Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25

[golden_blunder]

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.

It’s called it but in reality it’s not really an obligation to buy is it when there’s a get out clause.

 

[Withnail]

Yes, I do. Do you understand what a break clause in a contract is?

Yes but as I said it's not really an obligation so it's odd that they call it that, when there's no obligation at all.

 

[Zumbi]

It’s called it but in reality it’s not really an obligation to buy is it when there’s a get out clause.

It is when they have to pay us five million for not buying him. That’s a break clause which is a pretty generous in our favour, and it actually makes me think we’re starting to be a little smarter in our business dealings when it comes to transfers.

Just because a loan contract is reported in the press as an “obligation to buy” doesn’t mean it doesn’t also contain all sorts of nuanced terms and clauses which cover various outcomes. That’s exactly what you would expect from any contract involving large assets, and I doubt there’s ever been an “obligation to buy” contract that hasn’t contained such break clauses.

It’s no different from any other sales or loan contracts that people enter in to that have punitive break clauses. For example, people will sign one year leases that have break clauses which allow them to get out of it early if certain terms are met, but the existence of such a break clause doesn’t mean it isn’t a one year lease agreement.

 

[Zumbi]

Yes but as I said it's not really an obligation so it's odd that they call it that, when there's no obligation at all.

It’s not odd at all. Break clauses are absolutely standard for any contracts involving large amounts of money or assets. I’m genuinely surprised people are surprised by such break clauses being written in to such a contract.

 

[Vidooq]

It is when they have to pay us five million for not buying him. That’s a break clause which is a pretty generous in our favour, and it actually makes me think we’re starting to be a little smarter in our business dealings when it comes to transfers.

Just because a loan contract is reported in the press as an “obligation to buy” doesn’t mean it doesn’t also contain all sorts of nuanced terms and clauses which cover various outcomes. That’s exactly what you would expect from any contract involving large assets, and I doubt there’s ever been an “obligation to buy” contract that hasn’t contained such break clauses.

It’s no different from any other sales or loan contracts that people enter in to that have punitive break clauses.

This is not a win for United, no matter how we spin it. Facts are:

• We are getting a player back that we do not want/need
• We are not getting 25 million for him
• We will still have to cover his enormous salary
• We still have a problem on our hands

I've been following football since 1999, but I have never run into an obligation to buy contract, where the team with the obligation has opted out. I mean, can anyone think of such case, from the top of their head, without Googling?

BTW, Chelsea are 99% willing to pay that 5m.

 

[Zumbi]

This is not a win for United, no matter how we spin it. Facts are:

• We are getting a player back that we do not want/need
• We are not getting 25 million for him
• We will still have to cover his enormous salary
• We still have a problem on our hands

I've been following football since 1999, but I have never run into an obligation to buy contract, where the team with the obligation has opted out. I mean, can anyone think of such case, from the top of their head, without Googling?

BTW, Chelsea are 99% willing to pay that 5m.

I agree it would be much better for us to get rid of him, and it’s disappointing that he’s been so bad at Chelsea that they’d rather pay five million not to keep him.

But that loan with obligation to buy contract is not the thing that’s put us in a shitty situation - it’s something that gave us a chance of limiting our losses from what was an absolutely disastrous transfer decision.

Chelsea (or anyone else for that matter) were not willing to buy him outright, hence the loan deal. And maybe us negotiating a loan with obligation to buy with a punitive break clause was better business than negotiating a loan with just an option to buy. If we’d done the latter we’d still stuck with him anyway.

And break clauses not being activated previously doesn’t mean they haven’t been written in to contracts. Again, they are an incredibly normal thing for contracts to contain.

 

[mazhar13]

 

[Faetheshire86]

So it isn't an obligation to buy, it's a £5m loan fee with a £20m option. Really silly on our part

 

[Footyislife]

Interestingly worded tweet. Doesn't make sense for a clause to be agreed way, as it would just be a loan fee of £5M with an option to buy.

Typically how i'd imagine this would work is they pay the base fee £xM and then pay the penalty not to have Sancho, which would be £5M + base fee. But what happens is Chelsea save on any incentives and salary for Sancho. So it may end up being a cost neutral move for both parties as long as we can still get rid of Sancho's wages this summer.

 

[Footyislife]

Either all the journo's lied initially or they're lying now. We'll never know.

 

[sparx99]

Who knows what happens with Sancho but I have to admit I’m going to enjoy him trying to find a club after this latest failure. Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll go to Saudi or wherever or he finds a way to Germany or Italy and does well there but it feels like his PL career is over and will only have been a massive failure.

 

[Pexbo]

So it isn't an obligation to buy, it's a £5m loan fee with a £20m option. Really silly on our part

How exactly is that “silly on our part”?

Did you see a queue of clubs making offers for him last summer? We had most of his wages covered for a year and that £5m will be most of his wages covered for next year.

 

[P-Nut]

Can anyone remember if there was an initial loan fee when Sancho went to Chelsea?

 

[DJ_21]

Think he’ll end up going back to Dortmund. The only place he really shines.

