*Transfer Window 2014/15 Season Rumours/Signings *AKA Man U fans listing every player under the Sun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, that Rojo thing is crazy. Why on earth would you agree to something like that when taking on a player? So they either get 20 million from us or have to pay out 15 million?! Wot?
 
It sounds like Doyen are unfairly trying to cause trouble for Sporting, looking at what Sporting have said.

If LvG really rates him then we're better off paying the extra €10m and getting it sorted, I don't get the impression Sporting will cave in to any demands and any legal action will take more than 2 weeks...

Rojo and Benatia would give us a more than adequate defence.
 
Robbo said:
It sounds like Doyen are unfairly trying to cause trouble for Sporting, looking at what Sporting have said.

If LvG really rates him then we're better off paying the extra €10m and getting it sorted, I don't get the impression Sporting will cave in to any demands and any legal action will take more than 2 weeks...

Rojo and Benatia would give us a more than adequate defence.
Click to expand...

Doyen own the majority of the player. People forget that clubs like Sporting simply would not get such players without third party ownership. Porto do this a lot as well, with Falcao and Hulk, they won a europa cup that they would never in a million years have been able to win without that squad. Which was made up of multiple top foreign players that the club couldn't afford. Effectively third parties sponsor players and pay clubs like Porto/Sporting to put them in the metaphorical European shop window.

If Sporting/Porto didn't want to be told when the player was leaving, they had every option to not sign on to such a deal in the first place. It's like someone leasing a car for three years, then getting upset when the car is to go back. This is the situation Sporting signed up for initially. The third party guys who facilitate these deals are making big money off some players, but losing money on others, but again they are taking all the financial risk, not the club.

AFAIK Falcao and likely Hulk were being paid wages by the third party(ie millions a year) with a small amount of wages coming from the clubs themselves. Atletico were supposedly not paying Falcao an awful lot while the third party paid the rest of his supposed 200k a week or so, then the third party gets the majority of the final transfer fee. Atletico managed to win the europa league with a hugely expensive striker which they effectively never paid for and basically didn't pay wages to. They loaned him in from the third party, they get Falcao, the third party gets Falcao's value up. Atletico couldn't afford say 30-40mil upfront for Falcao, nor could they afford 200k a week. So they say pay 20-40k a week for Falcao, a few mil to own a small fraction of the player, and get a top players services up till someone makes a big offer on the player and the third party basically has full control over the player.

Sporting are basically being morons at this point, they get paid(in services of better players) to do precisely what is happening, then they want to be the club making big money when the player leaves. The whole point is they didn't pay for the player upfront and haven't invested in the player.
 
Last edited:
That makes sense DM. Hopefully the Sporting director will back down then... :/

It's no wonder the lad has handed in a transfer request, etc, given the situation.
 
Moses said:
All well and good, but they are sticking to the agreement. The release clause is €30m, not €20m. Instead of criticising the club for crying about an agreement they signed up to, perhaps you should instead be criticising the agency and player for crying about an agreement they signed up to...
Click to expand...

Messi has some I don't know 250million release clause, meaning a club can offer it and Barca couldn't refuse, it doesn't mean Barca can't choose to sell at 20mil or anything in between. But lets say Utd offer 80mil for Messi, they choose to sell and Real offer 80mil but Barca refuse to accept it, a release clause works in that situation that Real can force Barca to accept a bid.

We're talking about the MAJORITY owner having control because that is the way business works. A release clause is something entirely separately. As has been suggested there is a clause in the contract for if Sporting refused to sell, and that is that they have to pay out the 75% within two weeks. The majority owner can at any time choose to sell, here we have a contract situation where in this case effectively Sporting get to decide between buying the player themselves or selling the player, it's one or the other, they can't just say no.

The majority owner clearly has the control anyone who thinks otherwise is completely unaware of how ownership works.

Trusty said:
Shane Long out for 12.5m, Welbeck in for 14m, that would be some good business by Hull.
Click to expand...

Good business.... selling one striker for less than they buy a worse striker. In what universe is that good business?

Anyone with any eye for football can see Long's movement is great, his finishing is good and he's a decent quality player, and that conversely Welbeck isn't. However, a crap striker at a top four club will much more often than not outscore a good striker at a pretty crap team.

Selling long for 12.5mil isn't bad at all, but 14mil for Welbeck would be laughable, Hernandez for a similar price would be another matter.
 
Robbo said:
Miguel Delaney at ESPN says we've now turned our attention to Benatia, just the defender we need. Miguel is pretty good, and the move would make sense.

Mourinho did rule out a move saying they're sorted in defence.

Welbeck to Hull would be a good deal for around £14m. Can't lose both him and Hernandez though.

Edit, the article: http://www.espnfc.com/manchester-un...ted-turn-to-mehdi-benatia-as-impatience-grows

Sounds as if we're not doing a good job thus far...
Click to expand...

