He's in the James Beattie, Grant Holt etc. category. Had a good half season, basically. Even then it was clear he had no pace, technique or intelligence.
Anthony Martial
- Thread starter Rozay
- Start date
- Status
It's mostly the opposition fans tbh.
Very good talent. Way overpriced.
In everyone's opinion but city fans. Good enough for me.
Just been looking at a Monaco forum, they mostly seem disappointed that he's leaving because there's barely any time to replace him. There's also a poll up querying them on how much they'd want to sell him for where 48% said they wouldn't want to sell him at any cost (16% said €30m, 13% said €35m, 18% said €40m). No option for €50m+ though, which I imagine they'd be alright with.
They're mainly all surprised that we're paying such a high fee though.
They're mainly all surprised that we're paying such a high fee though.
Yes...in hindsight.
At this moment in time he'd get into any other side in the league. And no, he was not proven of being crap, he was proven of being a very capable, physically impressive defender prone to poor judgement and rash decisions but with huge potential should he be able to iron out his weaknesses.
Some people can't accept we are paying a huge sum.
On Bale, Reus, Griezman etc, etc not for an unproven kid and then let go of 1 of your most talent young players, that's just stupidity.
Really isn't.
Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.
No its not.
It's absolute rubbish that people spout every time one of these deals happens.
If you think we paid £45m for Herrera or Bayern paid €60m for Martinez then you're crazy.
What it does do is make the deals much more protected and there's no way we'd attempt to do it with two days left in the window.
I wish people would stop focusing on the price and actually look at the player we're getting. All I've heard about Martial is that he's a young talented player who has the potential to be world class. I'm looking forward to seeing him play for United. feck what Liverpool, City fans etc think.
Why the feck are you here exactly? Seems you like to wind people up.
Eh? I'm talking about the discussion with Bob and Bobby where people are trying to downplay the sum.
so far in this thread I've seen him compared to Welbeck, Henry, and Saha.
I just can't quite put my finger on what they all have in common, hrrrm.
I just can't quite put my finger on what they all have in common, hrrrm.
Well in Bilbo.
And for those arguing the toss with City fans on here save your breath. They're here to put the blue perspective on all things and you'll get nowhere.
This guy is going to have to end up seriously good to justify that fee. Wow.
Off-topic but here we go again:
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 compensation 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 compensation 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.
Am I the only one devastated that we no longer have a net profit this summer? That's the real shame in all of this.
They are all attackers?
Why can't he rate the lad highly? Supposedly Barca have also tried to sign him. Maybe they're his cousins.
You must have missed Bellion and Obertan then.
So even if my theory is wrong, it still proves that Griezmann's buyout clause is irrellevant because he'd cost much more than the figure quoted in the clause.
Yeah, no chance of discussing that now. With all these Liverpool, City and Spurs fans caring and worrying about United's finances, we can't actually talk about football. We must reassure them that their favourite rival won't go bankrupt any time soon, bless their little hearts.
I thought this post was someone taking the mick at first.
Shaw cost 40 million euro's approximately, Depay will 30 and centre forwards who arent reay much in numbers and so late in the window 50 million is high, but not above imagination. He's a huge talent that's for sure, he'll have to prove a lot to justify that too.
They all played in the PL.
More importantly, what are the odds he goes from 35k twitter followers to over 100k today?
I'm not talking specifically about the last day of the Spanish transfer window though. The post was to kind of address the preceding weeks and months in general, which would've allowed Atletico to amicably sound out and sign a suitable replacement, particularly when his old clause was in effect - which was significantly lower than the current clause. The two deals are roughly similar from that perspective unless one considers €5-10 million here and there to be a huge deal for a club of United's stature.
On one end you have someone who's kind of proven at the highest level, and approaching world-class status if he continues on his current trajectory, maybe even become Ribery's spiritual heir for France. On the other you have a kid who whilst talented is far removed from anything approaching that level, and who could even fail live up to the promise (never know with U-21 players).
And perhaps more importance for United's current requirements (and something that's getting diminished in this thread), the former is producing at a high level right now, at this very minute, rather than offering the promise of being Benzema/ Henry V2.0 further along the line.
The second paragraph of your post perplexes me too, surely he would've benefited with some time to bond with the team and get used to the club and the hallowed system. Though I can kind of understand why the deal is being fast-tracked now that Monaco have been knocked out of the qualifiers.
Probably because 50M Euros is the buyout clause and there isn't much they can do about it if some club comes and pays the buy-out clause and the player also wants they move. So no point having that as an option where basically its out of your hand.
The 80 million euro figure probably includes wages. They did the same thing with some of the Muller/Bale/Neymar "bids".
