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

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

I always thought that Buy out clauses weren't enforcable in the UK like they are in Spain?

That's what I thought too. Didn't Suarez have one, and Liverpool just ignored Arsenal's advances?

In Spain you are supposedly powerless as buyout clauses are dealt with by the league as well as the club. The only power you have is to make the clause unaffordable, if the players agree to it. Likely to only happen at Barca and Madrid I would imagine.

 

[Class of 63]

Nope not a chance, but I can understand why a club like Dortmund have gone down that route.

On the Haaland deal I think the club was right to walk away from it, but his clause gives United a good chance to get him in 18 months/2 years time when the buy-out set at the random £59m kicks in, United is one of only 7 or 8 clubs currently that could pay that, and we'd be able to blow most of the competition out of the water with wages giving us an advantage, it wouldn't sit right knowing that a sizable chunk of the £59m would go straight to Raiola and Haaland's Dad, but that's the deal, if any club offers the clause there is nothing Dortmund can do about, he's off, end of, put it down to experience and bank the 10% profit they've made.

If United do sign him for the £59m his next clause set by Riaola might be £113m(random)and very few clubs, only one or two could afford that and his wages, putting us in the box seat if he carries on his expected progression, though if he flops in the Premier League .... maybe Dortmund have got it right!

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

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.

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.

Both posts sum the situation up perfectly.

Missing out on Haaland due to pride & arrogance will cost this club massively.

The player & his agent held to higher ground in negotiations, rightly so ensuring a break out clause if needed.

If in 3 years time Haaland wanted to leave for City or Pool that’s be a damning result of another 3 years of no progress.

[Currently] You sign players like Haaland on their terms, improve & look to renegotiate from a position of strength if you improve.

 

[roonster09]

Missing out on Haaland due to pride & arrogance will cost this club massively.

Or is it the arrogance of ManUtd fans who feel that club rejected the player instead of player rejecting the club?

 

[Fortitude]

Amazing how every question is reduced to just one transfer and answered from that perspective.

Right. Especially so given this scenario may be repeated with other upcoming elite talent.

I think with an out, we would be a [considerably] more attractive proposition for talent as it would cover their back irrespective of where we are by the time of activation, but it's a perilous slope if we've not sorted ourselves out in that interim.

 

[roonster09]

Right. Especially so given this scenario may be repeated with other upcoming elite talent.

Tbf I have rarely seen young players insisting on release clause (when joining big clubs), it might be common in the future but it's a rare case till now. There are cases like Thiago who had release clause which came with few conditions like game time.

Also everyone comes up with "If we had Haaland, he would be scoring for fun and would have assumed he was on loan for 3 years", what if he took 3 years to develop with all the inconsistent performances and then left after playing half a good season for us? Same people would be moaning about the club for playing feeder club role and owners for making the money.

There are more than 1 way to get back to top, we don't have to follow the one where there will be too much uncertainty with players future and where club has little say in how much money we will be getting.

 

[laughtersassassin]

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.

Understandably might be a better word. It's just realistic is all.

If a top talent comes here and does well as long as we become a top team they'll more than likely be happy to stay.

No top player is ever going to want to stay their entire career at a team coming mostly 4-7th year after year anyway.


It's just realism mate.

 

[Jambalaya]

Yes.
We are not top dog anymore and we should take any talent who would improve us.
Mpabe or Sancho for 2 years?Only idiots would turn that down.

 

[RoyH1]

Understandably might be a better word. It's just realistic is all.

If a top talent comes here and does well as long as we become a top team they'll more than likely be happy to stay.

No top player is ever going to want to stay their entire career at a team coming mostly 4-7th year after year anyway.


It's just realism mate.

People here cannot separate being a fan from being an actual player. Unless you come in through our academy, you're not necessarily a United fan. Players aren't going to stay here just out of loyalty for a club. For them, this is a job. And if you're able to get a contract that gives you the best possible development possibilities. And United is maybe not that place right now. We need a new sporting structure in place so that top players want to play here.

 

[lsd]

No and anyone who thinks we should do that is an idiot

 

[Andycoleno9]

In last 12 months our standards dropped massively. Why should we, Manchester fecking United, be afraid if player has release clause. If some club want him that doesn't mean that he must go. It is on him. And in that situation we can match that contract offer. We are maybe in shit right now but there are still only few clubs in the world who have better reputation( Barca, Real, Juve and maybe Bayern). Not to mention that you can sign player with release clause and after 6 months offer him new better contract without clause.
When right player is available you should do everything to sign him at first place and then think about clauses. In worst case scenario you will still end up with profit.