Hasnt Benatia actually said he doesnt want to leave Roma (and I dont believe Roma want to sell him either) , so its probably too late to even offer an obscene amount of money (as its too late for Roma to re-invest)?

I saw some quote the other day that they "might think about" an offer of £50m....but thats surely 30-40% more than he is worth (Hummels at a few years younger MIGHT be worth that kind of money, but Benatia is roughly about £30-35m imho)

Would hand deliver to Welbeck to Hull for £14m as well as Chicharito to Juve (in part exchange for Vidal) without a concern. Between RvP, Rooney, Mata, Kagawa and a couple of youngsters...I dont see how we would really miss either of the 1st two.
 
JohnnyG said:
When Liverpool sign Moreno they will have spent £101m this window, they're definite favourites now.
Click to expand...

Despite still having a squad that cost considerably less than at least 3 other sides?

And on Rojo and 3rd party ownership - aren't the rules clear on this? The 3rd party can't have any influence over the club. The club makes all the calls, the 3rd party simply gets his money if and when the player is sold.
 
Moses said:
Again, no. Stop arguing from a position of ignorance and assumption. If you read a translation of what the agent says, the club decides. Just because the agent owns the majority of the economic rights does not mean when the club sells the player (in this instance). I'll copy and paste the relevant section later, when I'm not on my phone, if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

I do love this, not new from you, claim I haven't read it and ignorance then state and argument I didn't make.

Re-read what I said, I didn't claim anywhere that the club had to sell the player if the third party told them to, I didn't claim it AT ALL, so calling me ignorant based on presuming to know I haven't read something then claiming something I absolutely did not say makes one person in this discussion absolutely ignorant and only one party making assumptions.

You'll quote this

Sporting, like any other club that works with Doyen, is not required to
sell the player with whom he has an agreement to share economic rights because it
limit the independence of the club although it was not illegal that obligation. The decision not
passes by Doyen, only competes at the club and the player. We are proud to defend this
formulas
Click to expand...


while ignoring this

Sporting is therefore in your entire right not to transfer the player Marcos Rojo
knowing that it only has to make up for the fund under the terms and deadlines as it is
contractually established since early
Click to expand...

The first states Sporting are independent and can choose to sell the player or not, the second says this is fine AS LONG AS the bit in bold. Precisely what I said before that you incorrectly stated, Sporting can choose to sell the player OR buy out the third party within a deadline(suggested to be two weeks).

Most of it you will realise is legalise designed to maintain the impression that third party ownership doesn't have potential to effect results(a huge issue within football that many leagues fight third party ownership directly against).

The "you can choose not to sell... as long as you pay out the 75% value of the proposed deal to us within two weeks".... when you know the club doesn't have the 75% is effectively giving direct control to the third party. But legally this looks bad, might be illegal into the future in the game.

So get off your high horse, you ARE wrong, what I suggested(sell OR buy out the 75%) is the situation, I did not anywhere claim what you suggested I claimed and you're taking legalise and blurring the truth as reality because it suits your argument.

If person A knows person B doesn't have 15million, owns 75% of a player and asks the club to either sell the player to another club for 20mil or pay out the 15million within two weeks.... legally they aren't forcing a sale, in reality they absolutely are.

Sporting could not afford Rojo outright, they can't afford many of the players they have, neither can Porto. They only get many of the players they have precisely because they agree to these deals. They are just being arsey, without the cash to back it up because when they agreed to the deal they felt they were getting a good play incredibly cheap, but when the sale comes around and they think they can get more money they think they deserve that as well.

If you wanted more money when the player was sold, don't agree to 25% ownership or a clause which says you have to buy out the 75% within two weeks.

Your basic argument was about a release clause, and nothing about this has anything to do with a release clause because the sell or buy 75% of the transfer deal value off third party within 2 weeks is NOTHING to do with a release clause.

In general release clauses are about players protecting themselves, not the club. Release clauses don't help the club and aren't intended to help the club. If you get a player like, I don't know, Rojo in the case that he gets so good lots of clubs are interested, he might have 3 years left on a deal, be desperate to go to Real but the club are saying lol, give me €50mil or he's here for 3 years. The release clause is to give the player a relatively reasonable way out(in most cases), and the club goes with a fee that gets them a decent chunk of increased value but means they can't easily hold a player to ransom.
 
Last edited:
I've not tried translating those articles DM but I don't see how this clause can be enforced. FIFA rules on 3rd party ownership state:

No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract or any third party to acquire the ability to influence in employment and transfer related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams.
Click to expand...

This supposed clause breaks this law. So just like Chelsea's agreement with Atletico over Courtois, the agreement may have been made between the 2 parties however it can't be enforced.
 
Getting £14m for Welbeck would be a great result, and would mean he'd struggle to get in for England which I think we can all agree is what is really needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom