Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25

Bertie Wooster said:
That would make a lot more sense - as a break clause like that is inserted into some other loan deals. If it is just that, and now no longer applies, then there's no issue. If it still applies even when we sell him this summer, after his loan deal with Getafe has ended, then that is pretty unique and is awful negotiating from us.
Click to expand...
It won't be. Those kind of break clauses are normal. If somehow we sell him this summer and end up paying Getafe 20% it would be the first time this has ever happened in football. Yes our negotiation team isn't the best but that would be shocking.

So lets say we sold him for 30 mill in Jan we would have owed Getafe 6 mill, pretty normal deal for breaking loans when selling a player.
 
the_cliff said:
It won't be. Those kind of break clauses are normal. If somehow we sell him this summer and end up paying Getafe 20% it would be the first time this has ever happened in football. Yes our negotiation team isn't the best but that would be shocking.

So lets say we sold him for 30 mill in Jan we would have owed Getafe 6 mill, pretty normal deal for breaking loans when selling a player.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree. If It only applied to the length of the loan deal, and was a break clause in case we sold him in January, then that would be pretty normal. I thought it was being reported that Getafe had negotiated a deal that they'd be entitled to 20% of any sale even this summer? Which, as we're both saying, would be pretty unique and awful negotiating from us. Hopefully it's just the former, as you say.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Yeah, I agree. If It only applied to the length of the loan deal, and was a break clause in case we sold him in January, then that would be pretty normal. I thought it was being reported that Getafe had negotiated a deal that they'd be entitled to 20% of any sale even this summer? Which, as we're both saying, would be pretty unique and awful negotiating from us. Hopefully it's just the former, as you say.
Click to expand...
The problem I think lies with the reporting. The reporting just mentioned that clause without explaining it. I guess we won't find out until we do sell him but like you said I'd be quite surprised if we're giving Getafe anything when we do sell him this summer.
 
the_cliff said:
The problem I think lies with the reporting. The reporting just mentioned that clause without explaining it. I guess we won't find out until we do sell him but like you said I'd be quite surprised if we're giving Getafe anything when we do sell him this summer.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have actually read the article in The Athletic because there is no ambiguity there it's quite clear what the Clause entails and reasons why United agreed to it .
 
saik said:
Yep, we had people running the club who were absolutely not qualified to be in their roles. I understand that Murtough and Arnold were under huge pressure from the media and public at that time so they probably wanted to get rid of Greenwood in any way possible but that is still an absolutely shambolic deal to negotiate.
Click to expand...

Was it really such a great deal for Getafe without the sell on percentage? They got 1 season,10 goals, a load of shit, and rehabilitated a player for us.
 
BuzzKillington said:
Was it really such a great deal for Getafe without the sell on percentage? They got 1 season,10 goals, a load of shit, and rehabilitated a player for us.
Click to expand...
Probably helped them finish higher in the league? Rightly or wrongly a lot of people paid more attention to Getafe just because Greenwood joined them. That surely raised their profile a bit. I'm not saying it's all good as they did take their share of flak but they stood to gain something even without us giving them a sell on fee.
 
You're all slating Murtough and on the surface it does seem a stupid deal but if that's literally the only way we could get rid of Greenwood and the flak for a year then that's what we did.

I think you're all underestimating how fecking toxic the situation was/is.
 
matherto said:
You're all slating Murtough and on the surface it does seem a stupid deal but if that's literally the only way we could get rid of Greenwood and the flak for a year then that's what we did.

I think you're all underestimating how fecking toxic the situation was/is.
Click to expand...
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the approach. People just love to moan.

Edit: it’s also bizarre how certain posters seem MORE annoyed with Murtough than with the player himself.
 
Hopefully Juve get involved too and there's an actual bidding war here.
 
Our scouting department is apparently just an album of ETH's old team photos.
 
The reality is we can't really get moving in the market until we make some sales, the money isn't there. Shifting Greenwood will hopefully get the ball rolling. If we can't shift Casemiro that's a joke, I don't want to see him play for us next season.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Year 3, new ownership / recruitment team in place, and we're still primarily targeting former Dutch league players. :wenger:
Click to expand...
What new recruitment team? Dan Ashworth hasn’t come in yet. Berrada hasn’t started yet. Scouting systems still need time to be optimised. Approval structures still in a temporary phase with Blanc running interim-CEO and Wilcox doubling up as Sporting Director and Technical Director in this period.

It’s not ideal. It won’t be be until Ashworth, Wilcox and Berrada sit in one room over a period of months will we see any real change to recruitment.
 
No way we want Alvarez. We could have signed him last summer and didn’t and West Ham would want a massive fee. I swear sometimes these journalists are just throwing out ETH linked players to rile people up.
 
sparx99 said:
No way we want Alvarez. We could have signed him last summer and didn’t and West Ham would want a massive fee. I swear sometimes these journalists are just throwing out ETH linked players to rile people up.
Click to expand...

100%, it's too easy.

That Tobido news is frustrating af. Surely there is a dodgy (but legal) workaround we can pull out from the hat?
 
saik said:
We have Murtough to thank for that. Also it's 20% not 15 like I thought.

Click to expand...


To be fair, it didn't seem like a lot of clubs wanted to touch Greenwood last summer, even on loan. He didn't move until the last day of the transfer window, and you could argue that Getafe have boosted his value up again by playing him all season. They've also fronted him in marketing and on social media, which I suspect may have been part of the agreement. I'm not hating too much on them getting 20% if we end up getting £40m for him, even if he would've been valued a lot higher pre-scandal. The clause is also just for if we sell him this summer.
 
didz said:
A Serie A club actually paying for a player still shocks me.



Just to infuriate you some more, I'm pretty sure it's 25%, not 15.

Edit: 20
Click to expand...

Isn't Lazio the ones who were owning us money for Staam for years?
 
What I'm seeing here is that:

A: we're skint, so can't do anything until we sell.
B: nothing has changed in terms of scouting and transfers.

My guess is that we haven't managed to get a scouting structure in place, and as usual, the people at the top don't really know what to do so we default to asking Ten Hag who he wants because after all, he did win the FA Cup right?

It feels very much like the on-field United in that, no matter how much the personnel changes, the curse persists and we have the same problems every season.
 
Syphon Wallet said:
Who's to say they would sell him at all if they had different owners?

I wouldn't mind signing Todibo, but this rule is the right way forward.
Click to expand...

Except it doesn't apply if you are not in the same European competition. That's the bit that doesn't make sense. The rule isn't to stop you buying players from a club you own in another country, city do it all the time, it's specific to being in the same competition.

I'd get it if it was just, no transfers ever allowed between clubs in the same ownership group. That would be a rule to control what city and Chelsea have been doing for years.
 
golden_blunder said:
How is this news to you? Or anyone else for that matter. We’ve known it since he went on loan. Do you think that Getafe were going to take him out of the goodness of their heart?
Click to expand...

EDIT: THOUGHT I WAS IN THE GREENWOOD THREAD. Me big dumb.

Never has a thread been like groundhog day than this one. Keep coming in to check for updates on his transfer, only to find a new set of people going "WAIT GETAFE GET 20%??!?? FROM A LOAN!?!?".

Only silver lining is that it's better than the previous chat on whether he should stay or go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.