Manchester United Thread 25/26 - Teamtalk/Transfers/Gossip Mod Note in OP 26.09.24

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122412897#Comment_122412897

It's hard to say. I think you need 2 players putting in serious shifts to play with Mainoo. But maybe that wouldn't be as needed if you had a ball playing midfielder using possession better and with good positioning. Stopping the team falling apart on turnovers is the biggest challenge of this season.

Also another season of Shaw wasting attack after attack would be incredibly frustrating. Attacks need to happen through the middle a whole lot more.

Davy05

Can anyone recommend some good sites to buy good cheap jerseys? Found a Thai one but didn't allow PayPal so was weary.

Paul MCM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122413350#Comment_122413350

Thread on it here

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2057635672/online-jersey-stores-continued

Cotts72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122412890#Comment_122412890

A lot of Fofana chatter today too but i'd imagine its to hurry Milan

Mitch Connor

I'm not liking the continuing links to signing amrabat. It would be such a red flag signing for me.

y0ssar1an22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122414885#Comment_122414885

agreed. dont think he has the athleticism to play the role he would be needed to play.

am very surprised no saudi club is in for casemiro. it makes no sense given their existing transfer policy. maybe its him via his agent saying he would not move there though.

not sure there will be much movement in CM unless we can move him on.

no word yet on eriksen who also needs to move.

Iseedeadpixels

I wouldn't say no to Amrabat as a cheap back up AFTER we get the rest of our main signings, he looked like he was starting to get to grips with the premier league at the end of the season, and lets be honest ETH's suicide midfield didn't help at all.

Jofspring

Offer 15m for Amrabat. Good deal for United. Don't think he would be signed as the stand alone CM signing. Still think they want Ugarte as well.

ollkiller

If we got amrabat cheap I'd be happy enough as long as we get other signings. He had a great game in the fa cup final.

Robson99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122413958#Comment_122413958

Fofana would be an excellent addition

caviardreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122415051#Comment_122415051

Agreed, if he is a squad player as back up, europa, cups etc and good value it makes sense

Seems to have a good attitude and already integrated in the team so not an unknown

Quags

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122415053#Comment_122415053

Looks like him to AC is done

PARlance

Hard to get used to the little lull in transfer activity. It would be great to get a DM signed and for that player to get a couple of games preseason in.

Presume the squad will be heading to the States in the next couple of days.

Quags

https://twitter.com/theathleticfc/status/1815701704530186627?s=46

Getafe asked last year and we agreed to the future earnings😂 thank **** we have football people in now and not accountants

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122415867#Comment_122415867

Standard practice for sell on clauses. Same way if Marseille put a clause into their sale it will trickle down to United. The only way these clauses become really beneficial is if there is a successful situation that everyone would be happy with anyway.

As I said, it's a bit perverse the idea of maximising profit off him anyway imo.

NITRO95

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122415923#Comment_122415923

Can you point to one instance where a team that took a player on loan for a season then got a percentage of that players future sale from the parent club? Because I've never heard of anything like it.

I get not wanting him at the club, I wanted him gone too, but I don't understand this idea that Utd shouldnt profit from selling him?

PARlance

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122415923#Comment_122415923

Not exactly standard in the sense that they were only loaning the player. But they took a big gamble taking him off our hands and they 'earned' their sell on clause.

Agree with your views on making money off him, but in a pure business/tranaction sense, the accountants did a good deal... one of their better ones imo.

We got 80% of a decent figure without having to play him when it looked more likely that we would have to pay him off / buy out his contract and receive nothing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416008#Comment_122416008

Can you point to one instance of a player having a public recording that makes his position at the club employing him untenable?

El Gato De Negocios

The reality is that MG was / is damaged goods so Getafe took something of a gamble by bringing him in. He played for a full season and earned a move to a bigger club on the back of his performances for them. I have no issue with them getting a few quid out of it, similar to when a younger player leaves their developmental club as a free agent and they get compensated for their role in the players development.

NITRO95

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416022#Comment_122416022

What's that got to do with you saying a team that loans a player for a season and then gets a percentage of their sale is an industry standard? "Standard practice for sell on clauses" is your own words and I asked for one example of this being standard, shouldn't be difficult if it's happening industry wide. I don't even want a link to something, just point me to one loan deal that's had similar sell on clauses.