 

[MaxZorin]

So it isn't an obligation to buy, it's a £5m loan fee with a £20m option. Really silly on our part

Not really, we just had no 'hand' to play in the negotiation.

Chelsea knew United were desperate to offload but simply assessed why we'd want to lose Sancho, anyway.

I can imagine them insisting on the clause from the outset and the negotiation being contingent upon it.

Unless you wanted Sancho here all season, I'm not particularly sure what it is we were supposed to do.

 

[hellhunter]

How exactly is that “silly on our part”?

Did you see a queue of clubs making offers for him last summer? We had most of his wages covered for a year and that £5m will be most of his wages covered for next year.

It's not even half of his wages, is it?

 

[Dans]

fuuuuuuuuck

 

[aeh1991]

Wait why was there an obligation to begin with then?

 

[pascell]

Think he’ll end up going back to Dortmund. The only place he really shines.

No chance, they're 10 points off the top 4 in Bundesliga, they can't afford him without sales.

 

[golden_blunder]

It is when they have to pay us five million for not buying him. That’s a break clause which is a pretty generous in our favour, and it actually makes me think we’re starting to be a little smarter in our business dealings when it comes to transfers.

Just because a loan contract is reported in the press as an “obligation to buy” doesn’t mean it doesn’t also contain all sorts of nuanced terms and clauses which cover various outcomes. That’s exactly what you would expect from any contract involving large assets, and I doubt there’s ever been an “obligation to buy” contract that hasn’t contained such break clauses.

It’s no different from any other sales or loan contracts that people enter in to that have punitive break clauses. For example, people will sign one year leases that have break clauses which allow them to get out of it early if certain terms are met, but the existence of such a break clause doesn’t mean it isn’t a one year lease agreement.

You’re not getting it. It doesn’t matter.

 

[DJ_21]

No chance, they're 10 points off the top 4 in Bundesliga, they can't afford him without sales.

They can’t afford 25m? I don’t even think we’ll sell him unless a Saudi team comes in for him. I recon it will be another loan to buy.

 

[sleepehead]

I think a team in Spain or Italy will take a crack at him, I think he knows if he doesn't leave he'll struggle to get a decent contract and he's too young to not go after another contract. He'll be on his last year, another year wasting his time here especially on the bench would damage his future. Hell if he's actually willing to, I bet a mid table team would take a chance at him.

 

[United666]

The most stubborn of turds that won’t flush.

He’ll sit on the last year of his contract stinking the place out then go to Turkey/Saudi or wherever.

A disaster of a signing.

 

[SecondFig]

Can anyone remember if there was an initial loan fee when Sancho went to Chelsea?

Not according to this ESPN article - so it was basically a £5m loan fee that would be waived if they signed him for an agreed price. I don't blame them for not wanting to, I wouldn't if I was them... Means we need to off-load him to some other poor suckers - don't see any future for him here

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

It’s called it but in reality it’s not really an obligation to buy is it when there’s a get out clause.

maybe there is a loan fee paid then it was an obligation at 25, or 5m to opt out, so the 5m is side penalty over and above the loan fee plus wages paid

Edit: based on ESPN there is no loan fee probably so it is 5m penalty/loan fee plus the wages paid

 

[golden_blunder]

maybe there is a loan fee paid then it was an obligation at 25, or 5m to opt out, so the 5m is side penalty over and above the loan fee plus wages paid

Edit: based on ESPN there is no loan fee probably so it is 5m penalty/loan fee plus the wages paid

My point is it’s not a true obligation to buy really is it if you can pay a fee to exit the agreement

 

[Sunny Jim]

If i was them i would pay the fine.

 

[RedC]

Nobody is going to buy him because he's on stupid money, even if teams in a different league wanted him they would never pay what he's looking for. It doesn't really matter if we're recouping some value to the point of being able to sell him for a low fee, he isn't going to budge unless he gets a similar wage to what he's on.

The remainder of his contract will just be a cycle of loans with decent teams where he plays ok until his contract is over and then he might be able to get close to his salary as a free agent.

 

[Withnail]

Nobody is going to buy him because he's on stupid money, even if teams in a different league wanted him they would never pay what he's looking for. It doesn't really matter if we're recouping some value to the point of being able to sell him for a low fee, he isn't going to budge unless he gets a similar wage to what he's on.

The remainder of his contract will just be a cycle of loans with decent teams where he plays ok until his contract is over and then he might be able to get close to his salary as a free agent.

His contract only runs til 2026 so if they do send him back he'll have one year left. He might be stupid enough to refuse offers based on wages but he'll have to be a bit realistic on the wages he can command. I don't think it'll be too difficult to get rid seeing as the transfer fee will be quite low.

 

[RedC]

His contract only runs til 2026 so if they do send him back he'll have one year left. He might be stupid enough to refuse offers based on wages but he'll have to be a bit realistic on the wages he can command. I don't think it'll be too difficult to get rid seeing as the transfer fee will be quite low.

Why would it be stupid, he can just go back out on loan for a year and collect his huge wage, then sign for someone as a free agent? I don't think those offers would disappear in a year when there is no transfer fee involved.

