Chelsea made a hefty bid for him the previous year. Why would a 50 mil bid not have sufficed at that time? Not like Chelsea doesn't overpay their players either! These release clauses are cloak and dagger stuff. You never know if they are actually in there. It's going to be a new way of concealing actual values.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
I've just looked it up and they were prepared to pay somewhere between £150 to £170 million.
Chelsea are 'confident' they can agree a fee for £170m Erling Haaland, reveals Jan Aage Fjortoft | Daily Mail Online
I suppose they didn't ever actually agree a fee because they couldn't meet the financial terms with the player, so never got that far with Dortmund.
Why would Dortmund accept to lose him a year earlier for the same fee they'd get on the basis of keeping him for one more season?
Dortmund accepted a deal where Haaland had a small release clause and where the majority of the fee would go to daddy and Raiola. Their reason for accepting such a deal was that they'd get a goalscoring machine and if, which is a big if, someone agreed a deal before the release clause then obviously Dortmund would get the entire transfer fee rather than £50 something mill.
Essentially, as long as Haaland kept performing:
- It'd be in Dortmunds best interest to sell him for a high transfer fee
- It'd be in Haalands best interest to wait until the release clause can be activated and then let the biggest clubs bid.
Essentially, any club wanting to buy him would've had to:
1: Bid high enough to make it financially interesting for Dortmund
2: still have to pay the agent and daddy-fee
3: make it financially interesting for Haaland
= Utterly insanely expensive
If there was a release clause it wouldn't matter what Dortmund wants would it? They have to accept it. And if there was a release clause that was known, why were there not 10+ bids on him? Something doesn't flow here.
The release clause was only activated the summer he left for City, and you can be fecking assured that a lot of clubs were in direct contact with Raiola about his terms.
City and PSG have completely bloated wages and transfer fees, so that other teams can’t compete.
I heard Mbappe has taken a wage reduction to go to Real?
Imagine what these City players will be asking if/when City are relegated!
I heard Mbappe has taken a wage reduction to go to Real?
Imagine what these City players will be asking if/when City are relegated!
If that is the case why would Dortmund not have entertained a much larger bid from Chelsea the year before? Who the heck would let 50 mil+ go? It's a guaranteed loss.
We never heard of another accepted bid, at least I don't recall one. Seems to me this release clause got magically inserted at the last minute. There was a deal made I suspect before the Chelsea inquiry came in. Id have to look back at how City's FFP situation was that year to speculate as to why.
Why didnt Dortmund not try to restructure his contract over the time he was there to at least increase his release clause?
You can bet your bottom dollar a lot of clubs would have paid the release clause but, if they are speaking to Haaland senior and he's saying 'these are our contract expectations and fees', no club will bother if it's out of their range and the reported agent fee (not even going into salary) was astronomical.
There were no bids because a bid would be the guaranteed 50 mill to dortmund + extra to make it interesting for dortmund to sell a year early, on top of the extreme fees to raiola and Haaland sr.
how do you expect dortmund to restructure against the wishes of Haaland?
the Haaland deal was insanely expensive, its just that the largest pieces of the pie went to Haaland sr and raiola, as they always intended.
this was well known when he first signed for dortmund.
Apparently their were offers from Real Mardid and Bayern Munich as well but pressumably they wernt will to pay the 40m agents fee and Alfies fee along with his huge wages and bonusses as I cant think of any reason why he would choose little City over those 2 giants.
https://www.sportingnews.com/uk/football/news/how-much-erling-haaland-cost-man-city-transfer-fee-price/mjyslju2nkccl4zkkc1uvvia#
They had a very key sponsor at the council - https://www.mancity.com/news/club/manchester-city-sir-richard-leese-honorary-president-63819060
For sure, I can see lots dropping out, but there were no rumoured accepted bids of other teams in it from what I remember. This is the official line on the Haaland transfer...
"Manchester City have announced the signing of Erling Haaland from Borussia Dortmund in a deal worth £51m. City have paid the 21-year-old's release clause and expect to pay £85.5m in total when agent fees, signing bonus and other costs are taken into account."
For sure, that is a lot in fees but it is not out of the scope of what I would expect. This deal did not reach 100 mil which is what you would expect at the bare minimum for Haaland....thr rumoured fee of 130 from Chelsea would be much more in line let's be honest. Dortmund could have offered Haaland and dad 30 mil just to jack up his contract release fee knowing they could cash in for at least a 100 mil+ but it didn't happen....and have to ask myself why.
With City you just don't know I guess, which is part of the 115 charges. On paper though I agree it's strange, not because Dortmund would have offered him more to get the bigger fee, but because Chelsea can offer big salaries and pay big agent fees regularly so it would be weird for him not to want to at least see both offers. That makes me think Haaland senior told other clubs they wanted City and, in return, City made them an offer no other club would get close to.
The fees circulating Norwegian media was that Haaland Sr was compensated around £28mill, Raiolas company close to £40mill. Dortmund £50’ish.
The point is still that the lower the transfer fee to Dortmund, the more available for compensation to Haaland&Co.
No wonder so many clubs pulled their interest. Paying those amounts to an agent or family member is an aberration.
It should be illegal. In the US, agent commissions are limited to like 2-6% of the player's wage and there are no massive fees or bonuses given to an agent and family for a transfer (what we call free agency, trade, or draft). An agent would likely get a cut of any bonus money the player received but it's not a ridiculous number life half, and so forth.
Now, there are amounts MLB clubs have paid for Japanese and Korean baseball players and the likes of MLS, NBA, and NHL have paid for overseas talents. I'm not aware of any direct payments paid to an agent as part of a transfer fee paid but perhaps there have been. And I'll stand by my belief these sorts of payments should be illegal from a club to agent. It should come from the player's compensation as the agent is acting on the player's behalf.
I am pretty sure there may be more "hidden fees" which was taken care off by offshore accounts. Or suddenly Haaland's dad has some business dealing with Abu Dhabi government owned companies?
I know some of the big European clubs have talked about it and the ESL project contemplated a hard cap on agents fees too. But a lot of the big agents work together with the media and there's been no serious progress on the issue yet.
In South American football it's even worse because they haven't yet fully managed to eliminate third party ownership despite FIFA banning it some years ago.
Yep there are, you can probably say the whole squad and management have the same set up. It was publicised that Mancini had two contracts, one with City & one with Abu Dhabi for the same job.
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...osed-chapter-4-a-global-empire-a-1236622.html
I can't begin to imagine if City is doing a second employer type thing with players, scouts, staff, etc. I presume to be proven is tax record sampling but that's assuming 1) sampling finds person(s) are claiming possible secondary/additional wages, and 2) how the additional payment/wages are recorded in Abu Dhabi if earned there*. Like per say City Group pays player X 10 million for football services but a further 5 million in July when the player reports to X location in Abu Dhabi for whatever reason, let's say a football clinic, and paid for by let's say the Abu Dhabi Sports Authority (or whatever). There's an easy circumvention around FFP, assuming it cannot be stopped. It would not need to be in a contract that I'm aware of, it could be considered an endorsement, or a separate payment for services rendered, verbally agreed between agent and player and a third party, and it would not be paid by City FC despite it all being the same fecking parent shell. It could also be hidden but that opens a player (and club) to severe punishment if not reporting wages. I'd be curious if Mancini reported the additional income in his returns. And I would expect the PL discovery team looking into such.
Herein becomes the issue of a STATE paying persons that would never occur if not employed by a club the STATE owns, and probably why clubs like Real don't openly court City players - they're blown away by requested compensation. Granted, Joe Schmo owner of Club Z could also do the same but much more difficult to negotiate a third party endorsement and especially for publicly reported companies, let alone a STATE organization. The Glazers can't offer a player a services rendered payment in the offseason from the federal/state government, nor can it guarantee a potential endorsement with let's say the Hard Rock Casino in Florida. Abu Dhabi and Saudi could theoretically do this, it's really up to the player to claim on his tax return(s) as far I understand taxes. If legal and/or tax expert is lurking about please chime in, I could be way off.
*US tax returns have a section to report income received outside the US and I presume so do other nations. And perhaps Abu Dhabi can pay the person X wages when in country, which may be easier to avoid various rules in England for this scenario.
Herein becomes the issue of a STATE paying persons that would never occur if not employed by a club the STATE owns, and probably why clubs like Real don't openly court City players - they're blown away by requested compensation. Granted, Joe Schmo owner of Club Z could also do the same but much more difficult to negotiate a third party endorsement and especially for publicly reported companies, let alone a STATE organization. The Glazers can't offer a player a services rendered payment in the offseason from the federal/state government, nor can it guarantee a potential endorsement with let's say the Hard Rock Casino in Florida. Abu Dhabi and Saudi could theoretically do this, it's really up to the player to claim on his tax return(s) as far I understand taxes. If legal and/or tax expert is lurking about please chime in, I could be way off.
*US tax returns have a section to report income received outside the US and I presume so do other nations. And perhaps Abu Dhabi can pay the person X wages when in country, which may be easier to avoid various rules in England for this scenario.
Who had Donald Trump being found guilty before City?
The UK Government
Wild. People don't understand the significance of this if they win this.
Surely City don't go on that offensive unless they know they have the votes to do so?
So they're playing the victim. Poor Citeh shouldn't have to follow the rules, because bigger clubs have money that they earned to spend. Small club with the worst fans around. The premier league should expel them and let them start again in non league football. 115. Cheats.
Haha I wonder which club that might be?
I think it depends on who's on their side. If the clubs that are backing City are the top 6 then the premier league is in trouble.
Wee clubs in it together?
no that's not how litigious pricks work
God that would be utterly depressing.
In what world are city living in thinking they can sue the league they’re in too!
Or they have gathered the best lawyers money can buy and think they have a chance. Litigation like this will be astronomically expensive - one way of doping is that City can afford to do this ad infinitum, so lose this and it’s not the end. Win this and it basically is.
This is grim.
Good v Evil.
I fully expect City to win these legal battles because I don’t think the Premier League will have the legal resources to come out on top.
"Between 10 and 12 clubs have stepped forward in support of the league."
We better be in that bunch.
We better be in that bunch.