For the record the MG deal is totally not standard and Getafe getting a percentage is probably fair based on the risk they took.

Quags

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122415923#Comment_122415923

Apart from MG, do you have other examples?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416094#Comment_122416094

It's not standard purely because no situation has ever arisen where a player has to be sent to wherever will take him to even slightly protect or regain his value in such a manner.

A sell on clause would normally only be in a permanent transfer but in this exceptional circumstance to make any deal happen it was put in a loan contract. The operation of it appears to be identical to every sell on clause I've seen with any future earnings from the club selling the player being subject to the clause.

Think of it as being a transfer between the clubs for one season where a 20% sell on clause is the buy back. That is basically what it was.

NITRO95

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416319#Comment_122416319

Ok great you understand what a sell on clause is. But you are the one that said a sell on clause was a standard in loan deals.

I don't think the MG situation is totally unique but I don't want to get into that because it invites bad faith bs and comparing alleged crimes etc. I'm glad he's gone from the club and we can hopefully move on

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416388#Comment_122416388

Can you quote where I said that?

caviardreams

MG would be worthless without Getafe taking him on loan - not to mention he solved a problem for the club in terms of optics / pr. Think it's very fair and makes business sense all round for that kind of a clause given the high risk situation that deserves a reward premium - everyone benefits from it.

In business/football terms, a horrible situation has worked out as well as it could have tbh (or the least bad outcome is probably a better way of saying it)

Mitch Connor

IMO we got to a point last season where we were desperate to get Greenwood out the door, and didn't have any real interest in him.

Getafe got us over a barrel on it.

I can understand where the % sell on came from, because we were asking Getafe to raise his value - there was no real thought to improving his game to bring him back - it was purely a money move, so I can understand why Getafe wanted a piece of that profit.

As it is, if he had not gone on loan, he'd have been worth nothing to us. So the financial benefit we got from it is the value (+50%) we just got for him. IMO we should just should be happy with what we got and move on.

Quags

But they are getting paid twice, They received 5m for his current move and then Getafe will take 20 per cent of the sell-on.

Thats the part where I am saying about accountants ruining the club, Whereas Liam is saying its a sell on clause but I have never seen a player being loaned and the loanee club gets money from his next two transfers.

All_in_Flynn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416486#Comment_122416486

They're being paid for their part in his 'rehabilitation' essentially. If he now goes on and fulfils his potential as a 100m+ player, it will largely be in part to the chance they took on him.

There's plenty of ammo to use against the previous chaps in charge. Not sure this is a good example of a bad deal.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416486#Comment_122416486

They are getting paid 'twice' because that is how Sell On Clauses work.

You don't see loaned players seeing fees coming from his next two transfers because you don't see the loaning club getting a cut of their NEXT transfer either. The sell on clause Getafe got is not normal, on its own.

Once you accept the sell on fee, you then have to accept the rest of it.

Think of it this way - Getafe negotiated a percentage of the of the transfer fee United will get for Greenwood.
The fee United agreed with Marsaille is 30m or whatever PLUS 50%. That 50% is part of the fee United get, so United's fee is 30+X.

If we negotiated 30m + 10m in bonus payments, they would get 20% of the bonus payments as they came in

Roma and Basel are actually having this same argument over the guy Arsenal are signing.

Basel bought him off Roma, with a sell on clause. They sold to Bologna with a sell on clause. Now that Bologna are selling - Roma are claiming they are also due a percentage of that Basel will get.

scottser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416486#Comment_122416486

Getafe deserve it and it's a small price to pay to get out of a difficult situation. They protected him well and allowed him to develop his game. Remember, previously MG stayed at home for 18 months and didn't kick a ball waiting for United to make a decision on his return, which at the time was really badly handled. Surely you remember the vociferous protests from those involved in promoting the 'family-friendly' aspect of United's community programmes if he returned? It would simply make the entire club look like hypocrites if he played for United again. It was pointless him sitting at home and so a loan was the ideal stop-gap. It worked; he got his head down and now he's trying to crack on with his career with his family in tow. Thanks to Getafe, good luck to him and I hope he crushes it at Marseille.