Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25

[giggs-beckham]

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.

Does he not cost around 18m a year in wages ?

 

[golden_blunder]

Guys take it to one of the specific Sancho threads at this point. Its dragging this thread way off topic now

 

[Zumbi]

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

Obligation to buy loans always have terms that may or may not be met that allow a team to get out of the obligation.

 

[golden_blunder]

Obligation to buy loans always have terms that may or may not be met that allow a team to get out of the obligation.

Then it’s not a true obligation is it. It’s more of an intention to buy. But look I’m tired arguing about words, it’s not going to change the fact that come summer we will be stuck with him again.

 

[Zumbi]

Then it’s not a true obligation is it. It’s more of an intention to buy. But look I’m tired arguing about words, it’s not going to change the fact that come summer we will be stuck with him again.

A loan with an obligation to buy clause always has various terms and conditions and break clauses associated with it. This is not new. Some might be related to number of appearances, or league finish, or various other metrics. If it guaranteed the sale of a player 100% then it wouldn’t be set up as a loan, it would just be a sale with a deferred payment.

 

[mazhar13]

More info on Sancho's situation:


It's a long passage, so they key part is cut out of the Tweet that's shown in the thread, which is that Chelsea are, overall, fine with Sancho's professionalism and work rate. They aren't too concerned about his lack of end product at this time and aren't necessarily inclined to sending him back to United.

 

[Dannn411]

More info on Sancho's situation:


It's a long passage, so they key part is cut out of the Tweet that's shown in the thread, which is that Chelsea are, overall, fine with Sancho's professionalism and work rate. They aren't too concerned about his lack of end product at this time and aren't necessarily inclined to sending him back to United.

Great news. I hope he continues to be highly professional for them. If we could only get rid of one player this summer, I would want it to be Sancho.

 

[prateik]

Even if they want to keep him for some bizarre reason, they'll try and lowball us now that there is an opt out clause.

 

[pascell]

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.

I highly doubt it, along with the wages he'd request. They depend on CL money and without that, they'll have to sell players.

 

[golden_blunder]

A loan with an obligation to buy clause always has various terms and conditions and break clauses associated with it. This is not new. Some might be related to number of appearances, or league finish, or various other metrics. If it guaranteed the sale of a player 100% then it wouldn’t be set up as a loan, it would just be a sale with a deferred payment.

missing the point entirely. I don't care what it's called in legal jargon. The reality is that it's not an 'obligation' its an 'intention'. Nothing more, because a break clause exists.

Obligation; an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.

 

[Dans]

More info on Sancho's situation:


It's a long passage, so they key part is cut out of the Tweet that's shown in the thread, which is that Chelsea are, overall, fine with Sancho's professionalism and work rate. They aren't too concerned about his lack of end product at this time and aren't necessarily inclined to sending him back to United.

Go The Athletic!

 

[Zumbi]

missing the point entirely. I don't care what it's called in legal jargon. The reality is that it's not an 'obligation' its an 'intention'. Nothing more, because a break clause exists.

Obligation; an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.

No - the person who doesn’t understand how contracts work is the one missing the point here.

Contracts are legal documents, so of course they contain legal jargon. That’s the point of them. And as with any legal document, they contain various terms and conditions that are a little more detailed and complex than the incredibly superficial headlines you may have read about them, and some of those terms may absolve the obligation.

 

[DJ_21]

I highly doubt it, along with the wages he'd request. They depend on CL money and without that, they'll have to sell players.

Ye but considering there a team that usually sign young players and sell for profit. Etc sancho to us. You’d think they’d have quite a bit of money unless they’ve signed players to replace them.

 

[DonBecks]

No - the person who doesn’t understand how contracts work is the one missing the point here.

Contracts are legal documents, so of course they contain legal jargon. That’s the point of them. And as with any legal document, they contain various terms and conditions that are a little more detailed and complex than the incredibly superficial headlines you may have read about them, and some of those terms may absolve the obligation.

