Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we can sell Mason for 30m + 10m in add-ons, and then sell Sancho for 45m plus 15m in add-ons (one such fee nearly already agreed, the other a totally reasonable expectation), and insert sell on clauses into both deals - especially Greenwood. We will have done some good business on sales for two assets that have essentially become unusable and toxic.

In terms of FFP it would add 45m immediately in pure profit, plus an additional 25m in the future potentially. I arrived at that number assuming we still have around 30m in tranfser costs still to be amortized for Sancho.

The wages savings could be significant too, and give us further wiggle room in the transfer market. Then we would just need to ship out (category A) Casemiro, Eriksen, Lindelof and (category B) Van der Beek, Hannibal, assume Evans will be released, and Pellistri - and reinvest the funds in the squad. We've already shipped out Varane, Williams, and Martial on free transfers. I don't think we'll sell AWB and go for another RB, and if we do it will only be because we have sorted all the other positions to some degree.

Right now our only cbs are Martinez, Maguire, Lindelof, and Kambwala, so maybe Lindelof won't go, but I also expect us to sign 2 CBs this summer.
 
He still has age and talent on his side to become an absolute star. 30m sounds decent for us all things considered.
 
Sell on clause is critical, it's a very obvious thing that we just can't afford to not put into his deal. An Italian club will no doubt sell him for a hefty fee in a few seasons.
 
Gandalf said:
For that reason if there is a straight purchase offer of 20M to 25M on the table we should take it and run rather than get involved in some loan plus option scenario that is never going to end up being taken. Best full transfer offer gets him and we get rid.
Click to expand...

Let's see if any of these are serious. Already, the talk has gone from a 30m offer to a highly incentivized 30m offer.
 
Is any reputable media confirm the report of 20% sell on clause for Getafe? I know Murtough is no genius as DOF but I refuse to believe he is so dumb.

Greenwood real value is approximately 60-70M. But given his "past" we should accept 30-40M with a sell on clause.

This is a win win situation. I like Greenwood and hope he stays especially given our current attacking options. But I know it's not possible and for the benefits of his family and him he should stay away from England.

He is still very young and can have a great career in Europe.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Is any reputable media confirm the report of 20% sell on clause for Getafe? I know Murtough is no genius as DOF but I refuse to believe he is so dumb.

Greenwood real value is approximately 60-70M. But given his "past" we should accept 30-40M with a sell on clause.

This is a win win situation. I like Greenwood and hope he stays especially given our current attacking options. But I know it's not possible and for the benefits of his family and him he should stay away from England.

He is still very young and can have a great career in Europe.
Click to expand...
Athletic are the one who reported it and they are quite credible and considering the situation United found themselves in with Greenwood after management's another U turn if this was actually Murtough idea than it quite ingenious to make something out of lost situation .

There wasn't exactly clamour for Greenwood services last season for loan .
 
gajender said:
Athletic are the one who reported it and they are quite credible and considering the situation United found themselves in with Greenwood after management's another U turn if this was actually Murtough idea than it quite ingenious to make something out of lost situation .

There wasn't exactly clamour for Greenwood services last season for loan .
Click to expand...

Fair enough if that was the case. I'm still surprised that there were no other takers with better deals especially clubs from Italy, Turkey, Spain and etc. He is very talented and the 20% looks silly now.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Is any reputable media confirm the report of 20% sell on clause for Getafe? I know Murtough is no genius as DOF but I refuse to believe he is so dumb.

Greenwood real value is approximately 60-70M. But given his "past" we should accept 30-40M with a sell on clause.

This is a win win situation. I like Greenwood and hope he stays especially given our current attacking options. But I know it's not possible and for the benefits of his family and him he should stay away from England.

He is still very young and can have a great career in Europe.
Click to expand...

Powered by google search I was able to find out that Getafe had a 20% on sell clause last season. But it's not clear anywhere whether the clause still exits or did it end when Greenwood's loan spell ended with Getafe. My guess is that clause was only for the duration of the loan spell, i.e. if say, we found a buyer last January and decided to sell him permanently. I would be surprised if the clause still exists.
 
