Ander Herrera is a Manchester United Player!

Status
Not open for further replies.
kouroux said:
I'd even say that Pirlo was playing closer to the back four than Gattuso, who was used to chase around everyone.
Click to expand...

Gattuso was AC Milan/Italy DM. He was the one who linked defense with midfield. In some occasions when facing great players such as Zidane, Scholes or Beckham he was used in man marking them (he's man marking was top notch) but I wont really say that he was more attacking minded then Pirlo.

Oh well each on his own and lets agree to disagree.
 
devilish said:
Gattuso was AC Milan/Italy DM. He was the one who linked defense with midfield. In some occasions when facing great players such as Zidane, Scholes or Beckham he was used in man marking them (he's man marking was top notch) but I wont really say that he was more attacking minded then Pirlo.

Oh well each on his own and lets agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you but I'll correct something when I say that Pirlo used to play closer to the back four than Gattuso, I never meant Gattuso was more attacking minded from Pirlo. They had their very specific roles and no Pirlo was the one who linked defense and midfield
 
kouroux said:
I don't agree with you but I'll correct something when I say that Pirlo used to play closer to the back four than Gattuso, I never meant Gattuso was more attacking minded from Pirlo. They had their very specific roles and no Pirlo was the one who linked defense and midfield
Click to expand...

Linking defense to midfield in terms of winning the ball not creativity or organization wise. Its difficult to actually analyse Pirlo. He had a career very similar to Scholes to be honest. He started as a trequartista, he was moved in midfield by Ancelotti (I think) and ended up in a rather deep role later in his career.

Gattuso-Pirlo was a partnership made in heaven. Rino was able to run like mad, win the ball and blotting players out of the game. Pirlo was always the more elegant player, with his exquisite passing skills and intelligence. One mustnt forget Ambrosini who was a great player himself but a bit injury prone. He used to give AC Milan options (when fit).

In my opinion Pirlo was the more advanced midfielder because he was the guy to move forward with the ball when AC Milan were attacking. Gattuso simply didnt had the skill to create chances. However I kind of understand when you say that Rino was all over the pitch. He was the main guy in harassing midfielders and breaking the opponents team rhythm.
 
kouroux said:
I don't agree with you but I'll correct something when I say that Pirlo used to play closer to the back four than Gattuso, I never meant Gattuso was more attacking minded from Pirlo. They had their very specific roles and no Pirlo was the one who linked defense and midfield
Click to expand...

Indeed. This is essentially the position Pirlo played in for over a decade for club and country.

italy.jpg
 
Pirlo was the regista for Milan since 2003. Not late on in his career. Mazzone brought him deeper to play Pirlo and Baggio at the same time, not Carletto.
 
I've never really seen Pirlo being as advanced as Scholes(in his early days). The Pirlo/Gattuso partnership was a rich man's Fletcher/Carrick or Hargreaves/Carrick version and entirely different to Keane/Scholes combo.
 
Brwned said:
Indeed. This is essentially the position Pirlo played in for over a decade for club and country.

italy.jpg
Click to expand...

Pippa said:
Pirlo was the regista for Milan since 2003. Not late on in his career. Mazzone brought him deeper to play Pirlo and Baggio at the same time, not Carletto.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Playing deeper allowed Pirlo to express his passing in all its beauty and range. They had a very good understanding with Gattuso.
 
Pippa said:
Pirlo was the regista for Milan since 2003. Not late on in his career. Mazzone brought him deeper to play Pirlo and Baggio at the same time, not Carletto.
Click to expand...
Is that a hipster term for a holding midfielder?
 
Pippa said:
I don't think you can call it "hipster" when that is what he is widely described as.
Click to expand...

I always thought that he was better in the 'Barista' role. When he began at Costa FC, that was where he played.
 
Spanish newspaper AS indicate United have once again turned their attentions to Athletic Bilbao's Ander Herrera .

The Red Devils were extremely keen on the 24-year-old midfielder last summer before being duped by fake agents that saw a deal fall through.

But new boss Van Gaal is said to maintain a similar interest and could be set to launch an offer.

That said, they may have to get a wriggle on - the paper suggest the player's relatively modest €36m release clause expires in 13 days, after which it will rise to over €40m.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...-transfer-rumours-adnan-3708854#ixzz34t5ojMPy
 
How can a release clause which is essentially buying out a contract suddenly go up? Surely it can only go down year on year? Unless its a planned wage hike?
 
40m is a tad steep, but Herrera is a quality midfielder and we are lacking in quality midfielders, if we have to pay that much then so be it. And as @NMF said I think he would play well in a van Gaal system.
 
