So you think Atletico will let a player leave if they can't get a replacement?
The answer is HIGHLY UNLIKELY unless they don't want him OR (the buyout clause is met AND the player wants to leave AND the player has access to the cash to buy himself out AND Atletico are not prepared to pay their player a bit extra to keep him for another season).
You may as well say it isn't going to happen.
Here's a hypothetical situation: Club wants player, offers him big money to move, he agrees - club triggers his release clause. That's literally all it takes.
Your arguments there don't make any sense.
1) Atletico have no choice about the transfer if United pay
2) Hence the excuse of needing a 9 for United.
In reality, what's happened is Griezmann has agreed not to go if they can't replace him for the ban, which is why people were suggesting the ban would be bad news for United anyway.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
1. Griezmann won't drop Atleti in it.
2. United make up bullshit excuse on the same day the ban is upheld that they have changed targets.
I said from the beginning it was bad news for the rags, not so much for us (check back a few pages)