Sure, I mean if City offered one of their dodgy 500k /week double contracts, cause the player would stay
In the short-term, should Manchester United take on elite talent with buy out clauses in their contracts?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
I always thought that Buy out clauses weren't enforcable in the UK like they are in Spain?
Money talks JP, you know that full well.
And contract renegotiations with a buy out clause involved, wow.. you thought Sanchez got paid handsomely.
And United is one of the best payer. If money is your argument then we are safe.
You all think Salah would still be at Liverpool to finally push them to the title if Madrid or Barca could have picked him up for 70m last Summer and paid him silly wages?
Yeah, I don't.
Yeah, I don't.
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?
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.
Also plenty of players have buy out clauses, City aren't chasing all of them or able to convince them to move. It's a ridiculous boogeyman.
I think not, it's a slippery slope. Once we start giving them to players it's going to get around and future signings are going to want such clauses and from there we could be in a position where many first team players could be attainable to other clubs and we could do nothing about it. Not to mention taking on that image of a club that doesn't want to keep hold of its best players could be really damaging.
I don't think it's worth it long term.
I don't think it's worth it long term.
Tricky question, but I think yes, we can sign players with release clauses, provided that the release clause reflects at least the players value to the club, and not a low figure that means the player could go where they wanted.
The club shouldn't be a stepping stone, but a player that isn't motivated to stay leaving for a fair price isn't the end of the world.
The club shouldn't be a stepping stone, but a player that isn't motivated to stay leaving for a fair price isn't the end of the world.
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
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
If someone can correct me or add to that would welcome it
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.
I voted yes. If you have the right conditions and create a winning culture and prestige, players will not want to leave other than for money.
Look at Barsa and Madrid. They need to kick people out the door to get them to leave.
Look at Barsa and Madrid. They need to kick people out the door to get them to leave.
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.
This all day long
Also, the Haaland case had nothing to do with a buy out clause as far as I'm concerned. He just chose a much safer bet for his career. Right now our club reeks of chaos and mediocrity. Attracting top talent with the right attitude will always be a challenge under such circumstances.
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.
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.
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.
The whole idea is short termism at its finest.
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.
From the clubs point of view I'd say no but if I was a decent young player then I would want one. Especially if I was singing for someone like PSG, Mbappe won't want to play in the France for the rest of his career but it will be very hard for him to leave. I'd prefer more control over my own career personally.
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.
This is forever going to be a solid No for me. I will never accept a buyout clause in the neighbourhood of reasonable for any players or talents in this club.
Exceptions can be made for clauses in the £200m range. So nearly never.
Exceptions can be made for clauses in the £200m range. So nearly never.
It's how Chelsea practically stole Kante from Leicester City.
And for that reason alone I'd say no (there are other reasons).
Is there actually a sensible or non-deluded argument for not signing a player if they want a buyout clause?
Maybe if they want the clause to be for little more than you sign them, but beyond that, it's a ridiculous reason for United not to sign someone.
Other clubs in Europe allow buyout clauses because it is either that or they don't sign the player. The only premise you can present of holding the advantage here is if you know no other club as attractive or competing at the same level as you will make the player an offer. That is NEVER going to be the case when you're trying to sign a top talent and can't even get into the top four of your own league.
The way you convince a player not to leave isn't by trying to trap them before they even sign. It's by using them to help get you back towards the top, so the reasons they might want to leave are negated somewhat. The worst case scenario is you have to sell them for the buyout clause, which leaves you in no worse position than before you signed them.
Look a tthe current situation. We passed up on Haaland because he wanted a buyout clause. He's gone and signed for a better team than us, with his buyout clause. THey are already reeping the benefits. Meanwhile we have had to sign a 30 year old, ON LOAN, who was decent in the Premier League for Watford, for half a season.
How does any reasonable person conclude United have come out of that better? If you're worried about "not having control" of your players due to clauses in their contracts, you definitely shouldn't be getting players on loan, as that gives you much less control and removes the part where you make a load of money if you lose out.
The problem here is the delusion that United are still in the top bracket when it comes to who a player would want to sign for. We aren't, so any top player is going to be reluctant to tie themselves down.
Honestly I can't get my head around this one. It's up there with the paying over Fellaini's buyout clause thing. Except actually it's worse because WE HAVE NO FECKING STRIKER.
Maybe if they want the clause to be for little more than you sign them, but beyond that, it's a ridiculous reason for United not to sign someone.
Other clubs in Europe allow buyout clauses because it is either that or they don't sign the player. The only premise you can present of holding the advantage here is if you know no other club as attractive or competing at the same level as you will make the player an offer. That is NEVER going to be the case when you're trying to sign a top talent and can't even get into the top four of your own league.
The way you convince a player not to leave isn't by trying to trap them before they even sign. It's by using them to help get you back towards the top, so the reasons they might want to leave are negated somewhat. The worst case scenario is you have to sell them for the buyout clause, which leaves you in no worse position than before you signed them.
Look a tthe current situation. We passed up on Haaland because he wanted a buyout clause. He's gone and signed for a better team than us, with his buyout clause. THey are already reeping the benefits. Meanwhile we have had to sign a 30 year old, ON LOAN, who was decent in the Premier League for Watford, for half a season.
How does any reasonable person conclude United have come out of that better? If you're worried about "not having control" of your players due to clauses in their contracts, you definitely shouldn't be getting players on loan, as that gives you much less control and removes the part where you make a load of money if you lose out.
The problem here is the delusion that United are still in the top bracket when it comes to who a player would want to sign for. We aren't, so any top player is going to be reluctant to tie themselves down.
