How can somebody looks 19 and 31 at the same time?
Erling Haaland | Dortmund player
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I am?? feck...
Easy to say now that you'd not mind if he was taken off us in 2 years. People forget your position from 2 years previous.
Do you think us signing him and having the potential of Liverpool or City lurking in the background would have made good business sense?
I am not saying that i will not be pissed if he leaves after 2,5 years. I am saying IF we had a chance and refused to sign him because of clause, 100% we made a mistake. It is business in which you can't fail.
Scenario 1.
Haaland fails to reach potential. You can still sell him and get most of money back.
Scenario 2.
Haaland plays well and you lose him for 60 mil. You had a player who helped you to get results and you earned profit on him
Scenario 3.
City, Liverpool, Juve...come after 2 years and offer 60 mil. It is still on Haaland. Maybe after 2 years we are the champions of England or we have title challenge team in which he is main player and he is very happy here. Not to mention that we can offer him the same money as other clubs so we don't need to be afraid that we will lose him because of that.
I am sorry but it is false logic. Lets don't sign player because after 2,5 years he will maybe leave club.
How is it false logic? 2021 is next year. We are not barely getting top 4, how do you think we will challenge next year.
Great logic, buy a player represented by an agent who is publicly having a go at your manager and club, then if he performs and the team does well, his agent will find him a new club knowing there is a £60m release clause. That is poor business all round.
We are not a club players come for work experience.
Secondly, Raiola is very clever by inserting a £60m release clause, he knows there will be no bidding war for the transfer fee but there will be one for his signature. In 2 years he will get 4/5 clubs to go for him and he will go to the club that gives Railoa the biggest bonus.
Ao I'm more reliable than any of your strikers, I guess.
For shit performance? Without doubt.
Again, how do you know that he will want to leave? Maybe he will stay. If you say Raiola will be the reason, what prevents us to give Raiola reason to keep him here? And even if he leaves so what?? He would not be a player who will learn how to play here and because of that our results will suffer. He is already a player who is good enough to play in this team. So again and again; if he leaves 2022 we still had good player those 2 years and earned money on him.
Man, i am sick of this small club mentality around this club this season. From manager to some fans. "If City or Liverpool come he will leave". What are we? Everton?
Ask Diego Costa
- You seem to be one of the people subscribing to the theory that the player does what Raiola wants and not the other way around - which I don't really understand since it is the players will that Raiola pushes through.
- Why do you think Haaland would want to leave if he does well? Isn't that precisely the kind of small club mentality people complain about here? I would assume he would find it great and would want to stay?
- You say he would go to the club that gives Raiola the biggest bonus (of course there will especially be a sign on fee going to the player). What makes you think that that club can't be United? Just pay him a signing fee for extending the contract and you're golden.
To the contrary actually, a big club mentality is not bow down to agents putting in clauses that are actually ridiculous.
Well, clearly he has no loyalties to Manutd, so if a team came in and activated the release clause, we have no option but to let go.
We don't need to make money, realistically we would have made £20m on him, that is nothing in the grand scheme of things considering a new striker then will cost over £100m
Lastly, you do realise we are in a rebuild process so we are looking for players who will want to be here in the long run. We cannot have a transfer saga of will he/ wont he leave like Pogba for years because it is disruptive to the squad.
1. I don't subscribe to it without reason. Have a look at De Ligt and the sage, it is media but if you read transcripts of hid interview, he thought he was going to Barca. Barca had a deal agreed until Juve decided they will pay more.
2. History, most players who have done well at Dortmund have left except Reus. Lewandowski, Sahin, Goetze, Hummels, Dembele, Auby, Gundogan. I am sure alot of them did like it at Dortmund.
3. Relationships with Mino are at an all time low, it seems Manutd do not want to bow down to his requests.
You're Halaand, either a) go to a club in turmoil, currently 7th, a point behind Sheffield United, that has a manager who has relegated Cardiff and managed in the cauldron of competition that is Norway, with a list of players who have joined and seen their careers blossom elsewhere or b) go to a team that continues to develop players, is in the UCL, plays attractive football, before going onto one of Europe's elite clubs in a big money move.
Take your United glasses off and realise, the player looked at us and thought, Dortmund is the better bet for me and my career.
Take your United glasses off and realise, the player looked at us and thought, Dortmund is the better bet for me and my career.
1. I can't really comment on the de Ligt saga since I did not really follow that. I wonder why players would want Raiola as their agent if he does not act in their interest though.
2. I don't mean from Dortmund but the hypothetical situation that he did sign for United with a release clause. Why would he be in a hurry to leave there if he was doing well? Just because he has a release clause?
3. I guess this doesn't really make sense to discuss since you misunderstood me for the second point
All players are mercs and will go if they have better offer. Forget that shit about "United through and through" and all other romantic shit. If Barca or Real come tomorrow and offer Rashford better terms regarding money and success he will leave. Same as Haaland, Pogba, De gea or any other player.