I can't believe you're still arguing this.

Yes there will be terms that absolve the obligation, but not 'this player is shitter than we thought, we are no longer buying him', that is what you get with an option to buy, not an obligation. You're not going to want to hear this from anyone because you seem really proud but I'm going to try and help you here; at this point you are not going to win this argument because you are wrong, like black and white wrong, no grey areas. You're completely wasting you're time.

 

[Zumbi]

I can't believe you're still arguing this.

Yes there will be terms that absolve the obligation, but not 'this player is shitter than we thought, we are no longer buying him', that is what you get with an option to buy, not an obligation. You're not going to want to hear this from anyone because you seem really proud but I'm going to try and help you here; at this point you are not going to win this argument because you are wrong, like black and white wrong, no grey areas. You're completely wasting you're time.

Haha, ok bud. The black and white here is the contract that was signed by the two parties, and apparently both parties agreed to this break clause. Half the caf throwing their toys out of the pram about it doesn’t change that fact.

 

[mazhar13]

Tier 2:

 

[golden_blunder]

No - the person who doesn’t understand how contracts work is the one missing the point here.

Contracts are legal documents, so of course they contain legal jargon. That’s the point of them. And as with any legal document, they contain various terms and conditions that are a little more detailed and complex than the incredibly superficial headlines you may have read about them, and some of those terms may absolve the obligation.

Ok how about this, don’t reply to me

 

[Withnail]

Haha, ok bud. The black and white here is the contract that was signed by the two parties, and apparently both parties agreed to this break clause. Half the caf throwing their toys out of the pram about it doesn’t change that fact.

It's quite funny that you think people who are arguing that this deal shouldn't really have been called an obligation to buy in the first place, given what we now know about the break clause, are throwing their toys out of the pram.

But you know best, of course.

 

[UnitedSofa]

It's quite funny that you think people who are arguing that this deal shouldn't really have been called an obligation to buy in the first place, given what we now know about the break clause, are throwing their toys out of the pram.

But you know best, of course.

It most certainly be called an obligation.

Because they're obligated to buy the player if they finish above 14th, it's not an option to buy at all, because they're obligated to purchase the player if those terms are met. There's no option to buy whatsoever and arguing that this contract should be called an option is ridiculous.

BUT - Chelsea have decided to break the obligation clause and will pay a penalty of £5M if they decide to not follow through with their obligation.

I wouldn't be surprised if other players have had this clause in it too. It's done to protect the buying team.

Besides there's no real reason as to believe that this will actually happen anyway.

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

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

Absolutely, not sure why it's reported an obligation instead of an option.

 

[Posh Red]

It most certainly be called an obligation.

Because they're obligated to buy the player if they finish above 14th, it's not an option to buy at all, because they're obligated to purchase the player if those terms are met. There's no option to buy whatsoever and arguing that this contract should be called an option is ridiculous.

BUT - Chelsea have decided to break the obligation clause and will pay a penalty of £5M if they decide to not follow through with their obligation.

I wouldn't be surprised if other players have had this clause in it too. It's done to protect the buying team.

Besides there's no real reason as to believe that this will actually happen anyway.

Almost certainly. People arguing otherwise are just complaining about semantics.

 

[Stevondo8]

Absolutely, not sure why it's reported an obligation instead of an option.

Guess difference is, if it’s an option they have to actively exercise the option, whereas in this case they will sign him unless the actively exercise the option not to…so default position (ie if no action taken) is they’re obligated to buy him.

 

[bb8]

I

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.

In fact, that's exactly what obligations to buy are. They mean the purchasing team must buy SO LONG as certain conditions are met.

With this deal, there's another clause that if Chelsea finishes below 14th they don't need to buy him.

It's a common misconception amongst fans that "obligation" always means "must buy". To be fair, perpetuated by the vague terminology. I agree with the point we probably should have negotiated for a significantly higher buyout clause than £5M.

 

[bb8]

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

You're describing most every single obligation to buy deal though. Almost all of them have some conditions or break clauses.

