From United. That was how this was to work wasn't it? The player buys out his clause after being loaned money by the club
Although I think this deal could only have ever worked at such a late stage if United had a deal with Bilbao.
Ander Herrera is a Manchester United Player!
- Thread starter pocco
- Start date
- Status
Although I think this deal could only have ever worked at such a late stage if United had a deal with Bilbao.
It was me suggested it as a possibility. It would make sense of our denial that they were representing us. As I say, if the player ends up paying his own release clause then you'd presume, legally, we aren't involved at that stage. Everyone knows we are, but from a legal point of view would we not be outside the deal between player and club as he breaks his contract?
Which means that the lawyers were working for?
The player.
Not necessarily. In Martinez's case, Bayern paid the money after Martinez authorized them to do so. The player cannot pay the money himself cause he doesn't have them. So the club is legally involved anyway.
Yep. I'd probably point the finger at Moyes there. This may well have been the case about him learning the market and getting to Herrera late.
You really believe this or you're acting the top red?
But supposedly it is legal for the buying club to give the player the money.
Legally, surely it would have to be between him and his club. Yes, we'd give him the money but it would be a legal fiddle and exploiting a loophole. If he has to buy out his contract, as has been suggested as a possibility in other of these Spanish buy-out deals (it was suggested in the Thiago deal too, for example, that he'd buy out his contract and we might have to pay tax due to giving him the cash), then surely at that stage it would all be between him and his club. We would, legally, not be involved at that stage. Presumably.
What's "Top Red" about that?
Believe what you want. But maybe ask yourself why you so desperately want to believe that these guys were "imposters". Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one.
All we can say is that everybody involved will deny everything. So unfortunately you will have to go with your biases on this one.
United fecked up by going so late. IF they actually wanted to buy this guy, and were not just using him as a plan B.
I am not a lawyer to know exactly how that shit works, but still it's a bit difficult to believe that the club can give the money to the player but not be involved in the stage of paying the clause. It doesn't make sense.
In Martinez's case (the only precedent we have) both Bayern's representatives and Martinez went to Spanish FA and paid the money.
I don't believe the imposters at all. Just that United tried to save face. There is no way that United didn't know those lawyers. And if they acted in United's behalf without United authorization, they would have been now in jail for fraud.
Again, believe what you want. Whatever makes you the angriest I guess.
The only anger here should be about United going so late though.
I'm only quoting some of the stuff that was suggested in the Thiago thread when we were rumoured to be trying to buy his contract out. There were suggestions, from Spanish football experts, that United would be liable for a hike in what it would cost as there might have been income tax due on the money given to the player to buy out his contract.
Which I think is the case. Of course that is speculation but the most likely scenario IMO is that he was all along the B plan for Fellaini.
Theoretically yes, but as jo x3 explained (and from Martinez case) there is a possibility of not paying the taxes and VAT if the player authorizes the club to buyout his clause.
It is a possibility, though, no?
Its not like they're Manchester based. The press had them labelled as a "convoy who had flown from Manchester". They are Bilbao based lawyers.
Yeah, there was a theory that tax could only be avoided if the player himself paid the money.
It's quite possible. I think they wanted him though. But they left it ridiculously late to push it through.Stupidity.
Of course they are Bilbao based. It was Spanish/Bilbao law so it was necessary that the lawyers have experience there.
Herrera couldn't have send them here. It was the deadline (in fact only an hour or two before the window closed) so even if they found a way to make the transfer, they wouldn't have the money. Let's say that they found a way. What then? Herrera calls Woody and say 'Hey mate, what's up, can you send me a check with 36m euro. Please'. It doesn't make sense that United weren't involved.
The whole deal sounds complex and a clusterfeck. Nobody seems to understand how these Spanish buy-out clauses are actually bought out. It took Munich and this crack team of Bilbao lawyers (or convoy from Manchester) weeks to work it out. Yet here, everyone is an expert and know these guys have to be working with United, and United have to be lying to save face.
Given we know feck all I'd be inclined to look for the most obvious answer, and in my eyes its that they weren't representing us and we felt no obligation to tell anyone who they were representing or what part they were playing. We may have known they were involved, and to what extent, but felt comfortable simply saying "They ain't ours guv", when asked if they were representing the club.
The imposters thing was not our doing either. Someone used the word and everyone ran with it, but nowhere are United on record as calling them imposters.
Who said United were not involved? But it's quite a different thing to say that United hired the lawyers, not the player. Maybe the tax loophole if the player pays the release clause depended on the lawyers being hired by the player as well.
There is a difference between being involved and legally being involved, and so having plausible deniability. The fact you don't get that makes this discussion difficult.
