Erling Haaland

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andycoleno9 said:
Having excellent player 3 years and then getting a little profit from him. Not to mention that if things are going good for him and club, there is a chance that he signs new contract without clause.
Yeah, that sucks. If we are buying player then it is 10 years contract or nothing.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I see your point but in terms of United's image as a major club it would be quite damaging, and hurt the brand also.

It would be a bit like admitting we're a smaller club than City/Real/Barca/Bayern etc.. Like saying okay we'll sign you but there is another level to go up after us. It might be true of course but that doesn't mean we want to act like that.

A bit like when Arsenal started selling their best players to City, eventually people started to disregard Arsenal as one of the top clubs in England. As top clubs don't regularly have their players taken off them by a rival.
 
Tarrou said:
I see your point but in terms of United's image as a major club it would be quite damaging, and hurt the brand also.

It would be a bit like admitting we're a smaller club than City/Real/Barca/Bayern etc.. Like saying okay we'll sign you but there is another level to go up after us. It might be true of course but that doesn't mean we want to act like that.

A bit like when Arsenal started selling their best players to City, eventually people started to disregard Arsenal as one of the top clubs in England. As top clubs don't regularly have their players taken off them by a rival.
Click to expand...

Including a clause that the release clause (100 to 150m) is not applicable to domestic rivals will be good option. It is not a bad business if he goes to Madrid or Barca after giving 3 to 4 good years to our club.

If we perform well in the pitch as a team the player wouldn't mind staying for longer time signing a new contract.
 
reddevilchennai said:
Including a clause that the release clause (100 to 150m) is not applicable to domestic rivals will be good option. It is not a bad business if he goes to Madrid or Barca after giving 3 to 4 good years to our club.

If we perform well in the pitch as a team the player wouldn't mind staying for longer time signing a new contract.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, it would have been better if we can exclude domestic rivals for sure. Just like it would be better if the clause was 300m.

Nothing to suggest that was even possible though, and as Haaland's agent was holding all the cards in that negotiation it is very unlikely they'd have agreed to it. All we know is he turned us down because we didn't include the clause.
 
Tarrou said:
I see your point but in terms of United's image as a major club it would be quite damaging, and hurt the brand also.

It would be a bit like admitting we're a smaller club than City/Real/Barca/Bayern etc.. Like saying okay we'll sign you but there is another level to go up after us. It might be true of course but that doesn't mean we want to act like that.

A bit like when Arsenal started selling their best players to City, eventually people started to disregard Arsenal as one of the top clubs in England. As top clubs don't regularly have their players taken off them by a rival.
Click to expand...

I don't know which is worse, having Halaand for 3 years or having Rashford for 3 years, we are the laughing stock of Europe at the moment, being smaller than City/Barca is the least of our worry.

And if 3 years with us is not enough to make him fall for us then with all due respect, we are smaller than Real / Barca
 
Sky1981 said:
I don't know which is worse, having Halaand for 3 years or having Rashford for 3 years, we are the laughing stock of Europe at the moment, being smaller than City/Barca is the least of our worry.

And if 3 years with us is not enough to make him fall for us then with all due respect, we are smaller than Real / Barca
Click to expand...

we are definitely smaller than Real / Barca right now in my opinion, it's been 10 years since we were a top side so there is no doubt left in my mind

but the reality of that and the reality of acting like it in the transfer market are two different things

Woody / the Glazers see brand value as of immense importance.. and that is what any potential buyer is paying for (a vanity purchase), and not that MUFC is good ROI
 
Tarrou said:
we are definitely smaller than Real / Barca right now in my opinion, it's been 10 years since we were a top side so there is no doubt left in my mind

but the reality of that and the reality of acting like it in the transfer market are two different things

Woody / the Glazers see brand value as of immense importance.. and that is what any potential buyer is paying for (a vanity purchase), and not that MUFC is good ROI
Click to expand...
Were smaller than city for gods sake.
We could regain our spot on the top with a few years of sustained success but as of now, we've lost it.
 
Red the Bear said:
Were smaller than city for gods sake.
We could regain our spot on the top with a few years of sustained success but as of now, we've lost it.
Click to expand...

