perception. On top of that, if you don't succeed off the back of those talents and get yourself back into the top bracket, you're then in danger of becoming a permanent fixture as a feeder club. I believe this is a partial issue of a side like Dortmund, where talent is constantly nurtured and then whisked away, which leaves them in a muteable, unsettled state.
Where do you stand in regard to this topic? Would you welcome truly elite talent that have buyout clauses written into their contracts?
The release clause is a good 20-30M higher than the purchase price (if the rumors are true).I mean if we had signed Haaland and inserted a low release clause it would be our fault if he decided to leave in 2-3 years. It's the same with the Pogba situation minus the release clause it's no one but our fault that we haven't built a title challenging team in the past 3 years.