€36m in sterling is £28.8m which is the amount of his release clause. What I don't understand is how you can reject a release clause fee. If it's the contractual amount at which he's allowed to speak to other clubs, how can it be rejected?
Ander Herrera is a Manchester United Player!
- Thread starter pocco
- Start date
- Status
€36m in sterling is £28.8m which is the amount of his release clause. What I don't understand is how you can reject a release clause fee. If it's the contractual amount at which he's allowed to speak to other clubs, how can it be rejected?
There probably is permission though considering he's had a medical already, or a deal could be in place. The bid was rejected earlier in the week, Athletic just decided to announce it now.
well not totally as it he still legally thier player untill an agreement on paying out the contract, taxes, fees owed to over clubs is all agreed, which by all reports isn't the case yet.They dont want to sell him
It's out of their hands.
untill then he is thier player and we should respect that!
Because it's techincally a buy-out clause as opposed to a release clause. It's there for a player to buy himself out of a contract (which is what Herrera will do) rather than a non-Spanish club activating it to sign the player.
Because it's not a release clause, read back in the thread, its explained repeatedly.
We can buy his contract out and they can't do anything about it. It't that simple really.
Mods - Can you change the thread title to: "It's a buyout clause, not a release clause"?
Seems every page has someone asking "if we've paid the release clause, why hasn't he been released?".
Seems every page has someone asking "if we've paid the release clause, why hasn't he been released?".
I don't think for one second that they will have given him permission to leave.
if they have given permission then thats fine, i just dont agree with people arguing it dosnt matter becuase of the nature of the deal.
Somewhere in Manchester there's a 14 year old looking Spanish guy with a cheque for €36m in his pocket, trying to find a bank.
They are right awkward cnuts Bilbao arent they?
He wouldn't be in Carrington if it wasn't above board, all that matters.
Ok, I sort of get the hiccup if the problems stated are true. This should still go through I think. I feel we were being a little cheeky with the direct bid to Bilbao, and I think we will give Herrera the money to buy himself out soon.
I'd like to know how providing Herrera €36M to buy out his contract is not considered taxable income? I'd like someone to give me the remaining balance on my mortgage-and not have to pay tax. Sweet deal.
I can't be bothered. But now it's been explained, great.
Well we'd need permission from them for him to have his medical which by all accounts he's had so it's not unreasonable to think he's allowed here. If it wasn't all above board he wouldn't have been at Carrington in the first place.
They probably have to pay a premium as well as they only want Basque players and everyone knows it.
Bilbao are unfortunately, and I can half understand it, they don't want to loose him so will make it as hard as possible, however it's out of their hands since we gave Herrera the money to pay the monies at the ctr in Madrid
So how on earth can they reject the release clause if we've offered the right amount?
By most accounts it's already done.
Yeah I agree I just think the fact that we are buying his contract out (which in itself is a breach of contract) negates the fact that we have given him a tour of Carrington despite technically not being our player. Bilbao know this so aren't making anything of it IMO.
He doesn't need their permission, because basically he is resigning.
Some of the reporters are giving out of date descriptions of how the Spanish "clausula de rescisión" works and most of them are legally inexact descriptions, including glib phrases like "Herrara pays the clause."
The reasons for this are obvious: they aren't lawyers and the law is unclear. United have lawyers and they will have assessed the risk and the best approach to the use of the forced release. They've had months to think about it and presumably we have always had it in mind when speaking to Athletic
The reasons for this are obvious: they aren't lawyers and the law is unclear. United have lawyers and they will have assessed the risk and the best approach to the use of the forced release. They've had months to think about it and presumably we have always had it in mind when speaking to Athletic
The reason there is ambiguity is because the law itself is ambiguous. I'll leave this in Spanish because the specific interpretation of the words is critical.
El art.2.2 del Libro V dice: “La inscripción de un jugador profesional a favor de una Sociedad Anónima Deportiva o Club será cancelada por la rescisión unilateral del contrato por parte del jugador profesional. En este caso, y si estuviera previsto tal desestimiento con cláusula indemnizatoria en el contrato que dio lugar a la inscripción, se procederá a su cancelación, previo depósito en la LNFP del importe previsto en la indemnización”.
What that appears to say (and why you need specialist lawyers) is that a player can unilaterally cancel his contract. However, it then says that when his old club receives the prescribed compensation his registration can be transferred to his new club. It does not say explicitly that the player must hand over the money himself. Because of this vagueness, lawyers can step in and earn a healthy fee at this point, and then the buying club can hand over the cash on the player's behalf, without the player ever possessing it himself.
