This was at time of Southampton's interest i am imagining as Per Sportings statement ?
Guess if we want him enough we can pay extra something to Sporting with Doyen's approval and sort it out quick, but not sure we would wanna do that as it could raise further issues.
Wonder Whose the next left footed defender on the shortlist ?
That was the bit that stood out for me. If that goes to UEFA/FIFA then Doyen are finished, the authorities can't allow that kind of bullying. I wouldn't be surprised to see UEFA actually supporting the court case to establish a precedent.
See mate? Doyen has been behaving in an unethical manner since the start of this transfer shambles. This is like the Bilbao saga and the supposed lawyers. I understand they want their investment back but there are limits that can´t be breach regarding the independence of the club management.
Sporting and United have decades of good relationship. We have made deals who were profitable for both sides. The problem here is the fund. Not club relationship.
It's one Parties word vs the other to be fair. Not sure i believe either 100%.
Both are trying to get extra money and with WC and United's interest the stakes have been raised even further.
Peculiar situation as United probably beleived they had met the asking price that was bandied about when Southampton wanted him and what was mooted to them. Do wonder what we will do in this scenario.
It's a fair point. There must be a middle ground somewhere though. It sets a horrible precedent if Rojo has now done this at two separate clubs. We all think, quite rightly, that there isn't a step up from United, but we can't ignore the fact we aren't even in Europe atm. If he really does become the dogs bollocks, I wouldn't rule out him doing the exact same to go to Madrid or Barca.
On the topic of being worried he's an Argie on the basis of Tevez and Heinze, it's a bit bizarre really - we can't just group together an entire nation as cnuts because a couple of them are. It's like being worried about Shaw because he's the same nationality as Joey Barton and Ashley Cole. We aren't all like that! Having said that though, there could be something in it. We see this never say die, blood and thunder, uber patriotic attitude from Argies all the time. While it might translate well onto a football pitch, it definitely makes things tricky when things turn sour. Rojo seems to be cut from exactly the same cloth.
It's one Parties word vs the other to be fair. Not sure i believe either 100%.
Both are trying to get extra money and with WC and United's interest the stakes have been raised even further.
Peculiar situation as United probably beleived they had met the asking price that was bandied about when Southampton wanted him and what was mooted to them. Do wonder what we will do in this scenario.
Honestly if i was Ed Woodward, i´d move for another target. This is a complete mess now and our President is known to drive a very hard bargain. Liverpool and Galatasaray tried to play games with him also and ended up paying over the odds. I´ve now been reading his saga when he left Spartak for us and it happened exactly the same. So like i said previously, this is Karma. Valery Karpin, who was Spartak´s director of football, said if it was up to him, Rojo would spend the whole season on the stands but we ended up reaching a compromise. Perhaps it can happen the same between United and Sporting but with our President and how the fund has been behaving, i´m skeptical
Really glad that Sporting have told the 3rd party owners to feck off, even if means we stand to lose out on the player. 3rd party owners must be booted out of football.
If this text sent to the Sporting club president is proven to come from Doyen then Sporting's anger and the contract termination has very good grounds:
“O MARCOS ROJO VAI PARA O [CLUBE ESTRANGEIRO]” e que “SE NÃO O DEIXAREM ELE VAI COMEÇAR A PROVOCAR PROBLEMAS NA ACADEMIA”.
That basically says, either Rojo moves or we cause trouble in your Academy.
Im under the impression, without them, these clubs wouldn't have the players to begin with.Really glad that Sporting have told the 3rd party owners to feck off, even if means we stand to lose out on the player. 3rd party owners must be booted out of football.
What was the original deal between Sporting and Spartak regarding Rojo?
Without knowing who's right or wrong going to court is always a bad option. I think in the end all parties will gain more to solve this in a civil manner instead of threaten each other. Sporting may win in court but lose a good player, not to mention money and reputation. In my ears that sounds like a bad idea.
Wrong Jojojo. It was decided between the fund and Sporting that in 23 July Rojo would no longer be in the Market. Everyone agreed and wanted the Champions League campaign for further valorization. I guess with United interest the fund must have changed their mind. Now after selling Dier, we are supposed to lose another CB, one week before the league start? All this talk of promises from Sporting behalf has been debunked by the Sporting President. There are no proof that he made any unrealistic demand. Doyen has been pressuring and meddling in our business and that´s unacceptable. You just have to read ou statement and see what the portuguese rep has been threatning us with problems in the academy. We can´t admit that. If it wasn´t this serious we wouldn´t terminate our link with them. I´m biased but of course i will take our President´s word instead of a obscure figure like Nélio Lucas.
