Getafe will continue to make money from Mason Greenwood due to an unusual sell-on clause inserted into his loan move from Manchester United last summer.
As reported at the time, Getafe would earn 20 per cent of any fee United received for selling the 22-year-old Englishman following his loan spell.
But the clause actually extends to 20 per cent of all of United’s potential future earnings on Greenwood, an idea that was proposed by the La Liga club when they took the forward on loan last year.
#MUFC themselves inserted a significant sell-on clause in their deal which saw Greenwood move to Ligue 1 side Marseille last week in a package worth up to £26.7million ($34.5m). That means that if Marseille sell Greenwood in the future, Getafe will be entitled to 20 per cent of whatever United make from their own sell-on clause, in addition to the £5.34m they have earned from his move to France.
Mental really. They were useless at their jobs tbh. Fair enough, Getafe helped us/him by taking him and getting him back up to speed in order to sell him this year. But they weren’t the only club he could’ve done to, and surely no need to continue the sell on fee for future transfers as well ffs.
Sounds like our guys were just out there agreeing to literally anything on sales and transfers just clock off.
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 6 seconds ago
Mental really. They were useless at their jobs tbh. Fair enough, Getafe helped us/him by taking him and getting him back up to speed in order to sell him this year. But they weren’t the only club he could’ve done to, and surely no need to continue the sell on fee for future transfers as well ffs.
Sounds like our guys were just out there agreeing to literally anything on sales and transfers just clock off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish Sir Jim et al we're here at the time, doubt anything stupid as what Murtough and Arnold concocted would have taken place, if anything Mason would have been out of the door sooner. Shocking yet unsurprising how badly our football operations had been mismanaged. If Utd were not a money printing machine we would have been in trouble financially years ago. Hopefully, never again.
Never seen a deal like that, it true. Though I kinda get why the club would want to incentivise Getafe given the rapeutational damage they’ve suffered from it.
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Never seen a deal like that, it true. Though I kinda get why the club would want to incentivise Getafe given the rapeutational damage they’ve suffered from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rationale for giving them something to take damaged goods off our hands for a short while makes sense, the scale of of it doesn't.
Absolute insanity. Never heard of anything like it before.
This is one I don't really care much about. I was just happy that he wasn't at the club.
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
The Athletic is as reliable as they come, but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever, to the point where I really dont see how it can be true...
It's one of the most bizarre deals i've ever seen. April fools levels of stupidity.
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 5 minutes ago
The Athletic is as reliable as they come, but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever, to the point where I really dont see how it can be true...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet when put in light of our dealings over the last few years, you can't help be believe it is.
comment by Red Russian
posted 39 seconds ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unique so we have no reference point but ceding 20% of future sale on him is not great. If this is true then the deal struck with Marseille will generate only 30% in future revenue, which is still better than nothing on top of the transfer fee, something, you rightly allude, we thought we'd never receive at the height and immediate aftermath of the scandal.
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 5 minutes ago
The Athletic is as reliable as they come, but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever, to the point where I really dont see how it can be true...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet when put in light of our dealings over the last few years, you can't help be believe it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the things it's as bonkers as it gets and in line with money we have wasted on transfers under their watch until we find out about the mega pay deals the players are currently on. I wonder what some of the wacky add ons are.
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian
posted 39 seconds ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unique so we have no reference point but ceding 20% of future sale on him is not great. If this is true then the deal struck with Marseille will generate only 30% in future revenue, which is still better than nothing on top of the transfer fee, something, you rightly allude, we thought we'd never receive at the height and immediate aftermath of the scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don’t get 20% of the total sell on fee, just 20% of whatever the 50% sell on fee is that we get.
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
Getafe will continue to make money from Mason Greenwood due to an unusual sell-on clause inserted into his loan move from Manchester United last summer.
As reported at the time, Getafe would earn 20 per cent of any fee United received for selling the 22-year-old Englishman following his loan spell.
But the clause actually extends to 20 per cent of all of United’s potential future earnings on Greenwood, an idea that was proposed by the La Liga club when they took the forward on loan last year.