All right, fair enough. I looked it up as well and was basing myself on this piece:
If the selling club decides they don't want to sell, an impasse is reached. If they want the full value of the clause, they can insist that the buying club make an offer of the buyout clause + VAT. Obviously, this whacks somewhere in the region of 20% on the bottom line of the deal for the buyer. Still, they pays their money and they gets their man. However, this still requires the selling club to ACCEPT their offer.
If they really want to play hardball, they can simply refuse to deal with the buying club in any way. In this case, it's the player's prerogative to get out of his contract using the clause. It's his contract, after all. The buying club are merely a 3rd party. How does he get out of it? By buying it out. How does he do that? Well, he deposits the value of the release clause with the league himself. Obviously, if this is tens of millions of euros, he's going to find that difficult. Even the handsomely-remunerated Leo Messi would struggle to meet his buyout clause.
So what happens? Well, in practice, the buying club gives it to him. This was the case in the transfers of Javi Martinez to Bayern and Ander Herrera to Manchester United. Athletic Bilbao are stubborn as Donkeys. They refuse to play non-Basques and, as such, refuse to sell their best players, so hard are they to replace. Bilbao thumbed their nose at the offers from both of the titans attempting to buy their players. They even went so far as to tweet their refusal of United's offer!
Both Herrera and Martinez had to deposit the value of their clause with the LFP, essentially turning themselves into free agents in the process – they had 'bought themselves out' of their contracts. Again, however, there are tax implications. When the money required to buy out the contract hits the player's account (or, more probably, that of the company he uses to manage his assets) it's liable to tax. Income tax is an eye-watering 52% for high earners in Spain. This means A) the Spanish Minister of Economy and Finance's eyes spin Looney Tunes-style and become € symbols and B) the buying club has to deposit more than twice the amount of the clause in the players account to pay the tax as well as the clause fee. Franz Beckenbauer once famously declared that Bayern would not get involved in the 'lunatic arms race' of the transfer market. With the Martinez transfer, it seems that they Bayern hierarchy are now prepared to pay what it takes to remain competitive at the top level.
These clauses have never really been tested under European Law, and are simply a matter of practice between clubs and football authorities. At the time of writing, this is an adequate, if simplified, explanation of how the British fan's second favourite bit of contract law operates.
If they really want to play hardball, they can simply refuse to deal with the buying club in any way. In this case, it's the player's prerogative to get out of his contract using the clause. It's his contract, after all. The buying club are merely a 3rd party. How does he get out of it? By buying it out. How does he do that? Well, he deposits the value of the release clause with the league himself. Obviously, if this is tens of millions of euros, he's going to find that difficult. Even the handsomely-remunerated Leo Messi would struggle to meet his buyout clause.
So what happens? Well, in practice, the buying club gives it to him. This was the case in the transfers of Javi Martinez to Bayern and Ander Herrera to Manchester United. Athletic Bilbao are stubborn as Donkeys. They refuse to play non-Basques and, as such, refuse to sell their best players, so hard are they to replace. Bilbao thumbed their nose at the offers from both of the titans attempting to buy their players. They even went so far as to tweet their refusal of United's offer!
Both Herrera and Martinez had to deposit the value of their clause with the LFP, essentially turning themselves into free agents in the process – they had 'bought themselves out' of their contracts. Again, however, there are tax implications. When the money required to buy out the contract hits the player's account (or, more probably, that of the company he uses to manage his assets) it's liable to tax. Income tax is an eye-watering 52% for high earners in Spain. This means A) the Spanish Minister of Economy and Finance's eyes spin Looney Tunes-style and become € symbols and B) the buying club has to deposit more than twice the amount of the clause in the players account to pay the tax as well as the clause fee. Franz Beckenbauer once famously declared that Bayern would not get involved in the 'lunatic arms race' of the transfer market. With the Martinez transfer, it seems that they Bayern hierarchy are now prepared to pay what it takes to remain competitive at the top level.
These clauses have never really been tested under European Law, and are simply a matter of practice between clubs and football authorities. At the time of writing, this is an adequate, if simplified, explanation of how the British fan's second favourite bit of contract law operates.
Just hope his transfer fee doesn't get thrown around after every bad game as it's 'only 36m' and all.
My party plans for tomorrow at 6 have just gone right out the window. If anyone wants a 20ft banner with "Back of the Net-Spend!" on it, get in touch.
approximately you don't know.
This is beyond insane. But at least it's making the stupid fees for English players not look too daft, another thing to thank Man Utd for.
No its the exact opposite.
If we wanted Griezeman we'd not pay a penny more than €80m for him.
There's no indication that we do though.
I don't think I've seen anyone state that Soldado's fee was 13 million base. Only you Glaston.
- Status