I really don't think kicking out 3rd party ownerships is that simple, especially in the Portuguese league where I believe that many players are only part owned by clubs and many funds like Doyen existing. Even if Uefa would like to eliminate 3 rd party ownerships, it can't be done easily. Sly can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe that many clubs in Portugal agree to these sort of part ownerships owing to their Financial situation.
So the transfer would have been easier/cheaper if we'd gone all out to sign him before the 23rd of July?
The similarity with the Fellaini cluster-feck is uncanny. Are we still blaming Moyes for what happened?
Before 23rd July he was very likely not our first target, Vermaelen was.So the transfer would have been easier/cheaper if we'd gone all out to sign him before the 23rd of July?
The similarity with the Fellaini cluster-feck is uncanny. Are we still blaming Moyes for what happened?
True that.
But if i got the translation correct Doyen's statement says that Sporting is not honoring the clauses in their contract and making unrealistic demands to get more money and also that Sporting president violated confidentiality clause in the agreement amongst other things.
Doyen claim Sporting promised Marcos Rojo he could leave. Sporting claim they told him he couldn't.
It's bit of a clusterfeck.
Im under the impression, without them, these clubs wouldn't have the players to begin with.
Before 23rd July he was very likely not our first target, Vermaelen was.
And before 23rd July LvG was still evaluating his squad. At that stage he might still have been weighing up what he needed - level, experience, type of player, number of players.
That's why you need clarity in those clauses and such.
Before 23rd July he was very likely not our first target, Vermaelen was.
Really glad that Sporting have told the 3rd party owners to feck off, even if means we stand to lose out on the player. 3rd party owners must be booted out of football.
When was this?
What's Sporting's argument? The way it seems is that they put pen to paper on particular clauses which they now don't want to accept because they're not making any money on the transfer.
So the transfer would have been easier/cheaper if we'd gone all out to sign him before the 23rd of July?
The similarity with the Fellaini cluster-feck is uncanny. Are we still blaming Moyes for what happened?
I've seen clauses which are as close to clear as you can get - and the party who doesnt like the net result will argue that it means something else. It keeps people like me in a job.
The easiest way to prevent this in football is to prevent thrid party ownership.
When he was played at CB, you are thinking of Smalling playing at RB where he can do a job, but no more. As a CB, and played consistently there, he is one of the best in the PL
Right, and who picked Vermaelen/Fabregas as targets? I doubt it was Woody.Swap Vermaelen for Fabregas and again, the similarity with Fellaini is uncanny.
Indeed, but we're already seeing de-facto third party ownership deals written as loans against pools of players (with suitably stringent foreclosure terms and penalties). Now throw in people like Abramovitch getting involved in the player investment game and bank loans getting harder to obtain and football financing and player ownership/representation/control is getting more complex all the time.
I read Doyen's letter and from it seems like there was a clause which entitled them to some compensation if an offer above a certain amount was rejected. That is fair. Doyen isn't asking them to accept the move. They're merely asking them to comppensate them on their investment. If Sporting were happy enough then to use Doyen's money to buy the player then they should play by the rules set by the contract.They may have been stalling hoping the deal would collapse or (though Sly doesn't agree) looking for a few extra sweeteners like friendly matches or loan deals. Doyen's position appears to be that they were ready to cash in on their investment and Sporting weren't entitled to stall, because United were likely to walk away if they stalled too much and Rojo/his agent wanted the deal.
It's Doyen's attempt to force the move, rather than to invoke the financial clauses in the contract, that may have given Sporting legal grounds to terminate the contract with Doyen.
Right, and who picked Vermaelen/Fabregas as targets? I doubt it was Woody.
Both managers will have provided a list of targets. The idea being that if you can't get number one on the list, then go for number two. Obviously the timing of the whole process should take into account important milestones, like Fellaini's release clause increasing or Rojo's ownership team agreeing with his club that they wouldn't sell him this summer.
Nobody said he's got an easy job, which is why he's paid a fricking fortune. The fact remains, he's repeating the same errors this summer he made in his first summer in charge. Prolonged and unsuccessful chase of a primary target, dragged on for so long it makes the secondary target much more costly/difficult to sign. Failure to learn from mistakes is a very bad sign.
I read Doyen's letter and from it seems like there was a clause which entitled them to some compensation if an offer above a certain amount was rejected. That is fair. Doyen isn't asking them to accept the move. They're merely asking them to comppensate them on their investment. If Sporting were happy enough then to use Doyen's money to buy the player then they should play by the rules set by the contract.
At the end of the day, investment houses like Doyen are looking to make returns. They've played by the rules. Sporting are likely to be the pricks here.