If we get £30million + add ons of say £10million and a sell on clause, it would be a very good start to our window
 
mikeyt said:
If we get £30million + add ons of say £10million and a sell on clause, it would be a very good start to our window
Click to expand...
Surprising to get so much for him but so long as he’s out of the club and not associated with us I’m happy.
 
AbusementPark said:
Surprising to get so much for him but so long as he’s out of the club and not associated with us I’m happy.
Click to expand...
To be honest, it was widely accepted on here before the incident that he was a 100 mil talent. We showing the world our clear disdain of him is what made the price plummet that much because other teams know that we want to sell. I'm still a bit annoyed at that. We could have gotten at least 50 millions for him if we hold our cards closer and not made the world aware that we clearly want to sell.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Is any reputable media confirm the report of 20% sell on clause for Getafe? I know Murtough is no genius as DOF but I refuse to believe he is so dumb.
Click to expand...
The Athletic reported it in December last year, but it was not clear if it was only for the duration of their loan or until the end of his contract which runs to 2025.

Getafe president Angel Corres has said the Spanish side are “considering buying” the 22-year-old, but they will only have to pay 80 per cent of any agreed price should they sign him outright. If United sell him to another club, Getafe will earn 20 per cent of the transfer fee.

The Spanish club — who do not expect Greenwood to return to United — did not pay a loan fee for the player’s services and the 20 per cent stake was viewed as a way to secure value regardless of his next move.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/51...-greenwood-transfer-manchester-united-getafe/
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
To be honest, it was widely accepted on here before the incident that he was a 100 mil talent. We showing the world our clear disdain of him is what made the price plummet that much because other teams know that we want to sell. I'm still a bit annoyed at that. We could have gotten at least 50 millions for him if we hold our cards closer and not made the world aware that we clearly want to sell.
Click to expand...
How the heck were we supposed to do that? Come out and say we really want to keep him and cause a whole breakdown?
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Fair enough if that was the case. I'm still surprised that there were no other takers with better deals especially clubs from Italy, Turkey, Spain and etc. He is very talented and the 20% looks silly now.
Click to expand...

Silly? The undesirable scrote was so toxic we had to move him to a low profile club with a huge financial incentive. Previously his destination was looking like jail. It's weird the way the leaked media has seemingly made no impact on you.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Is any reputable media confirm the report of 20% sell on clause for Getafe? I know Murtough is no genius as DOF but I refuse to believe he is so dumb.

Greenwood real value is approximately 60-70M. But given his "past" we should accept 30-40M with a sell on clause.

This is a win win situation. I like Greenwood and hope he stays especially given our current attacking options. But I know it's not possible and for the benefits of his family and him he should stay away from England.

He is still very young and can have a great career in Europe.
Click to expand...
His real value if you ignore the reality of his current situation. No-one outside of England has that money and his value is at its lowest there, given the baggage.
 
While it’s true that not many clubs have £30-40 million for players, this is also a unique opportunity to sign a player whose true value could be closer to £100m. There will be a lot of clubs that fancy taking that bet. Sign him for 30/40 fulfill some of his crazy potential and then sell him on for big bucks in a couple of years. It’s why Utd really should be putting a sell on clause in there.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
While it’s true that not many clubs have £30-40 million for players, this is also a unique opportunity to sign a player whose true value could be closer to £100m. There will be a lot of clubs that fancy taking that bet. Sign him for 30/40 fulfill some of his crazy potential and then sell him on for big bucks in a couple of years. It’s why Utd really should be putting a sell on clause in there.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say we're not exactly in a situation where we can dictate too many terms.
 
Jippy said:
His real value if you ignore the reality of his current situation. No-one outside of England has that money and his value is at its lowest there, given the baggage.
Click to expand...

My car is worth $70,000 if you ignore the fact that is has been in a huge crash.
 
