In the short-term, should Manchester United take on elite talent with buy out clauses in their contracts?

[Fortitude]

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 Boy]

I think there's a third argument, which is they should if they want them, if a player wants to move they should be able to move, the task for the club is to build a good enough atmosphere/team/backroom staff/success that they don't want to regardless of someone meeting their clause.

 

[Baneofthegame]

I’m in the no camp, can’t have that stepping stone mentality, either you are here for the long haul of bringing glory to this club or you aren’t coming here at all.

 

[DBT85]

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.

 

[roonster09]

I don't believe we turned down Haaland, he rejected ManUtd as he thought Dortmund was better for him at this point of his career. He is very young and plenty of years to make multiple jumps, so I would take this particular deal out of my posts as people tend to be over emotional because of our attacking players and their lack of goal hunger.

It's a no for me. It's a dangerous precedent to set, once you set for one player then there is a good chance every player would want one (It will be like Sanchez situation, messed up whole wage structure and everyone wants 200-300K per week now) There won't be any stability, at the time where you are getting 100+ million for good players, you will be losing them for lower fee, without any control on the time of the deal. I don't want Gotze situation at ManUtd.

Also I have said in other thread, I don't want us to lose a player when he is about to reach his peak, especially without dictating the term of the deal. Imagine if we sign a young player with release clause, he takes 2-3 seasons to develop with inconsistent performances, finally when he shows how good he is we will lose him for the fixed fee. People will argue we have to create atmosphere and all that, lets get real. There are always clubs who are ahead of us in the food chain.

 

[Sky1981]

A buy out clause for a team like United (where money isn't a problem) is just that.

Buy out clause or not if your player got a better offer he will move

I have yet to see 1 club sticking out to make an unwanted player stay, yet I see alot more player got their wish (albeit in a less than good mannered way)

 

[Marcus]

Yes, as long as it can only be activated 3 years later.

 

[Ish]

I think this might become more & more frequent - buyout clauses give players the freedom to move (& earn more, along with their agents). Can’t really fault them - especially if it’s mostly just a job for them.

Luckily for us - we’re still one of the 3 biggest brands in the world, so if we sort out our on field issues, we’d generally be around the top of the food chain.

So obviously it’s not good to be deemed a stepping stone but if the market starts moving in that direction - are we really going to refuse to sign any quality player because of some sentimental reason? Not every player is going to dream to play for United. That’s life.

As long as there’s mutual benefit - great. And if your team is good enough - chances are that said player won’t even want to leave.

 

[Robertd0803]

Not a hope in hell.

 

[Footyislife]

Depends on the value of the buy out clauses. If we can get clauses with 200-300% profit i'm all for it. Get 2 good years out of the player and move them on. Our team is lacking competition and depth. Too many players don't have to fight for their positions and improve every day. We should have a mix of star buys (Pogba, Martial) with young stars with clauses, and youth players we develop ourselves. That gives us a deep and competitive team in the long run.

Financially alone the profit from developing the players combined with the CL earnings & our brand will allow us to replace that player easily and still come out ahead. I think we need to run the financial BVB model for a few years till we get the right pieces going. Attract talent, build the squad up, sell for profit, reinvest, win.

 

[Zen86]

It’s all well and good until City stroll in, take our best player because there’s nothing we can do about it, and the caf explodes.

 

[Ish]

It’s all well and good until City stroll in, take our best player because there’s nothing we can do about it, and the caf explodes.

It’s fine, just chuck a pigs head at him!

 

[lurkingfan]

In Haalands case, yes we should have taken it. Get off your high horses, we should be looking at players that help us bridge the gap, clause or not. We are a mid-table club trying to get back to past glories. The gap between us and Liverpool/Man City/Leicester is growing every day, when we end up with Igahlo over Haaland.

 

[b82REZ]

I wouldn't ever want us to agree to them and I accept and understand why we didn't in this case. It sets a terrible precedent and with a leech like Raiola pulling the strings he'd expect them for all his clients at the club.

However with the ever increasing fees clubs have to pay for transfers nowadays I can see them becoming more common over the next few years as clubs look to protect their investments.

I may be misremembering but I do not recall as many free transfers of top players as we have seen in recent years and I think that in part is clubs setting unrealistic amounts and pricing players out of moves which had resulted in players running down their contracts and bagging larger signing on bonuses.

 

[Gehrman]

If it is in cases like Haaland where his quality is obvious and we are in dire need of a quality striker, then yes. Especially if the release clause can first be activated after 3 years. See it as a loan deal.

 

[TsuWave]

I don’t think we should. People are too fixated on Haaland though

 

[Striker10]

No because it sends out the wrong message but also many of our best buys/players we've promoted or they weren't hyped so much. That said, if the next Ronaldo comes along and we're up and down then who would say no?

 

[Red Star One]

As long as the clause can't be triggered by domestic clubs and it ensures us some healthy profit on what we've paid for a player, I don't have a problem with that. We need more squad depth and quality on the pitch, sure I'd love players to come here with a legendary Man United career on their minds, but if there's a guy that can improve us instantly and we can make profit on, I have no problem with him only playing for us for two or three seasons.

 

[R'hllor]

In our current state, does it matter? Dortmund is doing it because, they take a talent on cheap, improve them in many ways, make them look good in their football and when player reach that level where someone is ready to trigger their clause, they sell = profit.

If we buy a talent for 25 mil. and agent demands a clause of lets say 130mil., how things are right now, there is no universe where we are able to provide player improvement on that level so some club see worth of spitting 130mil. on a drop. Do people really think that Haaland would look the same if we got him instead of Dortmund, we would be talking about adaptation, how others are bad, just take example of Bruno, bet he was confused watching our "football" vs Wolves.