Only difference between them is how they behave during their time in club and during that situation when offer comes. Some are 100% pros( De gea) and some are prima-donnas( Pogba)
Ofcourse he will, but as a club, we could say fine you can have him for £150m like Liverpool done with Coutinho, Southampton with VVD, Leicester with Magure.
Having a £60m release clause gives you 0 negotiation power.
I had the same reaction when I heard he rejected AC Milan too. These reports make no sense.
There's obviously more to the reason he's moved to Dortmund. The recent article in The Athletic stated he had agreed to move to United at a meeting with Ole and the club however when the window came around Raiola got involved and things changed. Then you had United briefing the media about the extortionate fees and release clause and Raiola firing back and using the Pogba situation to cause problems.
Ultimately it seems Haaland was happy to come to United however he's discussed things with Raiola and things changed. I can see why United wouldn't want to pay ridiculous fees and then be forced to insert a relatively low release clause. I can also see why they would pull out of the negotiations if they felt Raiola was mugging them off again, especially when you consider the club is trying to build a young team for the long term.
If you flat out believe Haaland simply turned United down you aren't looking at everything we know about the deal and what's been said before and after it.
Ultimately it seems Haaland was happy to come to United however he's discussed things with Raiola and things changed. I can see why United wouldn't want to pay ridiculous fees and then be forced to insert a relatively low release clause. I can also see why they would pull out of the negotiations if they felt Raiola was mugging them off again, especially when you consider the club is trying to build a young team for the long term.
If you flat out believe Haaland simply turned United down you aren't looking at everything we know about the deal and what's been said before and after it.
Ignore him. He's clueless.
I am clueless?
Yeah, just for managers.
What manager is here for Work experience looking for a bigger job?
LVG? Jose?
I am absolutely not sorry that we had Suarez for three years before he left for Barcelona. Same as I am sure you aren't wishing Ronaldo never signed with you in the first place just because he then left for real Madrid.
The current one and Moyes.
I find this claim of the release clause being small time a bit hysterical. What's even more small time is rejecting a highly rated player because despite being a big club you're scared he'll want to leave at the first chance.
We must have a pretty big inferiority complex if we were so certain he wouldn't stay beyond a couple of years.
We must have a pretty big inferiority complex if we were so certain he wouldn't stay beyond a couple of years.
Except the great difference is, Ronaldo won practically everything at Man United and the Ballon d'or. It was an essential part of his career success.
Suarez won nothing major at Liverpool and as such, wasn't an essential part of his success.
Two very different scenarios. Ronaldo leaving is probably more likened to Virgil leaving in 1-2 years having won everything.
You have to protect your investment. Theres a reason why major clubs dont accept these clauses and its got nothing to do with an inferiority complex.
Also came out today that Coub Brugges pulled out of a deal 12 months ago because Raiola wanted 30 percent of any sale.
Why not give him the keys to Old Trafford if we're accepting this shite
The point is that you wouldn't be sorry you signed Haaland either if he tore up the league for three years and then left.
W
He literarlly almost left you before he kicked on after 2 seasons due to a clause.
Thats why theyre shit
Would you be sorry if Suarez joined us for a low clause instead of nearly joining Arsenal?
He literarlly almost left you before he kicked on after 2 seasons due to a clause.
Thats why theyre shit
Moyes wasnt looking to be the best manager.
I doubt if Ole is looking to manage Real, his dream was to manage Manutd. So hardly work experience for someone else...
Its not like getting a manager for two years with a buy out clause is it?
Anyone who says we shouldn't have withdrawn from the process irrespective of the release fee is pretty clueless in my eyes. Note that Madrid, Barca, liverpool, City, Chelsea, Arsenal or Bayern didn't move for him despite the incredibly low transfer fee. The "Raiola" clause put many clubs off it seems. Juve were the other club heavily linked with him other than United and Dortmund. No way they'd have agreed to that release fee either. It's got disaster waiting to happen written all over it.
Last edited:
Strange feeling we are still gonna sign him.....
He's doing well, which was expected as he is a very good striker. That does not mean you bow down to his agents requests.
It really frustrates me that these fans are having a go at the club for pulling out. Railoa has a history of favouring clubs that will pay him, no surprise that he prefers to take his clients to Juve over Barca and them because they pay more agent fees.
It was the same with us when we got Zlatan, Pogba, Mikhi, he used us to fill his pockets, the same fans who say so what if its two years, I would ask them to have a look at Pogba's antics over last two years.
I want the best players at United but not at any cost. we can be successful without having to deal with him.
If we were doing well in the league and champions league after those two years. There is absolutely no way he would go to either of those two clubs.
Agreed. Fifa fanboys on here don't really think about the consequences.
Exactly. Move on, caftards. It's getting tiresome.
And if the Athletic claims Haaland being a mindless drone remote controlled by MR, than it is so, right....