#MUFC themselves inserted a significant sell-on clause in their deal which saw Greenwood move to Ligue 1 side Marseille last week in a package worth up to £26.7million ($34.5m). That means that if Marseille sell Greenwood in the future, Getafe will be entitled to 20 per cent of whatever United make from their own sell-on clause, in addition to the £5.34m they have earned from his move to France.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s absolute insanity, imagine loaning a troubled but talented player for just one season and making £5m the following year and possible doubling that in the future,
What on earth were they thinking?
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All fair points and I imagine this was the thinking at the time, but
1) I don't for a second believe that Getafe would not have accepted taking Greenwood on loan without these terms - it was a deadline day deal I believe and we obviously blinked first, and
2) The only reason they were backed into this corner in the first place was because of the absolutely shambolic way they went about handling the entire situation.
It'll probably cost us a few million and it really isn't a big deal, but either way it's just more confrmirmation of how horrendously we've been run for the past decade.
We had Tilman on loan from Bayern for a season and got 10% of the fee they received from PSV last summer.
I thought it was mental at the time but seems to becoming more regular.
This is not news. It was mentioned at the time and is true.
Mason was toxic at the time. The only reason we can sell him off for what we got this summer is because of his time at Getafe and the massive PR they engaged in to get him accepted, settled and playing footy again.
They deserve every last dollar!!
If you didn't want them to get that you shouldn't have been so resistant to letting him play for us. Then we'd have gotten 100% of the transfer...
If not just shut the F up...
bloodred
Totally agree that the wider handling of the Greenwood situation was shambolic and disgraceful, and that certainly weakened our hand.
As for whether we could have struck a better deal once we were in that situation, all we have is conjecture. The fact that it was a deadline day transaction maybe reinforces the point that United didn't have a lot of clubs competing for Greenwood's signature.
Didn't the Marseille owner claim they were willing to pay for Greenwood last season?
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 6 minutes ago
Didn't the Marseille owner claim they were willing to pay for Greenwood last season?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely to be a substantially lower fee than they did this summer, given that in August 2023 Greenwood hadn't played for over a year and the levels of negative attention would have been both greater and more unpredictable than they are now. I'd be surprised if we've ended up worse off financially from the current deal (with Getafe taking their cut) than what we could have got from a direct sale last summer.
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian
posted 39 seconds ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unique so we have no reference point but ceding 20% of future sale on him is not great. If this is true then the deal struck with Marseille will generate only 30% in future revenue, which is still better than nothing on top of the transfer fee, something, you rightly allude, we thought we'd never receive at the height and immediate aftermath of the scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don’t get 20% of the total sell on fee, just 20% of whatever the 50% sell on fee is that we get.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
comment by Onana_banana_fi_fa_fofana (U20611)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
This is not news. It was mentioned at the time and is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I thought this was common knowledge.
Obviously not.
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 18 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian
posted 39 seconds ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unique so we have no reference point but ceding 20% of future sale on him is not great. If this is true then the deal struck with Marseille will generate only 30% in future revenue, which is still better than nothing on top of the transfer fee, something, you rightly allude, we thought we'd never receive at the height and immediate aftermath of the scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don’t get 20% of the total sell on fee, just 20% of whatever the 50% sell on fee is that we get.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if Marseille sell for £10m, Utd get £5m and Getafe get £1m of that.
Nice chunk of change for nothing.
Sign in if you want to comment
Murtough & Arnold Legacy
Page 1 of 2
posted on 23/7/24
Getafe will continue to make money from Mason Greenwood due to an unusual sell-on clause inserted into his loan move from Manchester United last summer.
As reported at the time, Getafe would earn 20 per cent of any fee United received for selling the 22-year-old Englishman following his loan spell.
But the clause actually extends to 20 per cent of all of United’s potential future earnings on Greenwood, an idea that was proposed by the La Liga club when they took the forward on loan last year.
