That makes no sense
Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25
- Thread starter mazhar13
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That makes no sense
He probably shouldn't have been on the edges of the first team, to be honest
He's under 24, so if he moves to another PL club after rejecting a contract offer from us, his new club has to compensate us a fee set by a tribunal
If there wasn't a want to tie him down to a new contract, I don't think he'd have got as many chances as he did with the first team if we weren't trying to convince him to sign a new deal. Conjecture, but feels like that.
I'm saying to try and convince him to sign a new deal, we gave him opportunities in the first team squad over players like Amad for example. We're talking a one start and a handful of minutes, I think he was a long way off being first team ready.I don't understand what you're saying here
That applies if he was under a contract and another club was trying to sign him. He's literally letting his contract expire and leaving so he's able to sign for other clubs as a free agent. We aren't owed anything.
So we give him minutes to convince him to sign and he still shit on us.
Poor Amad.
Poor squad management, again.
Poor Amad.
Poor squad management, again.
He's not even good, what are you moaning about?
The point is, City/Chelsea would be getting £20M for him.
No, tribunal fees are specific to out-of-contract players under 24
There's nothing to indicate we're offering him a contract - it looks as if we're releasing him. Reason being he isn't very good.
We did offer him a contract. Agree that he doesn't look very good and we probably won't miss him one bit.
Most likely not. Don’t get mad over made up scenarios.
I hadn't heard anything about us offering a contract. Even if we have, any club that wants to skip a tribunal fee literally has to offer him a contract worth 47p more than we did. They could throw in a Fredo or a packet of Wotsits. A pet gerbil might be excessive, but that would also do. A glass of water would be okay provided Forson is permitted to keep the glass, because water is free. Unless it's out of a bottle initially. But in that case, why pour it into a glass? It's makes no bloody sense - just hand him the bottle to you convoluted feck.
I don't know what I'm saying anymore. Bye Forson, thanks for that dummy run that helped Mainoo score that time.
I'm pretty sure it only applies if any club within UK approach to sign him before the end of this month. From July 1st he's free to talk to whoever he wants.
Legally they can't approach him before the end of the month, only foreign sides can approach him within the last 6 months of his contract. The tribunal fee is correct.
Absolutely not. The players sold by both those clubs either impressed on loans or were highly regarded playing for the under age groups of the national teams. Neither applies to Forson. He was given some minutes this season because we wanted to convince him to sign a new contract. Realistically, he had little chance of making it here and I'd say its a smart move for him to move on.
Liverpool would get £30 million from Bournemouth.
This was my interpretation based on previous cases judged by the PFCC, but buried in the rules it does say somewhere that the player's former club is due some form of compensation, provided a contract of similar terms was offered, which suggests that the rule applies if the player is a free agent.
So I think @Big Ben Foster is probably right. But my thing about the bottle of water also holds, provided it's a very expensive bottle of water and Forson gets to keep the glass.
The first port of call before the PFCC gets involved is for the clubs to come to an amicable agreement, however, and I'd be surprised if we didn't just waive the fee altogether, since that's the kind of 'classy' thing we would be expected to do.
I didn't think it would apply to players out of contract too so that is interesting. I think the tribunal fee would be fairly low anyways. And like you said, I think the club will just let him leave as he wishes instead of going through all the trouble.
Nah! Chelsea sold Callum Hudson-Odoi to Forest for 5m yet you expect Forsen to fetch 20m
Crazy
Last edited:
Forsen has made zero impact, not even those clubs would be getting anything close to 20m. He's not hyped up, not really thought of that highly. Moaning for moanings sake.
Whoever signs him will offer compensation. If United aren’t happy with the offer they go to tribunal. It’ll be a small amount though, Harvey Elliott’s fee agreed via tribunal was 4 mil, and that was contingent on him making 100+ appearances for Liverpool and playing for England.
Exactly ETH has a lot to answer for with some of his decisions, and it looks like we’ll find out soon if he’s paid with his job?
I found it weird that he name dropped 2 centre halves and a striker, but didn't name anyone we could be targeting in midfield, the other position we're said to be prioritising. I honestly have no idea what type of CM the club might want.
To be fair, until we sell, those are our priorities with Martial and Varane leaving. I imagine CM will only get discussed when we sell.
I’d imagine they’re still trying to find the right midfielder. I assume we’re looking for a DM that’s 100% what we need. Casemiro will be leaving most likely. It’s one of the most important positions. It could be a surprise player we’ve not been linked with.
Casemiros meant to be leaving so having a squad with no DM in place will take us back to square 1. When Casemiro got brought in you could see how important it was having a DM and he changed the team.
I agreed but until that is negotiated and knows what we're going to get for him, we can't really prioritise that. We will 100% be missing a striker and centre back next season, so it's the first priority to sort.
Didn’t get an offer they wanted so back to seeing what United will offer to a very happy to be at United player
I think it was just a bluff to get more money. He was never leaving.
Isn't that case a bit different as he was still under a contract albeit a youth contract ? Or am I remembering it wrong?
Wolves game was Amad’s first game in the squad after injury, probably wasn’t 100%. Forson played 4 minutes.
Fulham he played 40 minutes more than Amad.
City he played 8 minutes more than Amad.
Newport he played 2 minutes more than Amad.
Thats 54 minutes total in a whole season that he played where Amad could have played instead. It’s really not a big issue.
When Liverpool sold Ibe he had played a totalt of 93 matches - including 41 in the P.L for Liverpool - the season before he was sold, he was close to a regular and played 27 matches in the P.L
Solanke had played about 20 times for Liverpool and did ok on loan to Vitesse where he played 25 matches
You can't really compare that to Omari Forson
Correct - I would assume we will receive less than £1 million for Forson. It was more fun in the pre-Bosman dates when a lot of transfers were tribunals. United's most famous tribunal (at least the only one I can think of) was Brian McClair. United were offering £400.000 and Celtic wanted £2.000.000 - in retrospect it was fair to say that United underbid and Celtic wanted way too much. United were however a lot more satisified than Celtic when the transfer was set at £850.000
That wouldn’t surprise me at all. It’s fairly obvious since he was already hinting that he wanted United to make him feel wanted, or rather give him more money