And i disagree with "Haaland wanted to go in Dortmund". No, we fecked up there. We only needed to match Dortmund offer or give him better offer and we would have signed him. But we decided against it.

 

[alexthelion]

Can't believe some fans are prepared to accept mediocrity with United looking to become a feeder club by accepting a release clause.

 

[laughtersassassin]

People here cannot separate being a fan from being an actual player. Unless you come in through our academy, you're not necessarily a United fan. Players aren't going to stay here just out of loyalty for a club. For them, this is a job. And if you're able to get a contract that gives you the best possible development possibilities. And United is maybe not that place right now. We need a new sporting structure in place so that top players want to play here.

Exactly.

 

[roonster09]

Amazing how if you have opinion then you think people with different opinion can't see some point

 

[DBT85]

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...

I'm not sure what I said that made you start with "come on". I agree with everything you said.

 

[He'sRaldo]

Since we're all talking about Haaland, even Dortmund who gave Haaland a clause had previously sworn them off after the Gotze saga, and the damage it did to both their CL challenging season and the subsequent one.

And right now from what I've seen, Dortmund fans while happy with Haaland, have mixed views on the transfer because of that clause. If fans of a club like Dortmund are unsure of it, then how much more Man Utd where our fans can't stand transfer speculation.

If we had indeed given Haaland that clause and signed him, and the clause was eventually leaked, I have a feeling the majority here would have said it's a poor decision.

Of course, people will say we can keep players happy, win things and not worry about the clause, but there's no guarantee what will keep a player happy, and that clause is simply an easy way out. Neymar is a good example, with Barca still struggling to replace him and spending the clause money on duds. All in all, that sort of clause is a no from me, unless it involves bonkers money.

 

[thepolice123]

Yes.

Beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Fanatic 00237]

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 exactly this. I would be for the release clauses to be officially forbidden by FIFA or whoever. People underestimate how vile (some) player agents can be. I won't be surprised if Haaland signs for at least two more clubs in the coming two or three seasons before ending up at Madrid or PSG or something.

Now, concerning United, it is a big NO from me. While I understand the other side of the argument, I have the impression that most people who say "yes" are looking at this question from the narrow view of one particular case, and only considering the state of the club here and now without looking at the big picture. Can anyone imagine where we would be today if Real had triggered an eventual release clause for De Gea at that time when the dysfunctional fax machine saved us? People saying if a player leaves, it simply means we failed to get back to the top as if top talents usually dream of spending all their carrers at United. Barça must have hated the whole release clause idea when PSG whisked Neymar off the way they did, despite them wanting to keep him. And he would have left PSG last summer (against their wish as well) if another team triggered a release.

Also, let's not forget that United at present already has difficulties negotiating transfers with other clubs, if we add negotiating player deals with transfer clauses we would be looking at more proctracted negotiations with the player and his agents to agree on the amount. It's such a bad idea on all levels! When we eventaully get back to where we think we "belong" the nature of the League now is such that no team can dominate for as long as we once did so we would probably be losing over half of our top talents each time we have a couple of trophiless seasons (which can happen) as the Bayern's and Real's and PSG's come and grab them off our hands, then we find ourselves rebuilding from scratch all over again. DDG at his peak and Pogba would have been long gone by now.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Or is it the arrogance of ManUtd fans who feel that club rejected the player instead of player rejecting the club?

Fair point.

Had Haaland been intent on only joining us he surely would have.

 

[romufc]

Since we're all talking about Haaland, even Dortmund who gave Haaland a clause had previously sworn them off after the Gotze saga, and the damage it did to both their CL challenging season and the subsequent one.

And right now from what I've seen, Dortmund fans while happy with Haaland, have mixed views on the transfer because of that clause. If fans of a club like Dortmund are unsure of it, then how much more Man Utd where our fans can't stand transfer speculation.

If we had indeed given Haaland that clause and signed him, and the clause was eventually leaked, I have a feeling the majority here would have said it's a poor decision.

Of course, people will say we can keep players happy, win things and not worry about the clause, but there's no guarantee what will keep a player happy, and that clause is simply an easy way out. Neymar is a good example, with Barca still struggling to replace him and spending the clause money on duds. All in all, that sort of clause is a no from me, unless it involves bonkers money.

Agreed, £60m in 2021 will be peanuts if he is scoring goals for fun like he is. The fans who are now saying we should have signed him, beggars cant be chosers, will be up there criticising the club for making the signing and accepting such a contract in the first place.

