If he’s got a release clause and he’s really so good can we not just buy him in summer?
Erling Haaland | Dortmund player
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
The difference is extreme. One is the best goal per minute ratio ever and the other one is just very good.
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."
Not really...effectively double the money for a hugely effective loan equivalent!
Yes maybe disruptive at that point in time, but no more disruptive than them needing to find a solution right now.
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.
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. I don't think I have ever seen a tall player like that accelerate this fast. I mean just compare that to Pogba who takes easily 5 seconds to ramp up a sprint and then isn't really fast at the top end speed. Like Haaland fecking takes meters of his opponents defenders within the first two seconds. Like usually this is a weakness of tall players, the only other tall guy I know that is really fast is Usain Bolt. On top of that he has a strong shooting technique, doesn't seem too selfish and if he now starts smashing in headers like CR I have no problem at naming him the most complete forward in the game, even at this young age. It's fecking crazy.
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.
Same here (didn't watch him before his move) - another promising sign is the willingness to track back he showed so far.
Last edited:
Hello Ed.
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.
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 place
His reasons were: To join a club bigger than Salzburg, that play attacking football, where he can play regularly, without much pressure, grow and move to a bigger club. Leipzig and Dortmund fit the bill but in Leipzig, they have Werner, Schick, Poulsen Cunha who are all very young and can compete for the same role. Dortmund he is walking into a starting shirt
Unless Dortmund makes a meteoric rise and becomes a European superpower the type of Liverpool rise in the past 3yrs, I think Haaland will look to move away after this deal. It also coincides with the timeframe the giants Bayern(Lewy), Madrid(Benz), Barcelona(Suarez) City(Aguero) might be moving away finally from their old retiring central striker.
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.
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.
This is the most disappointed I've ever been on not signing a player.
Ronaldinho and Hazard was bad. I feel worse now.
Ronaldinho and Hazard was bad. I feel worse now.
If you meet his release clause surely Dortmund don’t have a say in it?
The player does though. That's what @Nou_Camp99 is saying.
Why would he want to come to United if we don't have CL.
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.
The next decade will be the Haaland/Mbappe decade and I have never seen anyone with better movement, positioning and hunger for goals than him. Totally unique!
Is it a Dortmund forum ?
Just think, if our owners weren’t complete greedy leeching pr1cks he could be banging goals in for us now
Obviously it was as simple as that
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
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
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.
For Dortmund the choice was between swallowing a release clause or looking for someone else. And as good strikers are fairly rare that would've meant either going with someone worse or someone vastly more expensive (eating into their budget for other areas). I mean United is said to have made the second choice and now the club is supposedly hoping to get Slimani, it's not like there are many opportunities like this one out there. Odds are if they turned away Haaland they would have had to keep relying on Alcacer.
In terms of money or squad strength this already looks to have been a terrific deal for Dortmund, the real downside is that the club has set a precedent for other players to demand a release clause as well, but how hard that will impact the club going forward or whether that was perhaps inevitable for a club with Dortmund's business model are questions that are hard to answer from the outside looking in.
That's 2.5 years in. Told the Dortmund supporters on the forum but they preferred to think otherwise.
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.
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.
Bild reports, the clause is only 75 mill € and it is not activated in 2020.....
But the worst thing could happen to Dortmund according to Bild, is selling Haaland without any financial profit. So every cent they paid for Haaland, his manager, his dad, his dentist, his cat, etc. Is covered by the clause and all they got would be goals goals goals for 1.5 or 2.5 years (should be 2.5 years because 55 mill should last more then 1.5 years..... )
But the worst thing could happen to Dortmund according to Bild, is selling Haaland without any financial profit. So every cent they paid for Haaland, his manager, his dad, his dentist, his cat, etc. Is covered by the clause and all they got would be goals goals goals for 1.5 or 2.5 years (should be 2.5 years because 55 mill should last more then 1.5 years..... )
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?
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.
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.
If the player wants out, you expect club to have control on the transfer to set the price which is as per the market standards, not the fixed price which might be peanuts in years time.
If a player wants to leave, he will leave anyways but without release clause club will have control to ask the price that suits all parties, it's not the case with release clause.
Like I said, you think as a Leverkusen fan. Not everyone think with same mentality, especially the club fans who have seen so much success in last 20-25 years, where fans expect players to give their best years to the club rather than making profits on selling players.
Edit: Anyways I don't even think we rejected him. It was simple case of player choosing what's best for his development.
A reasonable release clause can totally be fine. And when I say reasonable I mean huge.
Haaland could and will easily be more valuable than the numbers quoted in 2 years.
If they'd wanted a 120m clause then fine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
We sold Ronaldo for 80 million, imagine losing him at the start of 2006-07 season because of release clause when he was thinking about leaving with Spanish clubs interested, we don't want to do all the hard part and then give the entire control to the player.
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.
All this is valid if you believe we rejected him which I think is loads on bullshit. Player rejected the club as he found Dortmund as good place to develop all things considered. So he signed for Dortmund.
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.
Of course I want him but not with release clause.
Like I said many times, football world doesn't revolve around ManUtd. We were interested in the player just like many other clubs like Leipzig, Juventus, Dortmund. Dortmund won the race fair and square. It's not as if we rejected the player. We lost the battle long back, no wonder Ole met him in the last min to change his mind. Once that failed we briefed the press on why we didn't go ahead with the deal.
Apart from all this, I don't want any young player with low release clauses. We shouldn't be doing all the development work for some other club just to pick the player at the right moment.