CR7 joined Real Madrid a season after they had won the league. It's not as if they'd gone through a 5 year drought.
Erling Haaland
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, well I dont think Roman would agree to a similar buyout clause, so another way of looking at it is if he stays there for 3-4 years and for some reason doesnt do particularly well, or that the club in question spend their money otherwise..
Like, I bet you Pogba regrets coming to United...
Last edited:
Of course Chelsea is a good option. But next year he'll have much more leverage as it comes to determining who he signs for and his wages plus the fees. He could well choose Chelsea next summer as they might provide him the best option then. But now? He's just limiting himself. Plus things can look different for whichever club he could sign for instead of Chelsea and they'll beat whatever Chelsea offers now. So he doesn't have 2-3 seasons and instead only wait for 1.
So many player choose Chelsea or some other club instead of us.
Shearer
Ronaldinho
Essien?
Mikel
Halaand chooses dortmund
Sneijder
We're not the dog's bollock these days.
Haaland was a board issue. They didn't want to concede to the demands.
That’s actually a good point. But to be fair Barcelona always have that connection with top Brazilian player at that time (Romario, L.Ronaldo) so it’s natural Ronaldinho would choose Barca over us to follow their footsteps.
Whereas before Ronaldo is joining Real, they have gone through periods of their Galacticos era, so there is always big attraction for best players moving there.
For our case though, forgot when was the last time we could attract high profile big name worldclass player for joining us during their peak? Maybe only Pogba in recent year, who seems doesn’t want to stay beyond his current contract with us. Then there was Di Maria, who immediately escaped within a year of joining us. One could argue Sanchez too, but it was the worst move in his career on hindsight. Not a very encouraging record.
Last edited:
Barca and Real are in a league of their own when it comes to attractiveness to players. Doesn't even have a lot to do with what they win season over season. Players have left much stronger teams to join them regularly.
Why? if we're big enough why would we be scared he 'll move?
If Haaland doesn't want to come here then so be it.
He is a great young player but if he makes it clear he doesn't want to be at United twice - then he can find the club he wants to be at.
We will instead look to balance and get the best out of players like Greenwood alongside players like Sancho and Rashford.
He is a great young player but if he makes it clear he doesn't want to be at United twice - then he can find the club he wants to be at.
We will instead look to balance and get the best out of players like Greenwood alongside players like Sancho and Rashford.
Our Alan Shearer of 2020s.
Okay
He also seems a bit Zlatan to me like in the way that I dont see him going to a club and wanting to be there for a while.
He has talked about how he wants to play in different leagues etc.
I can see how he starts his first move from a German club to join a PL club, then go to a Spanish club and then possibly move to a French or Italian team.
If he moves to Chelsea, I dont necessarily see him being there for a decade; maybe 3 years imo.
Maybe im wrong but lets see.
I have zero idea. I think the leaks at the time said that MU though they were too big to have a buyout clause. Horrible decision.
Look at the scenario Dortmund find themselves in this summer.
Players are running down their contracts to either walk for free or sell at discount in last year contract. See Depay, Mbappe, Hazard, Pogba, Wijnaldum, Donnarumma...etc. This is the trend.
BVB got the goals from Haaland while he is there, and can make a 200% profit when he leaves next summer. What not to like? it sounds like a much better investment than PSG on Mbappe.
Last edited:
They have 2-3 years of good services and lots of goals under halaand
They have and will easilly guaranteed 50m Transfer fee next year, 150M possibly if they let go this year.
All that, vs Nothing
That deal is a very good deal, considering Dortmund bought him for 30M, That's 20M guaranteed profit and 3 years of goals galore.
Only thing hurt is ego
If Utd agreed to a clause that would only guarantee a profit of a measley £50m for a talent like Haaland each and every Utd fan on this forum would hurl spectacular levels of abuse to Woodward for agreeing to such terms in the first place
Very easy to think the grass is greener on the other side due to hindsight but extremely different circumstance when you're the one in an actual pickle
Even that could be mitigated if dealt with the issue carefully. Haaland is known as someone who would like to play in multiple leagues (bit like Ibrahimovic in that regard), so what would be the issue when he scored for a few years for United in the PL and then moved on to Real or Juventus or some club like that? As long as you wouldn't sell him to another PL club I don't see how it would have hurt United's ego to be part of such an exclusive list of clubs. Regarding titles you are nowhere near those clubs
"exclusive list of clubs"
I mean he's a good player, but you make it sound like we should be falling over ourselves to have the second coming of christ grace our little slug of a club.So what? We bought him for 30M?
