This is almost like a joke someone would make as hyperbole to point out how bad this club is run.Worth mentioning that Getafe have a 20% sell on clause
But it's actually true.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic | Factual updates only
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
But it's actually true.
Curiosity got the best of me, thanks for memories.
On serious note, Juve love good swap and we should ask for Bremer.
Not as good as he was but a good player.
Surely this would have been effective only during the loan period.Worth mentioning that Getafe have a 20% sell on clause
The Athletic were reporting that it applies outside the loan period too.
Would be great is Juve helped us out and took him off our hands. Greatly helps FFP and all the problems and baggage goes away as well.
Can't see the clause being active outside the loan - think he's still got 1+1yrs on his contract - no way we'd have agreed a percentage of any future transfer. It's still not beyond the realms he goes out on loan again next season somewhere else
Have you got a source for that? I can't see that mentioned in the Athletic article
I didn't know that ... business geniuses at workWorth mentioning that Getafe have a 20% sell on clause
Thanks but it's behind a paywall, from what I saw it was ambiguously worded but using common sense I can't see that we would agree to that when they didn't even pay a loan fee.
I'm surprised people are surprised by this clause. It looks bad now, but no one wanted him at the time and we needed to sweeten the deal.
It's worked out, great. We get 80% rather than the potentially nothing from him not being able to play for another year.
If that clause exists it's surely some sort of indication of how bad the situation was. Second chance? We had to pay to get someone to take him. Getafe get paid to absorb some of the toxicity while he rehabilitates.
Is it definitely real?
Is it definitely real?
"As part of the loan deal, they have a 20 per cent sell-on clause for Greenwood, meaning they will profit from any sale by United. That clause was inserted to compensate Getafe for offering Greenwood the opportunity to play in one of Europe’s five major leagues late in last summer’s window, while also recognising the risk of taking on a player who had not played competitively in more than 18 months and whose signing would generate significant controversy."
I've watched him several times. Mason keeps the ball closer to him, is faster than Olise, 1vs1 is way better.
We're selling Mason to buy a worse player. If we would upgrade, I'd totally be up for it, but I don't think we're doing that, we're doing it for only the reasons we all know we're doing it.
It may well have been and I just missed that, but it's still mental. Of course it sweetens the deal for someone to take him on loan from us, but to have an actual clause that's active for however long that sees a club, that had him on loan for a few months, make 20% from us selling him on, is mental. Like...
if the government tried to get to take me a rapist in temporarily, i’d want 20% of whatever rwanda gave for him in the end.
Is that the going rate?
It is an upgrade though, considering Greenwood is never gonna play for us again. Anyone we get is an upgrade.
It's bizarre. No sell-on % = no loan last season = no sale this summer. It ain't rocket science.
Outside of that sell on clause issue, whether its actually applicable or not, this is about as good an offer as we are going to get for him, I think.
The only addition would be if we could possibly add in a sell on clause ourselves on the off chance he lives up to his potential and Juve end up selling him for a good sum themselves, though I can also see the club wanting to make this as smooth as possible and just get him out the door.
The only addition would be if we could possibly add in a sell on clause ourselves on the off chance he lives up to his potential and Juve end up selling him for a good sum themselves, though I can also see the club wanting to make this as smooth as possible and just get him out the door.
Could be 20% of a tonne of tantalum, you never know
Well yeah, that is obviously the case. Those reasons are the the entire reason why he isn't a first team player here anyway. Nothing to do with how good he is.
Barring some massive change of heart from the club, Greenwood's time here is done because of those reasons, so thinking about the quality of his replacement isn't worth thinking about because it's not a performance related issue.
We had to pay someone to take him. For all the noise now about teams wanting to take him, nobody was forthcoming at the timeWhat
I really hope some of his fan club follow him to wherever he goes. Good riddance.
Hopefully we can get this done quickly. Him plus any kind of fees for the likes of AWB, Lindelof, Maguire etc would really help.
The only concern is we have players like Sancho and Antony who may end up being a loss on the balance sheet. So we’re selling players just so we can afford to sell other players
The only concern is we have players like Sancho and Antony who may end up being a loss on the balance sheet. So we’re selling players just so we can afford to sell other players
It's worth noting that the article was written in December 2023, so right in the middle of the loan, so the suggestion is the deal lasts for the length of the loan period and if Getfae want him they only have to pay 80% of the fee.
I'd be surprised if it carries on after the loan period is over and it doesn't say that in the article at any point, it's sold as a sweetener for Getafe to take him on loan when noone else would touch him.
Aye, probably.
Selling Greenwood should now be the priority with the EtH situation resolved.
Yes, namely: the audio in which he threatens to rape his partner, and the photos in which his partner is badly bruised/wounded.
Re the sell-on clause, if there's one (which I don't think it's a particularly bad idea) it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever Getafe would accept not extending it to the transfer window immediately after the loan.
He’s a distressed asset and we were desperate for a solution, which Getafe provided. It’s an unprecedented clause for an unprecedented situation, really not that deep.
If we get £40m for him we will have done incredibly well.
If we get £40m for him we will have done incredibly well.
Makes me really sad that he will leave permanently, but I totally understand why, as we all wear the chains we forge with our actions. He had such potential, and I really thought we had found that versatile player who could play across all 3 positions upfront.
Feels kind of perfect if he ends up at Juve.
I feel the same, no way we'd get a half decent fee if Getafe didn't take him.
Precisely. Why on earth do people think he's at fecking Getafe if people were lining up for him.
Basically paying for good PR so that we can put him on the market. Getafe took a risk a lot of clubs were afraid to take.
I thought we had been linked with their Brazilian defender Bremer? No mention / reports of him in the deal anywhere.
So he's staying now or what?
If nobody had taken a punt on him last year, I suspect we would've ended up ending his contract by mutual consent, after public outcry had put to bed any thoughts of reintroducing him to the squad. He'd have gone for free and would be rebuilding his career somewhere now.
Instead, Getafe took the chance and he's played well enough for them that we have a chance to bring in some money for him. They've earned the 20% as far as I'm concerned and 80% of anything is a hell of a lot better than 100% of nothing.
Instead, Getafe took the chance and he's played well enough for them that we have a chance to bring in some money for him. They've earned the 20% as far as I'm concerned and 80% of anything is a hell of a lot better than 100% of nothing.
Agree it’s ambiguous at best but looks like only for the loan period or they would get a 20% discount if they bought Mason.