Dracula said:
How can a release clause which is essentially buying out a contract suddenly go up? Surely it can only go down year on year? Unless its a planned wage hike?
Click to expand...

It's written into the contract.
 
Dracula said:
40m euros is 32m gbp. That's not a ridiculous amount
Click to expand...

Your forgetting the extra 40% that will need to be paid in order for the player to activate the clause.
 
40mio for another one playing in a no.10 role? Why then deny Fabregas if that's even true?

I'd rather pay that for Carvalho, despite that clause being ridicolous high but the player is more what we need
 
Cassidy said:
It's written into the contract.
Click to expand...

Cassidy said:
Your forgetting the extra 40% that will need to be paid in order for the player to activate the clause.
Click to expand...
@pseudo_canadian

This is what I mean, you've contradicted yourself.

If its a genuine 'release clause' then there is no tax to pay. If its a 'buy out clause' as is the norm in Spain where you pay out the rest of the contract then yes, there will be tax to pay but the amount cant go up half way through the contract (unless he has had a major pay increase planned half way through)
 
red_7 said:
40mio for another one playing in a no.10 role? Why then deny Fabregas if that's even true?

I'd rather pay that for Carvalho, despite that clause being ridicolous high but the player is more what we need
Click to expand...

He isn't your natural #10. The amount of defensive work he puts in could work for us from a deeper midfield position.
 
Dracula said:
@pseudo_canadian

This is what I mean, you've contradicted yourself.

If its a genuine 'release clause' then there is no tax to pay. If its a 'buy out clause' as is the norm in Spain where you pay out the rest of the contract then yes, there will be tax to pay but the amount cant go up half way through the contract (unless he has had a major pay increase planned half way through)
Click to expand...

It that true?
Anything can be written into a player contract, the value of the contract can increase based on terms of service, and loyalty bonuses etc.
It depends what is in the players contract.

Thiago had a clause in his contract that if he didn't play x number of games, his clause dropped in value, it is also possible for a player to negotiate the terms of his contact to be automatically increased (i.e better salary etc) based on a number of factors.

Of course we are all speculating because we don't know what is written in his contract, but it is possible for the value of the contract to increase. Or to put in other words, a higher level of value in the contract to be activated based on certain achievements.
 
Kag said:
I still like this guy. Mobile, can pick a pass, got a bit of bite about him. Good player.
Click to expand...
His a very well rounded player, defensively he loves a tackle as well. Not to mention his had experience in Biesla's system he'd be perfect for Van Gaal.

I wouldn't care how much he costed his probably the best out their we can get.
 
Feck me, we've gone full circle, it's pretty clear that nobody has a fecking clue who we are going to sign, and that probably includes Woodward!
 
Dracula said:
@pseudo_canadian

This is what I mean, you've contradicted yourself.

If its a genuine 'release clause' then there is no tax to pay. If its a 'buy out clause' as is the norm in Spain where you pay out the rest of the contract then yes, there will be tax to pay but the amount cant go up half way through the contract (unless he has had a major pay increase planned half way through)
Click to expand...

You're wrong on both "the release clause" and "the Buy out Clause":

- The release clause : allows an other club to buy the contrat of player for a certain price, since you're purchasing goods you pay the VAT (17,5 to 23.5 %).
- The buy out clause : Only the buy player himself can trigger it, with his own money, in that case he doesn't pay any tax but since most of time the player doesn't have the money, the club where he is supposed to go, gives him the money which is taxable, generally beetween (40-50 %).

And since the "Buy out clause" is an agreement solely between the player and the club, you can put everything in it, she can be evolutive in both sides (increasing or diminishing), or changes according to performances.
 
Last edited:
Release clauses can go up as well as down. They're contractual terms in the same way that wages and bonuses are and they're used by clubs, players and agents in the same way - part of a package. A wanted player will often sign a new deal for more money, but with no change in the end date, and the club will get a new release clause figure in return (Koke did it last season). Automatic rises/falls aren't unusual - dependent on matches played or other factors.

In terms of tax - there is none if it's handled properly. There is only one case in the past ten years of it being taxable and that was due to a legal mistake by the buying club. There are some doubts over the process for foreign clubs (due to the lack of case law and the specific wording of the contracts).

However the Martinez to Bayern contract set a strong precedent based on tax lawyers saying that if it was challenged, then EU law would overrule any retrospective tax assessment, on the basis that it would be unfair treatment of a foreign company. The Tax Office appears to have agreed - two years later they haven't changed their minds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.