Like I said, those deals have all the pros and non of the cons (other than ego)
and if United is smart, just get him first and offer him a contract he can't refuse along the way.
Plus, retrospectively looking back, if we have Halaand we could easilly probably advance to the later stages of CL, or to the very least won the League / Fa cup or UEFA cup.
What's your definition of a contract he can't refuse? Where Raiola and Alfe Haaland are involved with their bad past/relationship with Utd we're talking £400-500K a week for a 20yr old. How much more will it cost to renew his Contract AGAIN as time goes by? Not to mention it would be a case of fully bending down to player/agent power for someone who's not guaranteed to stay for the rest of his prime years at one club. He's a top top player but the hassle and possible dominoes he'd have come with weren't worth the hassle
Let me ask you a question : how much is Halaand's salary in Dortmund? And do you even know how much we're paying Martial?
So, tell me.
What do you expect from Halaand? Profess his undying love to United? Paid for peanuts? Sign a 10 years contract?
But this isnt running down a contract, this is 2 years in!
Thats ok for a Dortmund but it would have set back all the progress we made if we signed him back then. Imagine being forced to sell Bruno tomorrow or lose him for a quarter ofthe price next year. We would be nowhere.
Obviously that was bit over the top, but I'm sure you get the point"exclusive list of clubs"
I see no harm in a player wanting to play for a top club in every top league and United being the English club in that list. When it is clear from the beginning that he does not intend to stay forever he might never become a club legend, but he also should not be involved in any big drama.
But ultimately it sounded a lot like the transfer to United did not fail because of the issue of a release clause but because Haaland did not trust United to trust him as player (reportedly he had the feeling only Solskjaer wanted to sign him, and his job seemed far from safe at the time). So yes, it was a board issue but not so much in terms of the contract details it seems
Haaland's salary at BVB isn't important we all know if he was at Utd around this time with clubs showing interest any contract extension where Haaland's dad and Raiola are involved will be expensive as hell when you factor in our relationship and past with those two. His salary of he joins Chelsea is reportedly the figure I told you.
Okay we pay Martial a high salary so what? Does that mean we should do it for EVERY player? The reason he's on so much is because of the mistake that was Alexis Sanchez same reason why De Gea is on his current wages too if we never signed Alexis our wage bill wouldn't be so messed up. So yes while Haaland is world class the over stretched financials he'd come with for a player so young that would undoubtedly become higher over time plus the baggage that is Raiola was not worth it. I'm not expecting him to express undying love for Utd but a player and his dad/agent should NEVER make a club bend over to his will no matter how good he is
Except that's not the case
We are GUARANTEED profit at the very least 20M (30M purchase, 50M buyout clause)
and on your bruno analogy, the comparison is Bruno for at least 2 years and 20 M profit or no bruno ?
Like I said, the only thing hurt is the ego.
Signing a player with a clause like that is by it's nature, signing a player who believes he is bigger than the club.
Along with the goals he'll score, you are also taking on the inevitable shitshow circus Raiola embarks on when he feels it's time to move on to bigger and better things.
Signing a player like this, no matter how good he is, hurts our image (and as such, our attractiveness to other players) in the long run.
Under Ole, we have done really well to reign back control of the perception of the club in the transfer market - getting back into bed with Raiola and signing Haaland on astronomical wages and with some small time release clause would be a massive step backwards for me.
Class player, weird bloke, scumbag agent. The goals wouldn't be worth the hassle in the long term.
Along with the goals he'll score, you are also taking on the inevitable shitshow circus Raiola embarks on when he feels it's time to move on to bigger and better things.
Signing a player like this, no matter how good he is, hurts our image (and as such, our attractiveness to other players) in the long run.
Under Ole, we have done really well to reign back control of the perception of the club in the transfer market - getting back into bed with Raiola and signing Haaland on astronomical wages and with some small time release clause would be a massive step backwards for me.
Class player, weird bloke, scumbag agent. The goals wouldn't be worth the hassle in the long term.
Obviously that was bit over the top, but I'm sure you get the point
I see no harm in a player wanting to play for a top club in every top league and United being the English club in that list. When it is clear from the beginning that he does not intend to stay forever he might never become a club legend, but he also should not be involved in any big drama.