The Spanish LFP agreed during the Bayern/Martinez case that the clause should be interpreted as a release clause as described by FIFA.
If a professional is required to pay compensation, the professional and his new club shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment. The amount may be stipulated in the contract or agreed between the parties.
Which again is interpreted as meaning the club can pay the money without the player touching it.
Any lawyers/tax advisors on the board will know this is the contract law equivalent of a minefield for the club/player and a goldmine for the lawyers. As I say, actual case law (as in cases that have gone into tax arbitration or into court) is basically non-existent. So any club using it will be very wary and will probably put an insurance policy in place if the amounts involved are large.
El art.2.2 del Libro V dice: “La inscripción de un jugador profesional a favor de una Sociedad Anónima Deportiva o Club será cancelada por la rescisión unilateral del contrato por parte del jugador profesional. En este caso, y si estuviera previsto tal desestimiento con cláusula indemnizatoria en el contrato que dio lugar a la inscripción, se procederá a su cancelación, previo depósito en la LNFP del importe previsto en la indemnización”.
What that appears to say (and why you need specialist lawyers) is that a player can unilaterally cancel his contract. However, it then says that when his old club receives the prescribed compensation his registration can be transferred to his new club. It does not say explicitly that the player must hand over the money himself. Because of this vagueness, lawyers can step in and earn a healthy fee at this point, and then the buying club can hand over the cash on the player's behalf, without the player ever possessing it himself.
The Spanish LFP agreed during the Bayern/Martinez case that the clause should be interpreted as a release clause as described by FIFA.
If a professional is required to pay compensation, the professional and his new club shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment. The amount may be stipulated in the contract or agreed between the parties.
Which again is interpreted as meaning the club can pay the money without the player touching it.
Any lawyers/tax advisors on the board will know this is the contract law equivalent of a minefield for the club/player and a goldmine for the lawyers. As I say, actual case law (as in cases that have gone into tax arbitration or into court) is basically non-existent. So any club using it will be very wary and will probably put an insurance policy in place if the amounts involved are large.
I hope so, it's just that it might be taxed and we might be reluctant to go down that route if it is.
Because accepting that directly from the club would then mean they are subject to paying zaragoza their 4%. The release clause has to be executed by the player himself via LFP.
A pesar de lo que publican algunos, el asunto Herrera-Manchester United nada tiene que ver con lo que hay que pagar al Zaragoza.
Problems nothing to do with paying Zaragoza any money.
Why?
He's effectively resigning.
So? He's still contracted to them and while he is, we'd need permission for him to have a medical.
He has been most reliable it says something like: The problem is a legal technicality that, in principle, will be solved in the ptoximas hours.
Also tweeted it's nothing to do with Zaragoga.
I dont think so either. I dont see how that would be our responsibility especially given how the transfer is happening. The money would go from LFP to Zaragoza (or maybe to the tax authorities as Jojojo suggested)
All about taxes, isn't it?
Possibly, but it's hard to gauge from here. We don't really know what's more important for the average 18 year old Basque player - representing their region, or the glories of the greater leagues/clubs.
It's true that some policies can backfire. An example from Porto: Hulk's 100m release clause, which put all the bargaining power in the hands of the club, and ended up with him, obviously disappointed, going to Zenit instead of his beloved premiership, has probably made other players more attentive. Jackson Martínez has repeatedly refused contract renewals with pay rises (and release clause increases) probably afraid that the same happens to him. But Bilbao is really a place apart and very hard to extrapolate anything without closer knowledge.
What are they going to do sack him?
well by all accounts it isnt that simple as just bying out the contract, thier seems to be tax issues and fees owned to other clubs, agreements have to be reached on all of those things.
it also question whether all the diffrent fees will escalate to a point beyond what united are prepared to pay. i mean i believe bayern ended up paying 10 million over the buy out clause to secure martinez, mainly becuase of taxes, and taxes in spain have increased since then..... so i dunno how that will affect things.
though i do think now we are at the stage where just have to pay it whatever the final amount is and how ever long it takes, becuase it will just make woodward look too daft if we don't.
but the more i read about this deal the more it dosnt seem simple at all, unless we just write a blank check and hand it over.
El problema es un tecnicismo legal que, en principio, se va a solucionar en las ptoximas horas. Lo contamos en @Cadenaser_depor @La_SER
The problem is a legal technicality that will be resolved in a few hours.
The problem is a legal technicality that will be resolved in a few hours.
Who cares about permission being above board? It's loser talk. Transfer business should be more like kidnappings. Ander Herrera having a meal with his family? Kick the door in, bag over the head and bundle him in to a van. Keep the change.
- Status