 

[Withnail]

Why would it be stupid, he can just go back out on loan for a year and collect his huge wage, then sign for someone as a free agent? I don't think those offers would disappear in a year when there is no transfer fee involved.

Fair enough but it's not going to be an endless cycle. It's one season. If it ends up being a loan for the final season and he fecks off for free it's not going to bother me too much.

Although we could play hardball with him and tell him we'll only accept a transfer fee as it's the last year so a loan doesn't really help us.

 

[andersj]

Nobody is going to buy him because he's on stupid money, even if teams in a different league wanted him they would never pay what he's looking for. It doesn't really matter if we're recouping some value to the point of being able to sell him for a low fee, he isn't going to budge unless he gets a similar wage to what he's on.

How much is he on £250k a week? 25 years old. PL-players. Surely someone could pay £100k a week and £15 mill for him (that is his book value)?

If pay him the £5 mill we receive from Chelsea that basically make up much of the difference between his wages at Man Utd and a new contract.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

How exactly is that “silly on our part”?

Did you see a queue of clubs making offers for him last summer? We had most of his wages covered for a year and that £5m will be most of his wages covered for next year.

Yeah, I really don't understand the claims of stupidity on our part either.

I suspect that, had we agreed to a loan deal with Chelsea whereby they paid a £5 million loan fee with the option to make it permanent for £20 million (which is a roughly equivalent deal to the one we have now if the recent reports are correct), nobody would be talking about how stupid we are for taking that offer.

I suspect the reason the deal was structured the way it was and not as I've outlined above is to do with accounting. It's probably mutually beneficial to United and Chelsea for higher sums to be paid now than last summer. I can't pretend to have any knowledge or evidence to substantiate this, in fairness, but it seems more plausible to me than the "Ratcliffe was pushing it as an obligation to appease us!!" line I'm seeing.

 

[RedC]

Fair enough but it's not going to be an endless cycle. It's one season. If it ends up being a loan for the final season and he fecks off for free it's not going to bother me too much.

Although we could play hardball with him and tell him we'll only accept a transfer fee as it's the last year so a loan doesn't really help us.

I didn't say endless cycle, I just said a cycle of loans until his contract ends, which I'm pretty sure will be the case.

 

[Withnail]

Yeah, I really don't understand the claims of stupidity on our part either.

I suspect that, had we agreed to a loan deal with Chelsea whereby they paid a £5 million loan fee with the option to make it permanent for £20 million (which is a roughly equivalent deal to the one we have now if the recent reports are correct), nobody would be talking about how stupid we are for taking that offer.

I suspect the reason the deal was structured the way it was and not as I've outlined above is to do with accounting. It's probably mutually beneficial to United and Chelsea for higher sums to be paid now than last summer. I can't pretend to have any knowledge or evidence to substantiate this, in fairness, but it seems more plausible to me than the "Ratcliffe was pushing it as an obligation to appease us!!" line I'm seeing.

That doesn't make a lot of sense though. Money on the books now is always better than money later if there is no interest involved. Costs only ever really go up.

 

[Withnail]

I didn't say endless cycle, I just said a cycle of loans until his contract ends, which I'm pretty sure will be the case.

That's what confused me... you think there'll be multiple loans for him next season?

His contract is up at the end of 25/26. We're hardly going to take the 1 year extension on those wages.

 

[Strachan8]

The most stubborn of turds that won’t flush.

He’ll sit on the last year of his contract stinking the place out then go to Turkey/Saudi or wherever.

A disaster of a signing.

Remember Gary Neville berated Utd’s board for not getting the deal done a year earlier and more lika a £90m transfer fee.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

That doesn't make a lot of sense though. Money on the books now is always better than money later if there is no interest involved. Costs only ever really go up.

As I say, I can't claim to have any knowledge or evidence to support the claim but it could be that the club judged that income received this year would be more handy in the realm of PSR compliance than it would've been last year. Someone with more knowledge than me would need to validate that this makes sense, though.

It equally might simply have been that Chelsea preferred to pay the costs later rather than up front, and we agreed to it because our bargaining position with Sancho wasn't particularly strong.

 

[Withnail]

As I say, I can't claim to have any knowledge or evidence to support the claim but it could be that the club judged that income received this year would be more handy in the realm of PSR compliance than it would've been last year. Someone with more knowledge than me would need to validate that this makes sense, though.

It equally might simply have been that Chelsea preferred to pay the costs later rather than up front, and we agreed to it because our bargaining position with Sancho wasn't particularly strong.

I think it's probably more a case that we were taking the risk of getting the full fee at the end of this season and that the break clause was the only way to complete the deal with Chelsea.

In isolation a loan fee would be better upfront as far as I'm aware.

 

[RedC]

That's what confused me... you think there'll be multiple loans for him next season?

His contract is up at the end of 25/26. We're hardly going to take the 1 year extension on those wages.

I obviously thought he had another year on his contract, I suppose he could end up going out on 2 loans next year given how useless he is. It wouldn't surprise me if he stayed for the last 6 months to chill out and make sure he's not injured when trying to do his free agent deal.