On this instance, I feel Ed Woodward did the right thing, by sticking to his principles and saying no.

Neymar one is perfect example because there was nothing about him not being happy at Barca, they were competing in the CL and winning the La Liga, but in that case, Barca cannot do anything but to accept it.

 

[Siorac]

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

#foreverrebuilding

Isn't that a bit defeatist? It assumes that if a player comes good, they will WANT to leave. Surely we should be able to hold on to our best players if we get back to the level where we aspire to be?

 

[Siorac]

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.

Yeah, basically this. It's pure arrogance.

 

[He'sRaldo]

Isn't that a bit defeatist? It assumes that if a player comes good, they will WANT to leave. Surely we should be able to hold on to our best players if we get back to the level where we aspire to be?

Some players would simply like a new challenge. Like Ronaldo, after 3 straight CL's he decided to leave, to win a new domestic league. That sort of challenge would be impossible to provide a player.

And that's fine, the problem is such clauses give the player an easy way out, and make the club have to scramble for replacements. Really forces the club onto the backfoot in a situation where the clause is triggered, where there could be more planning and time involved without one.

 

[Siorac]

Agreed, £60m in 2021 will be peanuts if he is scoring goals for fun like he is. The fans who are now saying we should have signed him, beggars cant be chosers, will be up there criticising the club for making the signing and accepting such a contract in the first place.

On this instance, I feel Ed Woodward did the right thing, by sticking to his principles and saying no.

Neymar one is perfect example because there was nothing about him not being happy at Barca, they were competing in the CL and winning the La Liga, but in that case, Barca cannot do anything but to accept it.

Surely if he becomes a player for whom 60m is peanuts then having him for a few years is a very good thing? The alternative might be that we remain shite but stuck to our guns and missed out on both the player's contribution and the eventual transfer fee (that is presumably more than what we spend on him in the first place).

 

[Siorac]

Some players would simply like a new challenge. Like Ronaldo, after 3 straight CL's he decided to leave, to win a new domestic league. That sort of challenge would be impossible to provide a player.

And that's fine, the problem is such clauses give the player an easy way out, and make the club have to scramble for replacements. Really forces the club onto the backfoot in a situation where the clause is triggered, where there could be more planning and time involved without one.

But we are on the back foot to begin with. That's our current reality. We are scrambling for players because other than money we have little to offer right now. We can start worrying about losing elite talent when we no longer have to worry about attracting it.

 

[He'sRaldo]

But we are on the back foot to begin with. That's our current reality. We are scrambling for players because other than money we have little to offer right now. We can start worrying about losing elite talent when we no longer have to worry about attracting it.

I don't think we're struggling for talent. Mr. Fernandes has just joined for a good sum of money, Maguire previously, and others too numerous to mention even before that.

The struggle for us has been improving them, and subsequently the team, to a level the top top talent starts to notice and want to be a part of that movement. And the key to overcoming that challenge lies in the management, as opposed to the talent pool.

 

[romufc]

Surely if he becomes a player for whom 60m is peanuts then having him for a few years is a very good thing? The alternative might be that we remain shite but stuck to our guns and missed out on both the player's contribution and the eventual transfer fee (that is presumably more than what we spend on him in the first place).

Honestly, we have suffered enough already so I would rather suffer till the summer and try and identify a long term player.

The thing is we could have signed him and he could have got goals, you have to remember who his agent is. He will be the first to get him to Madrid, Juve etc if we don't challenge for the league by 2021.

Mino railoa has been so disruptive with this Pogba situation, it would have been difficult to do a deal with him when he had all the cards in his hands.

 

[cyril C]

Since we're all talking about Haaland, even Dortmund who gave Haaland a clause had previously sworn them off after the Gotze saga, and the damage it did to both their CL challenging season and the subsequent one.

And right now from what I've seen, Dortmund fans while happy with Haaland, have mixed views on the transfer because of that clause. If fans of a club like Dortmund are unsure of it, then how much more Man Utd where our fans can't stand transfer speculation.

If we had indeed given Haaland that clause and signed him, and the clause was eventually leaked, I have a feeling the majority here would have said it's a poor decision.

Of course, people will say we can keep players happy, win things and not worry about the clause, but there's no guarantee what will keep a player happy, and that clause is simply an easy way out. Neymar is a good example, with Barca still struggling to replace him and spending the clause money on duds. All in all, that sort of clause is a no from me, unless it involves bonkers money.

Dortmund fans are used to seeing star players come and go, as long as they produce something good immediately, no hiding behind excuse. How many Dortmund players have EPL recruited in past 5 seasons? As long as they don't go to BM, and a decent fee received, who is complaining.

