Ander Herrera is a Manchester United Player!
- Thread starter pocco
- Start date
- Status
This is a buyout; more complex than a simple release clause.
His clause was €40m and that's what they paid.
On the tax risk I'll refer you to my earlier answer:
Just to be tedious on the release clause thing. There is only one case of a Spanish club (or player) having to pay tax on the deal. It is very difficult to get clear case law on the subject because the actual forced release clause mechanism is almost never used - as it can be troublesome for both the buyer and the seller.
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 contract 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.
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 contract 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.
Yeah, sure if we miss out on Herrera after all of this, we can just go out and sign Vidal and Bastian. Piece of cake.
Thank you. Still, begs the question why we did not do so in the first place. Bilbao won't sell unless forced, so why bother asking nicely.
I do wonder, is this why Costa still isnt a Chelsea player yet? They are having the same issues arent they.
So, theoretically...
Is there anything to stop us paying whatever is left on Herrera's contract +7% to him and get Herrera to buy out the last year of his contract and get him on the cheap or is that negated by the fact the higher buy out clause exists in the first place ?
Is there anything to stop us paying whatever is left on Herrera's contract +7% to him and get Herrera to buy out the last year of his contract and get him on the cheap or is that negated by the fact the higher buy out clause exists in the first place ?
ok, so to summarize:
1. United want Herrera notwithstanding that he is an actual midfielder and apparently a pretty good one aswell
2. Herrera wants to join United cos he loves football and as such, loves us dearly.
3. Bilbao do not want to sell him cos they love the little fella and can only ever buy players like him who were born at their ground.
4. If Bilbao don't agree to sell him, Herrera has a right to buy out his contract for €36m euros.
5. We offer to buy him from Bilbao for €36m so as to keep it nice and simple.
6. Bilbao reject this offer, cos they loves him and cos they will have to hand over some of that cash to Zaragoza
7. Bilbao know he wants to join us and we want him, so allow us to meet with him, agree personal terms and offer him a lend of €36m euro.
8. We meet him and lend him the money.
8. Herrera goes about triggering the buyout clause, which is done with the Spanish FA and involves tons of paperwork which Woodward is struggling with.
9. Somebody somewhere might have to pay tax on this whole affair, but nobody, even the tax lawyers know who.
10. If its not all sorted by Tuesday, we have to lend him an extra €4m euros.
is there anything else?
1. United want Herrera notwithstanding that he is an actual midfielder and apparently a pretty good one aswell
2. Herrera wants to join United cos he loves football and as such, loves us dearly.
3. Bilbao do not want to sell him cos they love the little fella and can only ever buy players like him who were born at their ground.
4. If Bilbao don't agree to sell him, Herrera has a right to buy out his contract for €36m euros.
5. We offer to buy him from Bilbao for €36m so as to keep it nice and simple.
6. Bilbao reject this offer, cos they loves him and cos they will have to hand over some of that cash to Zaragoza
7. Bilbao know he wants to join us and we want him, so allow us to meet with him, agree personal terms and offer him a lend of €36m euro.
8. We meet him and lend him the money.
8. Herrera goes about triggering the buyout clause, which is done with the Spanish FA and involves tons of paperwork which Woodward is struggling with.
9. Somebody somewhere might have to pay tax on this whole affair, but nobody, even the tax lawyers know who.
10. If its not all sorted by Tuesday, we have to lend him an extra €4m euros.
is there anything else?
How, please explain?
That's a nice summary. Tax in the Basque country is lower than in the rest of Spain though, but as they say, the chances of us accidentally giving him the money as something that could be deemed as normal income would be very low.
Cheaper and quicker if they did say yes?
You forgot the private plane.
It's amazing how many times you've had to post this. It's a very good explanation, which seems to be falling on deaf ears.
For the cheap seats:
- United almost certainly won't have to pay any tax on behalf of Herrera.
- The most relevant recent precedent was when Bayern paid the release clause for Martinez.
- They did not pay any tax on behalf of the player.
There is a risk that the revenue can chase the player for unpaid tax at a later date but you can take out insurance against this risk (i.e. literally take out an insurance policy, which will pay out if the tax is ever due).
right..... sort of clears it up..... i think
It would be funny if we lent him the €36m and he fecked off on a massive bender with it.
If I am not mistaken that can be done for only players that are 28 years old or more, and the big clubs have a gentleman agreement to never use that loophole. So they don't do it, cause then tomorrow may come an another club and do the same to you.
Fair, thanks for the clear up.
Bloody hell lad we have just fathomed out the clauses, don't go and throw us into more confusion.
No idea, I don't exactly know how these clauses work. All I know is that Bilbao are extremely stubborn, and won't sell a player they value unless forced.
We were being polite. Herrera would have found it less uncomfortable. We would have had a less complicated legal process to go through. The deal would have closed on Tuesday, not Friday.
thanks for that thats kind of makes sense in my head wording it that way.....
Probably because they steer well clear of Athletic Bilbao.
Bloody hell lad we have just fathomed out the clauses, don't go and throw us into more confusion.
I already summarised our status: waiting for the cheque to clear.
But nobody seemed to like that
I don't think these things are done by cheques
And to add to that: We really want him, he really wants us and he has a buyout clause. It might cost €4m more (and that will be what Bilbao are probably angling towards, not for €4m but because it will have been them that controlled the transfer and "won" the "game") but we have as good as signed him.
Sorry it wasn't a question.
If would be a cheaper solution and quicker if buy him directly through Bilbao. Yes, they most likely would say no. How ever if they said yes, they're would not be any tax issues or the delays we see with activating the buy out clause.
For once I dont think we can blame woody, we're up against a stubborn bunch at Bilbao.. They want to do their best to save their faces and sadly make their players leave on a sour note.. Stupid thing for the club to do
David Gill would of had this sealed two days ago. Woody is a joke, a joke I tell you.
white woody
white woody
What? You think we deliver the money in 5 trucks, loaded with leather briefcases?
well considering the world of football are the only people in the world still to use fax, i woundnt be too surprised if bank transfers hadn't caught on yet and it was all still done by check
Of course it wasn't going to be sealed after 24 hours was it.
and you know this because..bollocks you just dont
Let's hope they remembered to put a tick in the swift transfer box then.
Gill fluffed his lines a few times too. There has been so many failures in the transfer market for us, especially due to Fergies tightness
Ah, I see. Thank you.
I always thought that these clauses would be easier and less time consuming than trying to negotiate with a club. I was very wrong.
Just how complex are these clauses ?? They seem very time consuming.
This will still happen anyway guys.
He is a football player, and not Houdini. Plus I'm sure Woodward knows some mean people.
So how do we get revenge when all this is sorted? Maybe we could massively overpay for all Athletic's future transfer targets until they get relegated.
- Status