As I said, in the only precedent we have, Bayern paid the money after they got authorized from the player (and the same lawyers were involved).
If Herrera makes a statement we may know more. But it's surely in his interests to deny responsibility in all this.
You cannot legally not being involved and also give the player 36m. Unless you're living in Cayman islands.
But you're parsing some kind of "statement" by United denying responsibility for these lawyers without even knowing the words in this "statement".
We would not even be discussing this if this "imposters" meme had not started, and that came from the press, not United.
The problem is that you're dismissing one end as shite whilst basically saying the other end is true, when neither have conclusive proof to be backed up. It seems you're just coming to this conclusion purely to make the club look better in the overall stance of things.
We will sign him in January. Keep calm.
I don't think it's possible for him to sign in one day - we needed a longer period to conclude the transfer. It's a shame because he's a great fit for the team, plus he wanted to come, evident by the wage cut he was willing to take. Hopefully, we can get him in January. He's started the season well. I'll probably make match comps of him from now until the end of the season, regardless of where is at. Anybody interested in them, since most don't know much about him?
The club can't simply give/loan the player the money to pay the clause. If it does the VAT has to be paid and potentially can't be reclaimed as he's acting as an individual not a business. It also exposes him to a massive income tax bill if the tax office doesn't accept it as a fully deductible expense.
The club has to pay the clause on the player's behalf, that's what complicates things. The contract is written as if another Spanish legal football entity (like the player or another club) is involved, not a foreign club. That's why people weren't sure if it could be used by a foreign club.
That's why Bayern Munich spent weeks with lawyers and tax offices looking at contract law, EU rules, FIFA guidelines to get the ruling that they could pay it for Martinez, and on the wording of the contracts that had to be in place to protect them and the player.
If Herrera had lawyers there, they wouldn't have even considered doing a release clause deal without United, even if United had given them the money in cash, it's still United's deal.
Incidentally this is also the reason why Real Madrid could decide to buy Illarramendi on a release clause, walk into the LFP offices, sign a couple of forms, hand over a bank draft and walk out again.
The club has to pay the clause on the player's behalf, that's what complicates things. The contract is written as if another Spanish legal football entity (like the player or another club) is involved, not a foreign club. That's why people weren't sure if it could be used by a foreign club.
That's why Bayern Munich spent weeks with lawyers and tax offices looking at contract law, EU rules, FIFA guidelines to get the ruling that they could pay it for Martinez, and on the wording of the contracts that had to be in place to protect them and the player.
If Herrera had lawyers there, they wouldn't have even considered doing a release clause deal without United, even if United had given them the money in cash, it's still United's deal.
Incidentally this is also the reason why Real Madrid could decide to buy Illarramendi on a release clause, walk into the LFP offices, sign a couple of forms, hand over a bank draft and walk out again.
Im saying the club fecked up badly by leaving this so late.
But no, I am not falling for this " imposters" shit just because the press made up the term and I want something extra to be angry about because my sad muppet dreams have been crushed.
Am I right in saying his clause goes up to 40m euros in January or is that not until next summer?
I think we'll get this kid in January. plenty of time to sort out the complications and I'm not surprised it all seems like a clusterfeck. these dealings all go on behind closed doors so what leaks out is always spin by one side or another. on the plus side we have some serious steel added to midfield until then. most midfields I think fancied their chances of dominating united physically in there. not now. and kagawa will be great given a chance. and he'll get it when he's fit
But surely then you should take a neutral standpoint rather than believing the other end of it?
I agree that the major feck up was leaving this so late though, it was a strange window from the clubs perspective, Sir Alex never let that happen (except in extreme circumstances i.e. Berbatov)
I read it as:
These lawyers, with knowledge of the difficulties involved in this type of transfer, "made themselves available" to smooth things over.
I expect when it hit the skids, they'd be asking for a hefty premium to sort it. Opportunism at it's finest, believing the player and United would be that desperate to push it through, the could make a right butty off the back of them.
Hopefully he comes in January. I prefer players who see us as their dream destination.
These lawyers, with knowledge of the difficulties involved in this type of transfer, "made themselves available" to smooth things over.
I expect when it hit the skids, they'd be asking for a hefty premium to sort it. Opportunism at it's finest, believing the player and United would be that desperate to push it through, the could make a right butty off the back of them.
Hopefully he comes in January. I prefer players who see us as their dream destination.
Is Herrera still due to speak on this today?
Three Laywers at La Liga offices to represent United ? one for Herrera , one for Contreau and one for Khadera ?
if they were working on United's behalf there'd have some evidence of instruction / payment for services.....
if they were working on United's behalf there'd have some evidence of instruction / payment for services.....
- Status