 

[Antisocial]

No - too many of our rivals (actual rivals, not fantasy Real Madrid and Barcelona-type rivals) have money now, it’d be asking for trouble.

 

[momo83]

No. Elite talent should only come if they view United as the final destination. However, while we’re still crap verbal agreements can be made with young elite talent like say De Light that say “ our plan is return to the top and your the CB to get us there and help us stay there for the next 12 years, however if within 3 years we’re not competing for leagues and CL etc then we will accept offers for you should you decide to go elsewhere”

 

[Snow]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a buy-out clause a fee that the player has to pay to get out of the contract and release clause is the fee that the club has to accept if another club offers it?

According to this there are also more than one type of release clause. Contracts are complicated.

 

[Bebestation]

In my personal opinion Dortmund shot themselves in the foot a couple years ago turning in to this buy and sell club rather than trying to become a giant again considering they have a history, a stadium and wonderful fans.

Maybe it's something to do with their financial aspect - but that ultimately doesn't effect us so we can't be buying players for cheap & selling them for cheap if they are going to be world class or legendary.

Imagine if Cristiano Ronaldo had a buy out clause of £60 mil - eff that, after all the hard work we had done to make the guy the player he is today, we managed to get an extra season out of him and at least a decent amount of cash for that period of time.

If we have buy out clauses, players would be moving before the transfer window had even opened, would be hard to even convince to stay for an extra year if everything had been settled for them to allow to talk & we would feel like we had been stolen for all our hard work.

 

[TsuWave]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[USREDEVIL]

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.

Agree. Exceptions can be made rarely but within reason. But i don't mind the "absolutely not" opinion because all top clubs should be fighting against this.

 

[Lost bear]

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.

This argument makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[cyril C]

Yes.
We are not top dog anymore and we should take any talent who would improve us.
Mpabe or Sancho for 2 years?Only idiots would turn that down.

Are you comparing Maaland with Mpabe and Sancho? Mpabe has performed at international and CL level, so good chance he can deliver instantly at EPL. Sancho has performed at Bundesliga, he may or may not deliver in EPL, remember MK? Kagawa? Even Aubey hasn't really deliver, has he? Now, Haaland, 3 months ago, was only playing in some minor league, and you are sure he can deliver instantly?

 

[spiriticon]

Isn't that a bit defeatist? It assumes that if a player comes good, they will WANT to leave. Surely we should be able to hold on to our best players if we get back to the level where we aspire to be?

That's the pipe dream but you know most talented foreign players will want to play for Barca or Madrid at some stage. This clause just makes it easier for those clubs to poach players.

 

[Fox_Chrys]

I know it is annoying to have players with clauses but I voted yes for one simple reason.

Kante

We had him with a clause, we lost him after only one season, but without him, we probably would still have no league title. So it is the lesser evil. It is better to have high calibre players with clauses than to not have any at all.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

Tbf I have rarely seen young players insisting on release clause (when joining big clubs), it might be common in the future but it's a rare case till now. There are cases like Thiago who had release clause which came with few conditions like game time.

Also everyone comes up with "If we had Haaland, he would be scoring for fun and would have assumed he was on loan for 3 years", what if he took 3 years to develop with all the inconsistent performances and then left after playing half a good season for us? Same people would be moaning about the club for playing feeder club role and owners for making the money.

There are more than 1 way to get back to top, we don't have to follow the one where there will be too much uncertainty with players future and where club has little say in how much money we will be getting.

To be honest the state our club is in at the moment I don't think think we can afford not to be looking at these kind of deals if all the small print is worked out in advance.

Haaland choose to go to Dortmund which is fair play to him but if he could of been persuaded to join us I think the advantages would far outweigh the disadvantages. If figures are true he was snapped up for about £30m pounds. 20m for the player and 10m to Mino then at these prices, Haaland (or insert any other generational talented young player) would be well worth a the risk.

Let's face it. In this moment in time what other talented striker would join us at triple the price? Of course it's a risk but if that risk payed off then we would be competing in the CL which would make it easier to bring in more talented players and consolidate us once again in the top echelon whereas at the minute we possibly could be looking at players like Josh King to help us do that so what's more of a risk?

If Haaland (or any other player with a release clause) didn't work out then we sell him for more than we bought him for, problem solved.

As been mentioned before it's up to the club the direction we want to take. If we start performing then players we could potential sign with release contracts might have every reason to stay with us. If not then bad luck but if the player leaves with the club in a stronger position then it would of been worth it.