I know, if you think I’m suggesting otherwise you’ve misunderstood the point
 
Tarrou said:
I see your point but in terms of United's image as a major club it would be quite damaging, and hurt the brand also.

It would be a bit like admitting we're a smaller club than City/Real/Barca/Bayern etc.. Like saying okay we'll sign you but there is another level to go up after us. It might be true of course but that doesn't mean we want to act like that.

A bit like when Arsenal started selling their best players to City, eventually people started to disregard Arsenal as one of the top clubs in England. As top clubs don't regularly have their players taken off them by a rival.
Click to expand...
As i said at the end of my post; it is not for sure that he would leave. When you have player signed and playing for you, there is always an option that he will sign new contract (without clause).
I agree about club's image. But at that point we should have thought step by step. Lets first do everything what is needed to sign him and then lets try to convince him to sign new contract while he is with us.
We are not Dortmund. There, it was certain that he will leave. With us, that would not be 100% thing. It would depend on many things.
 
DarkXaero said:
Was going to say the same thing for all the people saying that good thing we didn't :lol:

Maybe if we had Haaland these last 3 years, we would be in a lot better position right now.
Click to expand...

Would we have had a better manager than the one we had? I mean he went to a team that didn't perform any better since his arrival.
 
Going to be massively overpriced and dangerously injury prone at such a young age.

Could be fools gold.

We need to focus on cheaper alternatives to develop.
 
ilrm said:
I hope we (Madrid) don't buy him. He looks fairly top heavy which means that as he ages, he will likely get knee/hamstring injuries on a regular basis. Besides that at Real Madrid, the front 3 need to be interchangeable in front of goal. Erling doesn't look like he can play wide on a consistent basis during a game. Neither does he drop deep to collect the ball like any of Madrid's front 3. His style is closer to Lewandowski and that's not how we play.
Click to expand...
I see what you’re saying, but I think most clubs will overlook his inability to do anything other than score because his record is quite frankly freakish in virtually every competiton he’s played in. Like, he is “just” an insanely quick and strong goalscorer, but he’s the very top percentile in that category.
 
Wonder if his transfer this summer will fall through now riola has died. Or whether his dad will push through his transfer regardless. After all football is a heartless business. Sure haaland family will happily take the £20mil that riola was going to get for themselves.
 
dinostar77 said:
Wonder if his transfer this summer will fall through now riola has died. Or whether his dad will push through his transfer regardless. After all football is a heartless business. Sure haaland family will happily take the £20mil that riola was going to get for themselves.
Click to expand...

Why would they get there 20 million? I'm sure Haaland has a contract with Raiola's company which will be entitled to receive the money if the transfer happens.
 
For once I actually agree with our club that they did not agree to sign a kid from Salzburg (no matter how talented) with a release clause in his contract. We may be far from the top right now but we don’t want for players like Haaland to openly treat our club as a stepping stone.

Edit: and to posters saying that we could have had him for 3 years. Wouldn’t change much I’m afraid as our problems were bigger than not signing Haaland 3 years ago!
 
Biggins said:
For once I actually agree with our club that they did not agree to sign a kid from Salzburg (no matter how talented) with a release clause in his contract. We may be far from the top right now but we don’t want for players like Haaland to openly treat our club as a stepping stone.

Edit: and to posters saying that we could have had him for 3 years. Wouldn’t change much I’m afraid as our problems were bigger than not signing Haaland 3 years ago!
Click to expand...
I agreed at the time. We should have powers over contracts. I’m not so sure anymore. We are such a gamble for up and coming players. Maybe giving them a way out, and at the same time protect our investment isn’t all bad.
 
DWelbz19 said:
I see what you’re saying, but I think most clubs will overlook his inability to do anything other than score because his record is quite frankly freakish in virtually every competiton he’s played in. Like, he is “just” an insanely quick and strong goalscorer, but he’s the very top percentile in that category.
Click to expand...

13th in bundesliga assist list with 7 in 22 gp def means he's capable of doing more than score.
 
Biggins said:
For once I actually agree with our club that they did not agree to sign a kid from Salzburg (no matter how talented) with a release clause in his contract. We may be far from the top right now but we don’t want for players like Haaland to openly treat our club as a stepping stone.

