Because they both wanted/want to move to a bigger club?He‘d get along greatly with Mazraoui.
Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25
- Thread starter mazhar13
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) talk about the proposed new stadium, season ticket prices, Sir Jim Ratcliffe and all things INEOS after the first year of their co-ownership.
They also discuss back-to-back victories vs. Real Sociedad and Leicester City - was this the best week for Amorim so far?
Debatable to call United bigger than Bayern. I wouldn’t.
But no, it is because both have made homophobic statements. (Yes, I know that you are aware of that and simply wanted to be „funny“.)
You'd be wrong then.
Anything concrete in the Kenan Yildiz rumours?
The only concrete aspect of the link is that United are monitoring his situation at this time. There's nothing advanced in any way.
By what metric is United bigger than those Bayern bastards?
Thanks. He’s an interesting profile although I’m not sure he’s what we really need.
Take the inevitable United Vs Bayern endless circle of debate elsewhere
The only metric that defines the size of a club in my opinion. Worldwide support and fame. United on a different level to Bayern to be honest.
This.
Didn’t know he’d made homophobic comments. Knew about not wearing the rainbow jacket (and citing his faith).
Knew about the support for Palestinians also.
I wouldn't mind us trying our hand at Guler in the summer
Yep. I have travelled a lot around the world and spent over five years in Asia. And i would say that United is the most supported club in there. Followed by Liverpool. Not many people are following Bundesliga and i know only one Bayern fan from there. Same time you often see people wearing United and Liverpool shirts. There is also some big public events when United and Liverpool are playing. In South America they seems to follow La Liga more and support teams like Real and Barca. But also in there Bundesliga is a pretty small thing. Overall EPL and EPL teams gets the most attention.
That's not a significant portion at all, as was previously claimed would be owed.
Did a work experience kid come up with this obligation to buy contract?
If this is the case then it never was an obligation but an option, with the price of the option set at 5 million.
In any case, we’re not seeing Sancho in our shirt again.
Yep, he's 100% going to be our problem again in summer and I don't blame Chelsea.
That doesn't even come close to covering his wages for another year. Farcical deal
Don’t be ridiculous.
It was an obligation, set at £25M.
To suggest otherwise is just head in the sand “I hate united” mindset & are just making up absolute bullshit to get a dig in on the club.
Having a penalty fee of 5M AND an obligation to buy at 25M can both be true.
It can't be called an 'obligation to buy' if there's a get out clause. They're not obligated to buy the player at all.
Of course it can, all sorts of contracts have various break clauses like this.
This is a funny sentence.
£5m isn’t much to get rid of a dud
You understand what the term obligation means, don't you?
If you have the choice to pay what is essentially a loan fee or buy the player then the purchase of the player can't be an obligation.
It's quite disappointing as you'd think the penalty to not go through with it would be a more significant penalty for backing out of the obligation, but it is what it is I guess. Given how mediocre he seems to have been for Chelsea, £5m seems very palatable to get out of it.
Also adding to my previous point how on earth can the option be £5M when the £5M fee is so they DON’T sign the player.
It’s not an option at all, but rather a fee to give him back to us. So your point makes no sense at all and is again, rather just something to bash the club with.
So just like any loan with a loan fee?
Every contract has a break clause, it would be ridiculous business practice not to include one.
Eg:
You are obligated to purchase this player at X amount after X time.
However in the scenario if this is not fulfilled and the obligation is broken, you have to pay a penalty fee of X amount.
No not at all, because they’re breaking an obligation contract.
So you're saying no club is ever actually obligated to buy a player under an obligation to buy clause?
I would not be surprised if there are break clauses in every obligation to buy loan, it’s just usually the player isn’t so crap that the buying team would rather NOT buy the player.
It can be called it but in effect it means nothing if you can pay a small sum to break the contract
You can spin it all you want but it means nothing at the end of the day. They’re not buying him and paying 5m to avoid buying him.
Saudi's are our hope in Sancho case.
from the outside if it was just based on what he's produced on the pitch they'd have taken the option at that lowish price and hoped he kicks on next season... given the talent he'd previously shown. Basically he's most likely blown it again by acting the arse behind the scenes, being lazy, late, cheeky etc. He's another immature player we've been duped by and went all in on
Yes, I do. Do you understand what a break clause in a contract is?
Just like they was our hope in the Casemiro case. And the Rashford case.
Five million or whatever it is is not an insignificant amount for not buying a player. It’s entirely unsurprising that any “obligation to buy” type loan contract would have a break clause like that, and Utd were obviously fine with that otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed it.