I'm pretty sure we couldn't put that size of a buy out clause on Haaland when he wasn't even that well known pre-dortmund.
He had a buy out clause in mind and he got it.
Erling Haaland | Man City watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood), Imran (@Annihilate Now!) and Colm (@Duafc) talk about the lack of incomings so far at Manchester United, what we're hoping to see transfer wise in the next few weeks (both in and out) and lay out what our current expectations are for Ten Hag's first season.
Also, we see a long awaited return of Imran's Stupid Game.
He had a buy out clause in mind and he got it.
I didn't say 150. Nothing wrong with buying for the price Dortmund did and selling for the price they did. It got them a few good years out of him.
You can bet anything City will have their usual Anti United Clause in that as they always do now. We could have done the same but where too proud to give someone a buyout clause.
I don't know.
Ronaldo leaving us for Madrid hurt us a bit in different ways.
We can't have players just using us as a stepping stone to clubs who they believe are bigger.
We like to see ourselves more like a Bayern Munich than a Dortmund I thought.
A 150 mill release clause is shrewd business i reckon.
the clause seems in line with the one he had with BVB, basically 3x the transfer fee the club paid for him. Every party wins in this case. It is a jail free card for Haaland in case it doesn't work out in City and he can leave in 2 years.
People are forgetting the fees paid to agents and daddy, Dortmund and City won't be making anything profit money wise, the only thing they'll be getting is a monster of a player for a few years.
Club needs to pay all these fees to player and agent regardless of free transfer, release clause or regular transfer anyway.
This feels like he is using City as a stepping stone…
He's young, and adaptable. Pep will only improve him. He is going to be a success. No doubt.
Haaland may want to challenge himself in different league down the road which is fair enough. However it is pretty hard in financial term or sporting term to use City as a "stepping stone".
He has been pretty clear that he wants to play in all leagues. Think he will be doing this for all clubs he signs for.
Maybe not the correct wording to use. As a stop-gap? Point being he probably does see himself ending up at another club and City aren’t the final goal/dream club.
It is fine. He is not a slave and he can switch job/club just like everybody else. If he is happy he may stay longer. Who knows?
Very naive
Better to have loved and lost and all that....
Also we need to walk before we can run so to speak. Cant be thinking we are too good for these types of deals.
And they are smart enough to not be too proud about it, unlike us.
Real clubs like Real Madrid and Manchester United get a history/heritage waiver of said fees.
People are really dumb (or acting dumb) that they can't see difference in agent fee for other transfers and this transfer. Anyways it is what it is, all this doesn't matter, only thing matters is club got superb player.
Last edited:
City will buy out the clause 100%
Haaland would be foolish to attach himself to that club without an exit strategy. As had been seen with Chelsea, that club in the current form can stop existing in a matter of days. I wouldn't think his dad and agents are fools.
Sure. Just like Man Utd would have if he'd signed here instead of Dortmund. Just like his next club too.
Yup, I never saw the issue with that type of clause. If everything goes well he would want to stay or could sign a new contract and it's still not a given he's going to be a massive success. Worst case scenario would be he doesn't perform and there aren't buyers for him at that price, but even then it's not like Manchester City paid 100 million for him. Overall I think it's a good deal for the club and the player.
But the alternative strategy United has been using is to overpay for players who still want to get out of the club and I'd say that ends up being a lot worse for the team.
Why can't these supposed professional journalists type like a human being would.
Kane is a Pep striker. Haaland is not.
Pep's entire football philosophy revolves around his striker coming deep, allowing the inside forwards to make runs. I can't see Haaland working in this system.
I don't know why people are so terrified.
Pep has a chequered past when it comes to strikers. From his feuds with Eto'o and Ibrahimovic to shifting Villa out wide.
Pep's entire football philosophy revolves around his striker coming deep, allowing the inside forwards to make runs. I can't see Haaland working in this system.
I don't know why people are so terrified.
Pep has a chequered past when it comes to strikers. From his feuds with Eto'o and Ibrahimovic to shifting Villa out wide.
Worked for Lewandowski and Aguero though.
Very true, but both of them were adept at playing the false number 9 role. Both are technically superior to Haaland.
I don't think Haaland is a Pep signing.
Remember when Shevchenko (and Ballack) was foisted onto Mourinho? I think it'll be the same outcome.
I personally think they were both better under different managers than Pep.
Pep has a long history with strikers, most of them ended in feuds. I think it's to do with the fact that Pep doesn't use strikers in the traditional way, because of this, they take umbrage with having to play as inside forwards or a false nine.
Personally, I can see Haaland flopping hard. We've seen it when strikers join the wrong clubs, from Sutton to Chelsea, Shevchenko to Chelsea, Torres to Chelsea, Forlan with United, Lukaku with United, etc.
I'm interested to see how things pan out.
Well, they spent like €156m euro based on release clause + agent fees + player’s fees.
Crazy transfer but it doesn't matter as long as you can cheat any and all rules of financial fair play while having the media on your side. Also I don't know why so many are convinced of it being such a sure thing success. Lots of big transfers don't work, most of them actually.
No I was more referring to how much profit city would make from the release clause they added into Haaland’s contract after spending €156m excluding his big wages
See's like some of these fees would not be applicable anymore if FIFA has its way
They don't care anyway. The clause is there for the agents and family to make more money.No I was more referring to how much profit city would make from the release clause they added into Haaland’s contract after spending €156m excluding his big wages
Why wouldn’t they care if they can’t keep Haaland?
Good if done but City has proved that UEFA is incompetent/ unwilling to actually enforce such things. As long as you are backed by an oil state with unlimited funds they will find a way around it. You can't find a City fan outside of Manchester if you try and yet "sponsors" are giving them the most lucrative deals. It's all a farce with City and PSG.
Because they can pay him, his family, agents however much they want. Officially or unofficially. The clause just assures them (Haaland camp) of that. Why do you think virtually no City players left them safe for Sane? Lots of money outside of the books that makes sure any allure of Madrid, Barca, etc is irrelevant versus how much they make at ,can't even fill their stadium, City.
They just spent €156m without benefit of the player being long term project because city added release clause that potentially might not make much profit if for example let’s say Man United decides to activate his release clause in 2 years or 3 years. So how is that smart business that we should try what they do?
I might be misunderstanding you but I never said it's smart business let alone that we should do it ourselves. City can do that because they can pay players, family and agents far more then any other team; that makes it far less likely that a player leaves, clause or no clause.