But ultimately it sounded a lot like the transfer to United did not fail because of the issue of a release clause but because Haaland did not trust United to trust him as player (reportedly he had the feeling only Solskjaer wanted to sign him, and his job seemed far from safe at the time). So yes, it was a board issue but not so much in terms of the contract details it seems
Yeah I do get your point mate. I know wherever he ends up next he'll only be there for a little while, but that club will make a lot more money off him and get the better player. I still fully feel we were right now to bend over backwards for the deal to sign him, its not changed my desire for us to go all in for him next summer, even if it doesn't happen.
If a profit of just 20m is appetizing in our eyes for a player like Haaland when other clubs made MUCH bigger profits on key players(us with Ronaldo, Chelsea with Hazard, Liverpool with Coutinho, Spurs with Bale, BVB themselves with Dembele and soon with Sancho etc) then I'm glad you're not in charge of our transfers
You seems to twist everything I post.
If you can't argue rationaly, best to just agree to disagree.
If you think passing the opportunity to buy Halaand @ 30 M 2 years ago with a release clause of 50M is a good choice, then so be it. It's your opinion.
I don't think that statement can be applied to the release clause Haaland wanted at United. As I said above, Haaland was not really sure about this situation at United, especially if Solsjaer had been fired. That quite low release clause can be seen more as an exit strategy/insurance for him that he can leave in case his time at United did not go happily (if you will, call it a lack of self-confidence on Haalands behalf or a lack of confidence in the club structure, just from the numbers that's hard to determine I think).
This reasoning works out especially when you consider that the release clause he has at Dortmund is a lot higher than the one he wanted at United (there are conflicting reports I am aware of, but the difference could be as big as 50 million € vs 100 million). The clause at Dortmund is something else, it is a way to ensure that a top player can go to an absolute elite club for a reasonable fee.
And by the way I do think that it was in United's best interest to refuse that clause, too. At least if it was unconditional - I think that kind of clause with such a low amount should only be applied for example in case of the player not being used a lot by the coach or whatever.
Again, different kettle of fish.
Your argument is 100% correct if the initial layout is huge (e.g. Pogba), we bought him for world record, and the whole baggage that comes along isn't worth the hassle.
But in Halaand case it's different, we bought him for peanuts (30M) if he ended up causing alot of circus we can just tell him to feck off, let him run down his contract or whatever we deemed appropriate and won't be a loss. We hold all the card, at the very least he's like a very good Loan player.
We have a different business model plus it would hurt the United brand. Fans love have the longevity of players from academy to the peak of their careers all within United, if possible. Our very own.
Dortmund has to churn players through to try and compete against the likes of Bayern.
I think its so disingenuous to pretend people would have been ok with Haaland walking away for relatively peanuts because we didn't pay much for him in the first place, even if he'd been great for two years. Peoples piss would be boiling all over the place.
Exactly my point. The only thing that deal wasn't right was the "ego" part
Everything else is logically beneficial. It's a win win situation, if not for our huge ego.
I'm not saying United were wrong to say no to him, but it wasn't such a bad deal many said.
Oh yeah, people will get pissed, traitors/judas/leech/cnut/gloryhunter etc will be banded on Halaand, and lord knows what sort of vile abuses Ed / Glazer will get.
Fans will be fans.
Dortmund fans are probably alright with it because their whole club is setup differently. Their approach to buying talent is just not comparable to ours.
I am just thinking here - is there such a thing as performance-dependent release clauses? Does Haaland maybe have such a clause at Dortmund, and would that have been an acceptable solution for United (fans)? I am wondering about that because all initial reports about his release clause were about 75 million €, while earlier this year suddenly reports about 100 million turned up. Maybe both are true, but journalists did not know about some kind of automatic increase based on number of goals or something like that.
Selling a bench player who signed for 30m for 50m onwards or selling a superstar for 150m sounds quite different I believe and could be achieved with such kind of clause - but I actually never heard about something like that existing, so could this be thing? I really don't know.
Haaland didnt want to come to us , he was afraid PL was too big a step that could stop his development , and that he wouldnt get 100% gametime.
Raiola has confirmed this not to long ago, and Alf-Inge father said the same thing not long after the transfer was completed.
The clause thing was just United’s PR spin afterwards to try and save their reputation.
Raiola has confirmed this not to long ago, and Alf-Inge father said the same thing not long after the transfer was completed.
The clause thing was just United’s PR spin afterwards to try and save their reputation.
And it was up to us to convince him otherwise..
- Status