1. I can't really comment on the de Ligt saga since I did not really follow that. I wonder why players would want Raiola as their agent if he does not act in their interest though.
2. I don't mean from Dortmund but the hypothetical situation that he did sign for United with a release clause. Why would he be in a hurry to leave there if he was doing well? Just because he has a release clause?
3. I guess this doesn't really make sense to discuss since you misunderstood me for the second point
There are so many reasons a player could be unsettled in his current club, acting like success is the only reason is naive.
Someone like Ronaldo won the league and CL in Man Utd, and still wanted Real Madrid. Won the CL 3 times in a row, then still chose to go to Juve. Would you put a 60M release clause in Ronaldo's contract, even if you were guaranteed success?
Neymar is another example. Huge release clause, treble win, and still decided to leave for reasons other than success. There's no guarantees, the clause just puts the club on the back foot in all scenarios, negotiation and otherwise.
Yeah cause if it's not one extreme it has to be the other extreme. Very naive.
The release clause for a player like Haaland is projecting to be, is astronomically lower than he will command on the open market. If you somehow believe Manchester United are going to be strong armed into signing a player and allow his release clause to be so low that any club with ambition can trigger it, you are absolutely out of your mind.
First off, the optics are absolutely horrible. The players and agents can dictate the terms on when a player can leave a club. It opens up a pandoras box where other players and talent will demand the same, as to remain in complete control of where they play at any given time relatively speaking. For a club like Manchester United to be forced to let their potential golden boy leave for what in todays market is the price of a good midfielder.. That is absolutely never going to happen. You automatically devalue the clubs status if you allow clauses like that.
Dortmund accepted the clause because they know very well they are a selling club. They sell players they want to keep frequently. Every time they put up a CL quality team on the pitch, Bayern München or some European club with financial muscles simply swoop in and buy their players. Compared to MUFC, Dortmund is poor, and Ill get back to why that matters. As this entire saga has nothing to do with sports.
Mino Raiola and a couple others have in recent years managed to create a new structure in player transfers, where agents earn insane profits from player transfers. The norm used to be clubs agree on fee, agent gets a reasonable fixed fee, end of story. Now you have these superagents that commission incredible sums, and actively move their players between rich clubs. All while increasing the players wages, and their own cut of the transfer fees. Allowing a lowball release clause hands control of the players future over to the player, and leaves the club helpless. If a bidding club offers the release clause, they have no say in the players future. You are essentially asking the clubs to start allowing players to dictate contract length, not vice versa.
For the clubs, this is all about asset management. The value of your assets dictate everything from share value to potential bank loans, loan obligations what have you. A lowball release clause potentially devalues the asset. That is one part of the consideration. Clubs have very different standings in international markets and they have a certain status to uphold to attract business. One of those is how the club is perceived. Allowing yourself to becoming a selling club like Dortmund, who internatonally is a pretty small club compared to Real Madrid or even Arsenal, devalues the whole franchise.
The other part is the precedent that I've already mentioned. You allow one, more will come. No one wants a situation like that.
Now: Signing Haaland to a release clause in a vacuum, means nothing. Its one player that we can lose for under 50% of his value in 2 years. Maybe. In a vacuum, this isnt a big deal. The deal becomes important when talent number 2 wants the same clause. And player number 3. And player number 2349. If artificially low clauses become the norm, club lose all control of their assets longevity, and they never will or should allow that to happen.
So the arguments for this?
"Oh ArE YoU AFraiD hE wILl LeAvE??" - No. But you don't want a summer transfer window where you have to replace CR7 because Real Madrid triggered his release clause in August and good luck finding a replacement.
"JusT siGn HiM TO a neW cONtracT" - No club will play lottery with a incredibly valuable asset like that. This is never part of real life, and will never happen.
"hE reJEcteD the ClUB L0l l0sEr - signed, Manchester United fan" - That might be, I don't know what happened and neither do you. But we do know that the release clause around £60 million is real, and that makes the player signing here a non starter to begin with. For most top6 clubs in the big leagues, the release clause is Christmas Morning for clubs looking for a player like Haaland. It's like discovering a Bugatti Veyron hiding behind the "Everything 70% off" in the discount shelves at Walmart.
"WE COULD HAVE USED THE PLAYER NOW ARE YOU RET****D" - Go wash your mouth!
Last edited:
I am of course not advocating that a player having a release clause is a great thing for a club. It isn't and it can lead to very unpleasant situations. Would I take a peak Ronaldo with a release clause knowing he will leave for less than his market value? feck yeah, that would be awesome
But then again, that is the Dortmund fan speaking there and maybe United's standing would not allow that. In that case it probably boils down to how deep in the shit you see yourselves and if choosing that pride/standing over sporting success is a good or a bad thing. There opinions can be and obviously are differing. I am not close enough to United to have an educated opinion there, from Dortmund's perspective right now I am over the moon for having a lad like Haaland. Not sure how I will feel in two years time though