Edit: and to posters saying that we could have had him for 3 years. Wouldn’t change much I’m afraid as our problems were bigger than not signing Haaland 3 years ago!
Click to expand...
We could have him and sold him for good profit. This would help improving our transfer kitty this summer, at the very least.
 
Tarrou said:
I see your point but in terms of United's image as a major club it would be quite damaging, and hurt the brand also.

It would be a bit like admitting we're a smaller club than City/Real/Barca/Bayern etc.. Like saying okay we'll sign you but there is another level to go up after us. It might be true of course but that doesn't mean we want to act like that.

A bit like when Arsenal started selling their best players to City, eventually people started to disregard Arsenal as one of the top clubs in England. As top clubs don't regularly have their players taken off them by a rival.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of thinking that has held us back over recent years. We are more focussed on our image as a big club than actually achieving anything in the pitch. The club needs to be pragmatic about finding ways to restore the club to being competitive over the coming years. There is no doubt we are currently a less attractive option for players than real, City, bayern, even barca with their issues are more attractive to players. Even if haaland was given a release clause, we could surely have worked out one that would have provided a decent profit for the club and he would probably have left a team in a better state (e.g. in the cl) with something to build on
 
Biggins said:
For once I actually agree with our club that they did not agree to sign a kid from Salzburg (no matter how talented) with a release clause in his contract. We may be far from the top right now but we don’t want for players like Haaland to openly treat our club as a stepping stone.

Edit: and to posters saying that we could have had him for 3 years. Wouldn’t change much I’m afraid as our problems were bigger than not signing Haaland 3 years ago!
Click to expand...
We'd have scored enough goal to get champions league football - and just because he has a release clause doesn't mean he'd definitely leave. Another massive cock up by our useless managerial team/board
 
Unless I am reading "Fake News", his agent (the guy a lot of UTD supporters have had some issue with) has died???

In any case, at the start of this current season, the two main reasons he would want to join UTD have now gone, namely, Ole as our manager & CL football for next season.
 
UTD_Since_1978 said:
Unless I am reading "Fake News", his agent (the guy a lot of UTD supporters have had some issue with) has died???

In any case, at the start of this current season, the two main reasons he would want to join UTD have now gone, namely, Ole as our manager & CL football for next season.
Click to expand...
Ole failed to get him first time round so I'm pretty sure wouldn't have suceeded this time
 
11 forwards said:
13th in bundesliga assist list with 7 in 22 gp def means he's capable of doing more than score.
Click to expand...
Assist stats for strikers aren't typically a good barometer on ability to play with the ball. Romelu Lukaku got 11 assists last season in Serie A.
 
mitchmouse said:
We'd have scored enough goal to get champions league football - and just because he has a release clause doesn't mean he'd definitely leave. Another massive cock up by our useless managerial team/board
Click to expand...
You're forgetting who his agency is and their priority of moving clients from one team to another for profits?(Yes Raiola has died hence why I said agency)
Also nothing would have stopped City or Chelsea from triggering the clause or the player doing a Tevez. Haaland is a terrific player but the risk his clause came with wasn't worth the hassle
 
RedRonaldo said:
We could have him and sold him for good profit. This would help improving our transfer kitty this summer, at the very least.
Click to expand...
You think a profit of a measley £50m for Haaland is good? Selling a £150m player for only £70m after buying him for £20m is the type of terrible business that would have had the CAF demanding for Woodward to be castigated.
Even Dortmund fans who usually don't care much about such stuff are furious about this.
 
People bemoaning us not buying him before with the shitty release clause.

I'm pretty certain if we had done so and now found ourselves in a situation this summer where we were going to lose him for just 75m, those same people would now be slaughtering the board for a shocking decision to agree such a terrible clause.
 
Nero said:
People bemoaning us not buying him before with the shitty release clause.

I'm pretty certain if we had done so and now found ourselves in a situation this summer where we were going to lose him for just 75m, those same people would now be slaughtering the board for a shocking decision to agree such a terrible clause.
Click to expand...
This
A lot of them are talking from hindsight. I'm 100000000% sure if we were in the same situation Dortmund are in now the words and tones of people here would be very very different.
 