#MUFC themselves inserted a significant sell-on clause in their deal which saw Greenwood move to Ligue 1 side Marseille last week in a package worth up to £26.7million ($34.5m). That means that if Marseille sell Greenwood in the future, Getafe will be entitled to 20 per cent of whatever United make from their own sell-on clause, in addition to the £5.34m they have earned from his move to France.
posted on 23/7/24
Mental really. They were useless at their jobs tbh. Fair enough, Getafe helped us/him by taking him and getting him back up to speed in order to sell him this year. But they weren’t the only club he could’ve done to, and surely no need to continue the sell on fee for future transfers as well ffs.
Sounds like our guys were just out there agreeing to literally anything on sales and transfers just clock off.
posted on 23/7/24
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 6 seconds ago
Mental really. They were useless at their jobs tbh. Fair enough, Getafe helped us/him by taking him and getting him back up to speed in order to sell him this year. But they weren’t the only club he could’ve done to, and surely no need to continue the sell on fee for future transfers as well ffs.
Sounds like our guys were just out there agreeing to literally anything on sales and transfers just clock off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish Sir Jim et al we're here at the time, doubt anything stupid as what Murtough and Arnold concocted would have taken place, if anything Mason would have been out of the door sooner. Shocking yet unsurprising how badly our football operations had been mismanaged. If Utd were not a money printing machine we would have been in trouble financially years ago. Hopefully, never again.
posted on 23/7/24
Ffs
posted on 23/7/24
Never seen a deal like that, it true. Though I kinda get why the club would want to incentivise Getafe given the rapeutational damage they’ve suffered from it.
posted on 23/7/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Never seen a deal like that, it true. Though I kinda get why the club would want to incentivise Getafe given the rapeutational damage they’ve suffered from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rationale for giving them something to take damaged goods off our hands for a short while makes sense, the scale of of it doesn't.
posted on 23/7/24
Absolute insanity. Never heard of anything like it before.
posted on 23/7/24
This is one I don't really care much about. I was just happy that he wasn't at the club.
posted on 23/7/24
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
posted on 23/7/24
The Athletic is as reliable as they come, but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever, to the point where I really dont see how it can be true...
posted on 23/7/24
It's one of the most bizarre deals i've ever seen. April fools levels of stupidity.
posted on 23/7/24
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 5 minutes ago
The Athletic is as reliable as they come, but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever, to the point where I really dont see how it can be true...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet when put in light of our dealings over the last few years, you can't help be believe it is.
posted on 23/7/24
comment by Red Russian
posted 39 seconds ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unique so we have no reference point but ceding 20% of future sale on him is not great. If this is true then the deal struck with Marseille will generate only 30% in future revenue, which is still better than nothing on top of the transfer fee, something, you rightly allude, we thought we'd never receive at the height and immediate aftermath of the scandal.
posted on 23/7/24
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 5 minutes ago
The Athletic is as reliable as they come, but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever, to the point where I really dont see how it can be true...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet when put in light of our dealings over the last few years, you can't help be believe it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the things it's as bonkers as it gets and in line with money we have wasted on transfers under their watch until we find out about the mega pay deals the players are currently on. I wonder what some of the wacky add ons are.
posted on 23/7/24
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian
posted 39 seconds ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unique so we have no reference point but ceding 20% of future sale on him is not great. If this is true then the deal struck with Marseille will generate only 30% in future revenue, which is still better than nothing on top of the transfer fee, something, you rightly allude, we thought we'd never receive at the height and immediate aftermath of the scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don’t get 20% of the total sell on fee, just 20% of whatever the 50% sell on fee is that we get.
posted on 23/7/24
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
Getafe will continue to make money from Mason Greenwood due to an unusual sell-on clause inserted into his loan move from Manchester United last summer.
As reported at the time, Getafe would earn 20 per cent of any fee United received for selling the 22-year-old Englishman following his loan spell.
But the clause actually extends to 20 per cent of all of United’s potential future earnings on Greenwood, an idea that was proposed by the La Liga club when they took the forward on loan last year.
