Transfer discussion thread

Remove this Banner Ad

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,727
11,318
AFL Club
Geelong
This is fairly common knowledge and was reported at the time that United balked at the buyout inclusion. And most United fans at the time (I still am) fine with that.

The buyout at the time was reported to be much lower than 63m. Guess we won't know for sure what it is until he leaves Dortmund.
What's your thinking of being fine with it?
 

Doctor Colossus

Happy to meet
Oct 1, 2007
115,956
105,882
Death Mountain
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Storm-Man Utd-Heart-Luton-Patriots
What's your thinking of being fine with it?
What as in personally or the fan base? I'd never want United to accept a player with a guaranteed buyout included, I think that's a selling club mentality. Same reason I was fine with passing on the Reguillon deal. Why would anyone be happy with spending a few years making a player better just for someone else to be able to come in without negotiations and buy them for much less than they are worth?

Keep in mind at the time it was reported to be around 45m as the buyout, with agent fees there is also no way that Dortmund only spent 17m on Haaland. That might be what Salzburg got for him but you can chuck another 5-10m on top for Raiola's cut.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,727
11,318
AFL Club
Geelong
What as in personally or the fan base? I'd never want United to accept a player with a guaranteed buyout included, I think that's a selling club mentality. Same reason I was fine with passing on the Reguillon deal. Why would anyone be happy with spending a few years making a player better just for someone else to be able to come in without negotiations and buy them for much less than they are worth?

Keep in mind at the time it was reported to be around 45m as the buyout, with agent fees there is also no way that Dortmund only spent 17m on Haaland. That might be what Salzburg got for him but you can chuck another 5-10m on top for Raiola's cut.
It's hard to know all the numbers for a deal that never happened. Current reports state a £63m release clause. That would have been on the low side of his true value but would have locked in about £40m profit. A £45m clause would have been a sh*t deal but still locked in about £20m profit. Dortmund's £17.2m might have included the agent's fee.

A buyout clause is not a guarantee of a transfer. At any time United could negotiate a new deal with him, including after the release clause was activated that gave clubs permission to talk to him. If he decided to leave, there would still be an auction that determines his transfer value.

I don't think it's relevant about 'making a player better' with Haaland. You get the benefit of a top player player while he is with you. If he moves on, so be it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Doctor Colossus

Happy to meet
Oct 1, 2007
115,956
105,882
Death Mountain
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Storm-Man Utd-Heart-Luton-Patriots
It's hard to know all the numbers for a deal that never happened. Current reports state a £63m release clause. That would have been on the low side of his true value but would have locked in about £40m profit. A £45m clause would have been a sh*t deal but still locked in about £20m profit. Dortmund's £17.2m might have included the agent's fee.

A buyout clause is not a guarantee of a transfer. At any time United could negotiate a new deal with him, including after the release clause was activated that gave clubs permission to talk to him. If he decided to leave, there would still be an auction that determines his transfer value.

I don't think it's relevant about 'making a player better' with Haaland. You get the benefit of a top player player while he is with you. If he moves on, so be it.
You'd would find the clause would have to exist for the duration of the first signed deal unless otherwise stated.
It's Raiola, I'd stake quite a lot that the 17m did not include the agent fees.

Regardless of all that, I stand by United on turning away this type of deal.

FWIW at the time this is what Marca reported - https://www.marca.com/en/football/international-football/2019/12/30/5e0a149f46163f38768b4636.html with quite a lot of outlets stating 10m plus alone in agent fees.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,727
11,318
AFL Club
Geelong
You'd would find the clause would have to exist for the duration of the first signed deal unless otherwise stated.
It's Raiola, I'd stake quite a lot that the 17m did not include the agent fees.

Regardless of all that, I stand by United on turning away this type of deal.

FWIW at the time this is what Marca reported - https://www.marca.com/en/football/international-football/2019/12/30/5e0a149f46163f38768b4636.html with quite a lot of outlets stating 10m plus alone in agent fees.
I didn't know about Haaland's Dad getting a massive bung too.

I reckon some of the crazy transfer fees we have seen over the last few years are due to club officials getting a share of the loot.
 

Doctor Colossus

Happy to meet
Oct 1, 2007
115,956
105,882
Death Mountain
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Storm-Man Utd-Heart-Luton-Patriots
I didn't know about Haaland's Dad getting a massive bung too.

I reckon some of the crazy transfer fees we have seen over the last few years are due to club officials getting a share of the loot.
Agents wield way too much power these days.

Raiola got something like 20m from the 89m United paid for Pogba.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
41,571
18,157
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg

What a grub Raiola is. 41m all up for Pogba transfer, 16m from United & 24m from Juve.


Technically it was above board but you have to ask why such a big payment was needed to get the deal done. One can only imagine that Raiola told both sides that he must be paid handsomely or Pogba was going nowhere.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Top Bottom