RkkMan said:
You think a profit of a measley £50m for Haaland is good? Selling a £150m player for only £70m after buying him for £20m is the type of terrible business that would have had the CAF demanding for Woodward to be castigated.
Even Dortmund fans who usually don't care much about such stuff are furious about this.
Click to expand...
Sure it’s good. Do you prefer 0 profit or loss of value rather than 50m profit? We have been either losing our players for free, or tired them in expensive wage for long term anyway. I simply don’t see us doing any better.
 
RkkMan said:
You think a profit of a measley £50m for Haaland is good? Selling a £150m player for only £70m after buying him for £20m is the type of terrible business that would have had the CAF demanding for Woodward to be castigated.
Even Dortmund fans who usually don't care much about such stuff are furious about this.
Click to expand...

Definitely. At this club we are much more about buying players for £94m and getting £0 for them when they go.
 
RedRonaldo said:
Sure it’s good. Do you prefer 0 profit or loss of value rather than 50m profit? We have been either losing our players for free, or tired them in expensive wage for long term anyway. I simply don’t see us doing any better.
Click to expand...
Us being bad at selling(under the new football people it could change) doesn't mean we should keep making more questionable decisions especially one as risky as having a cheap clause for a very valuable player and I mean risky in the sense that nothing would have stopped him from going to Chelsea or even City.
City and Liverpool didn't need to make such outrageous decisions to get to the top and we shouldn't either. We can find another good ST that will actually stay here or be sold on our terms
 
sincher said:
Definitely. At this club we are much more about buying players for £94m and getting £0 for them when they go.
Click to expand...
So we should bend over to players and agents when that's exactly what we're
trying to avoid?
Our poor selling history doesn't mean we should let a player, agent and his dad have us by the balls no matter how good he is? If we can refuse to sell at the time the best player in the world for a year we shouldn't allow a 19/20yr old that's still a prodigy use us like an easy stepping stone.
Even Liverpool in their banter era only let Suarez, Sterling and Coutinho leave for record fees
 
RkkMan said:
Us being bad at selling(under the new football people it could change) doesn't mean we should keep making more questionable decisions especially one as risky as having a cheap clause for a very valuable player and I mean risky in the sense that nothing would have stopped him from going to Chelsea or even City.
City and Liverpool didn't need to make such outrageous decisions to get to the top and we shouldn't either. We can find another good ST that will actually stay here or be sold on our terms
Click to expand...
We are no where near to City and Liverpool level anymore, you need to accept reality. This summer we only got 100-150m to spend, sure another 50m profit would help us adding another player in summer for our long term rebuild, which can only be good thing.
 
RedRonaldo said:
We are no where near to City and Liverpool level anymore, you need to accept reality. This summer we only got 100-150m to spend, sure another 50m profit would help us adding another player in summer for our long term rebuild, which can only be good thing.
Click to expand...
City were nowhere near their current level in the early 2010s they didn't need to include a release clause when they bought Aguero
Liverpool were nowhere near their current level when Klopp came or even pre Klopp didn't stop them from selling key players for big money or making top signings that actually stayed.
There isn't any way you can justify opening a Pandora's Box that makes players and agents see us as a richer version of Dortmund even for a player as good as Haaland's.
You're forgetting one thing in regards to your measley profit we'd have to replace Haaland on top of the holes that are already there if you think an extra £50m with a £100-150m budget is enough to replace a £150m striker then there's nothing meaningful we can discuss
 
RkkMan said:
You're forgetting who his agency is and their priority of moving clients from one team to another for profits?(Yes Raiola has died hence why I said agency)
Also nothing would have stopped City or Chelsea from triggering the clause or the player doing a Tevez. Haaland is a terrific player but the risk his clause came with wasn't worth the hassle
Click to expand...
you think no one else has release clauses? If raiolo thought this one up for one client, you think he didn't do it for most of the others?
 
mitchmouse said:
you think no one else has release clauses? If raiolo thought this one up for one client, you think he didn't do it for most of the others?
Click to expand...
My issue isn't necessarily the clause itself but the way it's been set up.
If it was something around £100m with conditions that no PL team can trigger it that would have been acceptable as it offers you insurance and a good profit, but a £70m clause for a player who's worth double the value that can be triggered by anyone? Just so that the agent and his dad can get a massive pay day? That's being taken for a ride.
Factor in his dad is a City icon and his agency is under the late Raiola and you have zero reasons for being trustworthy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.