The people in error are the fans who believe "obligation to buy" meant "100% gone, no exceptions". It was never that, and in fact never reported that way. The clause that Chelsea wouldn't have to buy if they finished below 14th in the Prem was reported from the beginning, so it was obvious this was always a "conditional buy" at best.

 

[Plant0x84]

Chelsea have decided to break the obligation clause and will pay a penalty of £5M if they decide to not follow through with their obligation.

By definition an ‘obligation’ cannot be broken. It is something you legally or morally HAVE to do, so by the very fact that there is a break clause included it becomes an option - they can choose whether to buy the player or pay a penalty and send him back.

Either way it’s just semantics, and a weird hill to die on.

 

[Posh Red]

By definition an ‘obligation’ cannot be broken. It is something you legally or morally HAVE to do, so by the very fact that there is a break clause included it becomes an option - they can choose whether to buy the player or pay a penalty and send him back.

Either way it’s just semantics, and a weird hill to die on.

Which is exactly why I can’t understand people getting wound up. As ever, the media knows how to push the buttons of the agitated United fans.

 

[golden_blunder]

You're describing most every single obligation to buy deal though. Almost all of them have some conditions or break clauses.

The people in error are the fans who believe "obligation to buy" meant "100% gone, no exceptions". It was never that, and in fact never reported that way. The clause that Chelsea wouldn't have to buy if they finished below 14th in the Prem was reported from the beginning, so it was obvious this was always a "conditional buy" at best.

I know I’m being pedantic about the wording because it’s not a true obligation if you have a way out

 

[Brand Nubian]

It's a long passage, so they key part is cut out of the Tweet that's shown in the thread, which is that Chelsea are, overall, fine with Sancho's professionalism and work rate. They aren't too concerned about his lack of end product at this time and aren't necessarily inclined to sending him back to United.

No amount of PR guff will make anyone put in a decent offer to United AND paying big wages to a manchild. Even the need to include that Sancho actually moves without the ball is funny in itself.

Sancho apparently works hard off the ball, are you watching, Simeone?

 

[Tom Van Persie]

 

[mazhar13]

Because of United's interest in Dibling (Tier 1):

 

[Devil_forever]

Because of United's interest in Dibling (Tier 1):

£100m for an england U-19 international who's output this season hasn't been close to world class.

 

[GBBQ]

£100m for an england U-19 international who's output this season hasn't been close to world class.

Hard to see any clubs taking a punt at that price. He may be a huge talent but most clubs are gonna be so hamstrung with balancing the books that it’s just not feasible to go for him.

 

[Pexbo]

Hard to see any clubs taking a punt at that price. He may be a huge talent but most clubs are gonna be so hamstrung with balancing the books that it’s just not feasible to go for him.

Southampton demanding £100m for a player from the championship is funny. They will end up accepting closer to £50m, more than likely on the south side too.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Dibbling will obviously move for a lot, lot less.

 

[Scriblerus]

"£100m" is a tag that's intended to deter suitors, not an invitation to bid.

 

[Semper Fudge]

"£100m" is a tag that's intended to deter suitors, not an invitation to bid.

Cheers Scrib.

 

[Plant0x84]

Because of United's interest in Dibling (Tier 1):

Sorry saints, you’re having a giraffe.

 

[sleepehead]

Southampton demanding £100m for a player from the championship is funny. They will end up accepting closer to £50m, more than likely on the south side too.

More like 40 rising to 50 with difficult addons at best.

 

[deef]

Chelsea

Hard to see any clubs taking a punt at that price. He may be a huge talent but most clubs are gonna be so hamstrung with balancing the books that it’s just not feasible to go for him.

chelsea 120m bid incoming …

 

[Dannn411]

Hard to see any clubs taking a punt at that price. He may be a huge talent but most clubs are gonna be so hamstrung with balancing the books that it’s just not feasible to go for him.

He is for sure nowhere near £100m talent. Nobody is going anywhere near that price.