The Boy said:
The Athletic reported it in December last year, but it was not clear if it was only for the duration of their loan or until the end of his contract which runs to 2025.



https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/51...-greenwood-transfer-manchester-united-getafe/
Click to expand...

I can understand the clause while he was still on loan to Getafe. If we break the loan to sell him, Getafe is entitled 20% of the that sale proceed. However, how will it even work after the loan ended? We basically sold 20% of our rights to them? Isn't multi-club/party ownership of a player banned in the premier league?

I am doubtful that we'd owe Getafe 20% of the fee.
 
Insanity said:
I can understand the clause while he was still on loan to Getafe. If we break the loan to sell him, Getafe is entitled 20% of the that sale proceed. However, how will it even work after the loan ended? We basically sold 20% of our rights to them? Isn't multi-club/party ownership of a player banned in the premier league?

I am doubtful that we'd owe Getafe 20% of the fee.
Click to expand...


It seems like a lot. But he'd be worth much less if Getafe didn't take him. I'm sure they weren't the first club he was offered to.
 
moses said:
It seems like a lot. But he'd be worth much less if Getafe didn't take him. I'm sure they weren't the first club he was offered to.
Click to expand...

I am not questioning the %age, I am wondering about a sell clause after the loan with Getafe has ended. Did we write 20% of the rights to Greenwood to Getafe as part of the loan deal? If yes, is that allowed as it means he is owned by two clubs now, no?
 
Insanity said:
I am not questioning the %age, I am wondering about a sell clause after the loan with Getafe has ended. Did we write 20% of the rights to Greenwood to Getafe as part of the loan deal? If yes, is that allowed as it means he is owned by two clubs now, no?
Click to expand...
As someone else pointed out, the article says they get 20% if he is sold in the summer, which is still quite vague.

But ownership rights haven't been exchanged, Getafe would have no say on whether he is sold or not, no say in where he goes or for what price. I imagine it is just a clause promising 20% of any future fee up to a certain date. So there's no issue of dual ownership.
 
The Boy said:
As someone else pointed out, the article says they get 20% if he is sold in the summer, which is still quite vague.

But ownership rights haven't been exchanged, Getafe would have no say on whether he is sold or not, no say in where he goes or for what price. I imagine it is just a clause promising 20% of any future fee up to a certain date. So there's no issue of dual ownership.
Click to expand...

Okay. I am no experts on contracts or clauses but sounds strange to me that it still holds when the player is not contracted with Getafe anymore.

It could be like a sell-on clause which are sometimes inserted in player sales but since this a unique situation it was inserted in a loan deal? It's weird.
 
Insanity said:
I am not questioning the %age, I am wondering about a sell clause after the loan with Getafe has ended. Did we write 20% of the rights to Greenwood to Getafe as part of the loan deal? If yes, is that allowed as it means he is owned by two clubs now, no?
Click to expand...


If it exists I'd say it's much more straightforward. "If we take this steaming pile of toxicity and show the world he is still a footballer we want 20% of the fee when you sell him."
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
To be honest, it was widely accepted on here before the incident that he was a 100 mil talent. We showing the world our clear disdain of him is what made the price plummet that much because other teams know that we want to sell. I'm still a bit annoyed at that. We could have gotten at least 50 millions for him if we hold our cards closer and not made the world aware that we clearly want to sell.
Click to expand...
..before 2 years out of football. Don’t underestimate how that also can affect the price
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
Yeh very true, but this is also a cut price deal which does help slightly with bargaining!
Click to expand...

He's a player we need to get rid of, which is hardly a secret. Cut price compared to his supposed value prior to his charge and almost 2 years out of football is one thing, but they'd still be doing us a favor. Obviously, in an ideal world we get as much as possible and a % of whatever he gets sold for in the future, but it won't be much of a surprise if we don't.

moses said:
If it exists I'd say it's much more straightforward. "If we take this steaming pile of toxicity and show the world he is still a footballer we want 20% of the fee when you sell him."
Click to expand...