When you think about it, we would not be even good as stepping stone club.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

Prefer not.

But okay if we have to i.e. desperate (which we shouldn't but you know..), however, only if it's conditional eg. high buy-out clauses or activated only after 3 years.

 

[Toblerone92]

It’s all well and good until City stroll in, take our best player because there’s nothing we can do about it, and the caf explodes.

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.

 

[Skills]

Yes. If you're good enough, you'll keep them.

Secondly, we have a feckload of money. So we can offer him enough money to eventually get rid of it.

Say we signed Haaland for £20m with a £60m buyout clause. When Madrid/Barca come in to sign him for that buyout value - why not just offer him £40m lump sum to re-sign without the buyout + a salary that matches whatever they're offering.

 

[ottosec]

No.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

No

 

[GBBQ]

I think this kind of thing will become more prevalent. Why should a player blindly sign to a club that is under performing and be forced to see out his contract because the owners refuse to budge on an unrealistic valuation especially if, like in Pogba's case, the club has sold you a vision but not followed through on it. Kit shows no less lack of faith from the player as it does in the club having an option for an extra year as part of the contract.

I think it would have benefits too; probably would result in a lot less player unrest and angling for moves via the media - 3 years and you can leave for x amount, we wont even discuss anything before that. The aim would then be to build a great team who wouldn't want to leave regardless of having clauses there.

 

[spiriticon]

No. If they come good, they'll be gone in a couple of years. Then you have to rebuild. Again.

#foreverrebuilding

 

[SCJY]

I personally don’t mind buy-out clauses but United aren’t in a position to be able to handle them from a negotiation perspective right now, but it’s something they really need to learn because more and more top players are going to demand them in the future.
The way in which united do their negotiations, they need to be kept on their toes as well regarding signings and contract renewals. Far too many times do we let contracts run down and are left scrambling and end up paying the player far too much to get them to stay. It has been getting worse and worse and worse over the years when we haven’t had on-pitch success.
Let’s be honest, we’re even having problems keeping our youth products like Pogba, Gomes, and Chong. We are simply not an attractive club for many anymore because we aren’t keeping with the time and taking care of our players well. Yeah, we are paying them well, but there is more to it than money.
Messi’s buyout clause is over €500m, and he is getting a new contract every 1 or two years. Whereas our top players are always within weeks/months of walking out on a free before getting a new contract. Players not deserving of new contracts are getting bumper new ones too.

United need buy-out clauses to raise the standards across the board and the Harland deal is the first of many that will drive that message home.

united need to activate haaland’s release clause ASAP and then slap their own release clause on of €150-€200m. And keep renewing his contract as long as he continues to perform.
These clauses will only benefit united in the long term because it means we will get fair value for a player if he actually wants to leave. No club is the final destination for all players. We’re lucky in that we are a final destination for some and many.

 

[SCJY]

You always hear the line: “it’s like signing a new player” when one of our existing players signs a new contract.

This is in no small part due to how difficult it is for united in contract negotiations.

This is a disgusting thing and really rubs me the wrong way.

United transfer policy needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom.

 

[MrPooni]

Being 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.

 

[AUnitedOpinion]

Yes, as long as it can only be activated 3 years later.

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.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

I agree once a precedence has been set it would be very difficult to say no in the future but football is evolving and if we don't start evolving with it then we're in trouble. Take Haaland as an example. I couldn't see any problems signing him with a buy out clause. Pay 25m for him now, get 3 years out of him and sell him for triple the money. It's up to the club to make it as difficult as possible to activate the buy out clause i.e. make us as successful as possible so the player doesn't want to leave.

 

[harms]

I wouldn't like that, especially with Raiola of all people handling his business, but it's better than what we do now. If we're truly building a project for the future, they wouldn't want to leave. Look at Liverpool, where most of their stars have renewed their contracts without much fuss and without demanding outrageous salaries.

To be afraid of the image side of this actions while our club is doing like it's doing... we'd be better off seen as a stepping stone rather than a deadly swamp for any incoming talent.

 

[Varun]

Poll and vote added.

 

[Escobar]

Why not. Maybe the player loves it here, improves and decides to stay

 

[redIndianDevil]

We should. This will bring the transfer fee down, wages down and also give us access to better players who are motivated to improve themselves than players looking for one big final contract. We had Ronaldo and we had money to keep him but the still forced himself out, I'm happy that we got to keep for however long we had instead of never having him.

 

[Mr. Ant]

In my opinion every player should have some kind of a release clause. Would anyone mind if players like Lukaku or Pogba accept a contract elsewhere and the buying club triggers the release clause? I don't want players who don't want to be here.

 

[Abizzz]

Not having clauses never kept Becks or Ronaldo from leaving.

We need better players. With or without clause.

 

[Gordon S]

Yes for me. I sure Haaland would have made the same decision either way. His decision is most probably based on a lot more than that.
But sure, if it could mean we could get the managers first choice for an important position i think the club should be flexible. If things go well you have the chance to persuade the player to sign a new, better contract.

 

[Flanders Devil]

Being 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.

I voted Yes, and this is in a nutshell my view. As long as a decent period and amount is involved ie Haaland.

Plan for the best. Back the club to be that good that the player wants to stay. Back the player to be that good that clubs want to trigger the release clause.

That’s is better than the alternative scenarios where either the club doesn’t improve and you loose a player anyway OR the player doesn’t improve and isn’t worth the buy out.

My only nuance would be to put some mechanism into the clause that factors in inflation (relative to the transfer market, rather than say CPI).

 

[JPRouve]

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.