Honestly I can't get my head around this one. It's up there with the paying over Fellaini's buyout clause thing. Except actually it's worse because WE HAVE NO FECKING STRIKER.
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.
Look, if there is going to be a request from the Agent/player, the Agent will set it, and very little say from the club. So either you take it, or say no.
I would say no on any short term "contract" on 2 points. First off all we are not geared up like Dortmund, Alt Madrid or Ajax, we suffer immediately when a key player left/absence. A feeders Club can and would welcome any approach, as long as money is good.
Secondly, we build on talent, not only for result, but for fan base and image rights. So no good from business perspective if we keep on losing talents every 2 years. Pogba is a good case here, we can accept high fee and high wage, even accept some AWOL (not from us fans, but from Board perspective), but can't face our long term commercial partner when they are building their marketing campaign on our players...
If the buyout clause is initial agreed fee + 25%, then ok. If not, piss off.
We as a club don't really try to keep an unsatisfied player. So I don't really see any reason why we are afraid of the release clause.
If the player is talented enough and we immediately need him, then I don't see the purpose of not signing him "only" because of a release clause.
That of course does not mean we agree to unreasonable release clauses.
Losing out on talents because of false pride is stupidity.
If the player is talented enough and we immediately need him, then I don't see the purpose of not signing him "only" because of a release clause.
That of course does not mean we agree to unreasonable release clauses.
Losing out on talents because of false pride is stupidity.
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.
Generally I'd say no as it sets a bad precedent. But with Haaland, I'd much rather he were at United now than the current likely scenario of him never playing here, even if it means he leaves in 3 years or so. We'd certainly be in much better shape if he were here now...
Like others have said too, a release clause doesn't mean they have to leave. Prove that we're the best place for them and it's a non issue.
Like others have said too, a release clause doesn't mean they have to leave. Prove that we're the best place for them and it's a non issue.
Of course I’d take it. All players from Spain clubs have buy-out clause, including Messi and Ronaldo during their peak years.
In our situation....
Would we loan Halaand if he's available? We should
Would we loan halaand for a guaranteed 3 years where the owner can't recall him? We should
Would we loan Halaan for a guaranteed 3 years, and a guaranteed 40M profit (or more) after 3 years? We should.
Why don't we do that? Because somehow we're not a stepping stone club, we better loaned Idahlo from a chinese club instead.
United Logic
Would we loan Halaand if he's available? We should
Would we loan halaand for a guaranteed 3 years where the owner can't recall him? We should
Would we loan Halaan for a guaranteed 3 years, and a guaranteed 40M profit (or more) after 3 years? We should.
Why don't we do that? Because somehow we're not a stepping stone club, we better loaned Idahlo from a chinese club instead.
United Logic
We are not a stepping stone club. Never have been, never will be.
The moment we head down such a slippery slope, there is no coming back from there.
The moment we head down such a slippery slope, there is no coming back from there.
It's a yes from me.
The precedent argument only make sense if United stayed like this for a while. But the whole point of accepting players with release clause is to become good again. United's reputation has been forged for decades during PL most successful era. They're not going to be considered on Dortmund level if they signed 2-3 players with release clause. Put it this way, if United and Dortmund are playing the same level of football, and both having players with release clause. The player at United would most likely stayed an renegotiate their contract, because a good United side will be a much better situation than a good Dortmund side
Depends on the value of the buy out clause. Ronaldo didn't have a buy out clause and We couldn't stop him from going to Real Madrid (and later it turned out that 80m was a peanut for a player of his quality). Manchester United not being a stepping stone? well yeah in an ideal world, that's what every United fans want. But have you seen where We've been in the past 6 years? if We don't want to admit We're not as attractive as We used to be, then never mind the long term plans. Even the short term ones like finishing top 4 is already out of our reach which hurts the long term plan even more. Do you know what happens to a shite, stagnant club? the more ambitious and talented players would want to leave and We'll be left with academy and average players. Imagine the scenario where you 'reject' one in order to save your face but lose 4 as a result. That's as short term as anything.
We can't be picky. We just need to be smart. If a top top talent demands a buy out clause, the value should be good enough. It's all about the negotiation. Don't forget that right now, We need constant improvements until We reach the top again. Only then can We be picky and say "feck you and your buy out clause". Beggars can't be choosers. It's good to have some pride but don't be an idiot.
We can't be picky. We just need to be smart. If a top top talent demands a buy out clause, the value should be good enough. It's all about the negotiation. Don't forget that right now, We need constant improvements until We reach the top again. Only then can We be picky and say "feck you and your buy out clause". Beggars can't be choosers. It's good to have some pride but don't be an idiot.
Last edited:
Amazing how every question is reduced to just one transfer and answered from that perspective.
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.
I'd much rather have Haaland now with a £50m buy-out than Oghalo.
That transfer benefits us in the short term and getting back to the top.
At the end of the day if we're good enough he'll want to stay. If we're not - he won't. Clause or no clause, players have the power.
That transfer benefits us in the short term and getting back to the top.
At the end of the day if we're good enough he'll want to stay. If we're not - he won't. Clause or no clause, players have the power.
The release clause is a good 20-30M higher than the purchase price (if the rumors are true).
Hence it's not a lost.
Practically we're guaranteed a 3 years service and a Minimum 30M profit.
No. Fans may be desparate to reach the top but I don't believe that is the way. We have the resources to get there while sticking to our principals as long as we have the right people running the show. And we won't get there regardless if we don't. Haaland or not.
No. It would leave us in a right mess after two years. Horrendous idea.