It would be a bit of a shock if we've agreed them to essentially loan him for free and get a 20% cut of any fee in the future. Within the loan period? yes, i can easily see that, but as soon as the loan deal has concluded then no way.
 
bosskeano said:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/51...-greenwood-transfer-manchester-united-getafe/
Click to expand...

There all reporting off the one article which is behind a paywall and only gives you the headline.

Again.. everyone take a breather and think when has a loan club benefited from a sale of a player they never owned. How is that contract written. A sell on fee maybe, but for that to be inserted Getafe would have had to of owned Greenwood’s registration which they didn’t.

I maybe wrong but common sense tells me Getafe get nothing. It was a risk for them to take him but their benefit was they got a player who would have never played for their level if not for the circumstances. It was win win for both parties to benefit financial from a sale would be a step too far.
 
NotChatGPT said:
It would be a bit of a shock if we've agreed them to essentially loan him for free and get a 20% cut of any fee in the future. Within the loan period? yes, i can easily see that, but as soon as the loan deal has concluded then no way.
Click to expand...

Well for a start, we were never getting a loan fee! And it does make sense if nobody else wanted him. He would be worth nothing after two years with no football.
 
moses said:
Well for a start, we were never getting a loan fee! And it does make sense if nobody else wanted him. He would be worth nothing after two years with no football.
Click to expand...

It makes sense that there wasn't a loan fee. It makes sense that if he impressed during their loan and someone came in with a big offer while he was there, they would get a cut from it due to "promoting him". Extending that cut to after his loan deal is concluded would be a big surprise.
 
Why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over old news? IF we have to give them 20%, we cover ourselves with a 25% sell on fee
 
golden_blunder said:
Why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over old news? IF we have to give them 20%, we cover ourselves with a 25% sell on fee
Click to expand...
Very doubtful that we get a good fee with a 25% sell on clause in my opinion. As others have said, it's only English clubs with money and they won't touch him.

A £30m transfer would mean £24m after Getafe tax. That would be pure profit in terms of FFP. Take the money and run.
 
£40m and handing them £8m is still good.

+£32 million that nobody was expecting a year ago. Getafe helped to generate that.
 
Borussia Teeth said:
Very doubtful that we get a good fee with a 25% sell on clause in my opinion. As others have said, it's only English clubs with money and they won't touch him.

A £30m transfer would mean £24m after Getafe tax. That would be pure profit in terms of FFP. Take the money and run.
Click to expand...
Oh I’m with you, get whatever we can and get out of this situation. Move on and let that be a marker to the other players.

talk of 50m+ is wide of the mark in my opinion. He may have been worth that and probably a lot more but we can’t expect to receive that off the back of what’s gone on.
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
To be honest, it was widely accepted on here before the incident that he was a 100 mil talent. We showing the world our clear disdain of him is what made the price plummet that much because other teams know that we want to sell. I'm still a bit annoyed at that. We could have gotten at least 50 millions for him if we hold our cards closer and not made the world aware that we clearly want to sell.
Click to expand...
It’s widely reported he’s a woman abuser and not worthy of playing for our club all on his own and didn’t need our help for that. Wanting to get him out of the club should weigh more than getting a higher fee, the longer we hold out for more the less likely he will be snapped up. From his showing at Getafe I don’t see us missing out on a world class talent, good player but don’t think he’s that special a player to warrant £100m spending on him with or without the baggage.

Not wanting to derail the thread but do genuinely hope we shift him on and can forget about his time at the club. We’ve had enough nonsense at the club in the last few years to last a lifetime.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Is any reputable media confirm the report of 20% sell on clause for Getafe? I know Murtough is no genius as DOF but I refuse to believe he is so dumb.

Greenwood real value is approximately 60-70M. But given his "past" we should accept 30-40M with a sell on clause.

This is a win win situation. I like Greenwood and hope he stays especially given our current attacking options. But I know it's not possible and for the benefits of his family and him he should stay away from England.

He is still very young and can have a great career in Europe.
Click to expand...

Was it not the case that the 20% clause was only active should United have sold him during the loan period? I’m sure that’s been mentioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.