#MUFC themselves inserted a significant sell-on clause in their deal which saw Greenwood move to Ligue 1 side Marseille last week in a package worth up to £26.7million ($34.5m). That means that if Marseille sell Greenwood in the future, Getafe will be entitled to 20 per cent of whatever United make from their own sell-on clause, in addition to the £5.34m they have earned from his move to France.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s absolute insanity, imagine loaning a troubled but talented player for just one season and making £5m the following year and possible doubling that in the future,
What on earth were they thinking?
posted on 23/7/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All fair points and I imagine this was the thinking at the time, but
1) I don't for a second believe that Getafe would not have accepted taking Greenwood on loan without these terms - it was a deadline day deal I believe and we obviously blinked first, and
2) The only reason they were backed into this corner in the first place was because of the absolutely shambolic way they went about handling the entire situation.
It'll probably cost us a few million and it really isn't a big deal, but either way it's just more confrmirmation of how horrendously we've been run for the past decade.
posted on 23/7/24
We had Tilman on loan from Bayern for a season and got 10% of the fee they received from PSV last summer.
I thought it was mental at the time but seems to becoming more regular.
posted on 23/7/24
This is not news. It was mentioned at the time and is true.
Mason was toxic at the time. The only reason we can sell him off for what we got this summer is because of his time at Getafe and the massive PR they engaged in to get him accepted, settled and playing footy again.
They deserve every last dollar!!
If you didn't want them to get that you shouldn't have been so resistant to letting him play for us. Then we'd have gotten 100% of the transfer...
If not just shut the F up...
posted on 23/7/24
bloodred
Totally agree that the wider handling of the Greenwood situation was shambolic and disgraceful, and that certainly weakened our hand.
As for whether we could have struck a better deal once we were in that situation, all we have is conjecture. The fact that it was a deadline day transaction maybe reinforces the point that United didn't have a lot of clubs competing for Greenwood's signature.
posted on 23/7/24
Didn't the Marseille owner claim they were willing to pay for Greenwood last season?
posted on 23/7/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 6 minutes ago
Didn't the Marseille owner claim they were willing to pay for Greenwood last season?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely to be a substantially lower fee than they did this summer, given that in August 2023 Greenwood hadn't played for over a year and the levels of negative attention would have been both greater and more unpredictable than they are now. I'd be surprised if we've ended up worse off financially from the current deal (with Getafe taking their cut) than what we could have got from a direct sale last summer.
posted on 23/7/24
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian
posted 39 seconds ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unique so we have no reference point but ceding 20% of future sale on him is not great. If this is true then the deal struck with Marseille will generate only 30% in future revenue, which is still better than nothing on top of the transfer fee, something, you rightly allude, we thought we'd never receive at the height and immediate aftermath of the scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don’t get 20% of the total sell on fee, just 20% of whatever the 50% sell on fee is that we get.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
posted on 23/7/24
comment by Onana_banana_fi_fa_fofana (U20611)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
This is not news. It was mentioned at the time and is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I thought this was common knowledge.
Obviously not.
posted on 24/7/24
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 18 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian
posted 39 seconds ago
Devil's advocate opinion: none of us know how much resistance there was on the part of other clubs to taking on Greenwood, and therefore how much additional incentive was "the market rate" to resolve the reputational crisis. Last summer it looked quite plausible that we would end up getting no transfer fee for Greenwood, and perhaps paying out the rest of his contract. Now we're at a point where he's not our problem and we've generated welcome revenue from his sale, together with the prospect of further revenue in the future.
There's plenty to condemn the previous leadership for, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every decision they made / every negotiation they concluded was moronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unique so we have no reference point but ceding 20% of future sale on him is not great. If this is true then the deal struck with Marseille will generate only 30% in future revenue, which is still better than nothing on top of the transfer fee, something, you rightly allude, we thought we'd never receive at the height and immediate aftermath of the scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don’t get 20% of the total sell on fee, just 20% of whatever the 50% sell on fee is that we get.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if Marseille sell for £10m, Utd get £5m and Getafe get £1m of that.
Nice chunk of change for nothing.
Page 1 of 2