This is also on Amorim, absolute incompetence to still not introduce our new 20m GK while persisting with a guy who’s rubbish to even be a deputy at this level. Managerial blunder of the highest order.
1
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 6
- Clean sheets
- 0
- Goals
- 0
- Assists
- 0
- Yellow cards
- 0
Conceded 11 goals from 9.56 xGA summarises how bad Bayindir has been.
What an excellent choice of photo
He will hopefully be moved on this summer.
Surely he will be sold? I dont want him as 2nd goal keeper next season to be honest... I dont want him nor Onana anywhere near the club again.
He's not even starting at Celta. Useless loan, we must have the dumbest sporting analysis department for loans in europe we always manage to get the shittiest loan deals.
We don't, that's absolutely rubbish and just another thing to moan about with absolutely no clout to back it up.
We've literally just sold a player to a club who had him on loan....
Weird complaint.
1) its been 2 games.
2) we didn't loan him out because we want him to get gametime. We loaned him because hes shit.
I doubt the club really cares all that much if he plays or not.
He will definitely play the next game by all accounts too,
If you've got to whinge about something, what the 4th choice keeper is or isn't doing on loan at Celta Vigo is at least creative. His own mother must struggle to give a toss.
I dont get your angle here. If we think hes shit then we want him to play so that either the club hes at, or another club wants to sign him. We dont want him back from the loan to have to find a new club all over again. If we don't think he's shit and do want him to improve so that maybe eventually he could be used for some lesser games, then we want him to play. So either way a loan where he doesnt play doesnt make sense.
I guess you're talking about Hojlund. In that case, that "loan" was basically a sale. There was a mandatory buy obligation if he played a certain number of minutes.
Let's analyse our loans over the last three years and see which ones you think were successes and which were failures.
25/26
Onana -Trabzonspor: We couldn't sell him, so he went out on loan again.
Rashford -Barcelona: We couldn't sell him. He came back even though he's not really wanted at the club.
Sancho - Aston Villa: His contract expired.
Amass - Sheffield United: Played around 1,800 minutes, then moved to Norwich, where he played only 16 minutes. Came back without really challenging for a place in the squad.
Vitek -Bristol City: Established himself as their starter and was eventually sold for a good fee. Success.
Collyer - West Brom: Played around 250 minutes, then moved to Hull, where he played around 100 minutes.
24/25
Rashford - Aston Villa: Came back and was loaned out again the following season.
Sancho -Chelsea: Came back despite clearly not being wanted at United.
Antony - Real Betis: Performed well enough to be sold. Success.
Malacia - PSV: Played around 600 minutes before returning to United.
23/24
Sancho - Dortmund: Returned to United and was subsequently loaned out again.
Greenwood - Getafe: Became a regular starter and was eventually sold, although for a relatively low fee.
Hannibal - Sevilla: Played only around 100 minutes.
Pellistri - Granada: Played around 1,200 minutes.
Van de Beek - Frankfurt: Played around 360 minutes.
Brandon Williams - Ipswich Town: Played around 1,000 minutes.
Looking at the last three seasons, there don't seem to be many clear-cut successes. The main ones I'd consider successful are Vitek and Antony, while Greenwood is more of a mixed case because, although the loan itself worked reasonably well, we ultimately sold him for a low fee.
A lot of the other loans either failed to generate enough playing time, failed to develop, failed to increase the player's value, or simply delayed the same problem for another season.
Unless the plan is to loan him every time until he contract runs out instead of selling him we should very much care about his game time. If he doesnt play his value will only decrease, specially for a GK.
You think he has any real value?
He's got 1 year left on his contract with a 1 year option, we aren't getting anything for him and we're probably saving money by not paying his wages
He's definitely not a good enough keeper for us. He may not be Premier League level, but he's a Turkish international, was even called up for the World Cup, and he's 28, which is a good age for a goalkeeper. At the very least, we should be able to get £5m for him.
Saying he has no value is nonsense. Being happy just because we're no longer paying his wages is a pretty mediocre way of looking at it.
It's weird you'd think at least some middling Saudi team or something would have given him a transfer and let him fight it out with the other keeper there. Surely he's starting quality for a league like that?
It's not like we are going to be asking a lot for him in relative terms. Strange one
It's not like we are going to be asking a lot for him in relative terms. Strange one
I was actually talking about Collyer,
Amass, Vitek, Gore, Ennis, Wheatley, Williams all had good loan spells just last season.
But it's fine, you can cherry pick the unwanted senior players who we needed off the books as proof that our loan system doesn't work.
He's out of contract next season, unless we stupidly take up the 1 year extension. We just wanted his wages off the books.
I don’t think you understand the Saudi market.
They have a limit on overseas players, why on earth would they use up an allocated spot on a poor keeper.
I am surprised we have not been able to send him back to Turkey for a couple of million.
Glad he’s gone though. We got Darlow on a free, and he’s a big upgrade.
This is exactly the reason,
Quite why people are claiming anything but this I'm not really sure.
Amass was a starter until he was moved to Norwich, got injured, and we had to bring him back.
Vitek, as I already said, was a good deal.
As for the rest, I wasn't cherry picking. The discussion is about United's piss poor loan strategy, and I didn't bother listing every youngster whose situation is already painfully obvious. But since you've brought them up, let's go through them.
Gore and Ennis are 21. Wheatley is 20. All three were loaned to League Two clubs. Williams is 20 and was off to the Scottish Premiership. And somehow we're supposed to look at that and conclude United are doing a good job developing young players?
Come on.
At 20–21, if you genuinely believe a player has a realistic future at Manchester United, you need to be putting him in an environment that actually prepares him for that level. If he's not ready for United, fine send him somewhere where he'll be properly challenged. Instead, we're effectively dumping these players down the football pyramid and calling it development.
And then you point to them doing well at that level as evidence that the loans are successful. Successful loans for what exactly? So a 21 year old can dominate League Two? Brilliant. I'm sure that's going to prepare him brilliantly for Premier League football.
This is exactly the kind of lazy thinking that has allowed United's loan system to be so mediocre for years. A loan isn't automatically a "good loan" because the player gets minutes and scores a few goals. The whole point is to develop the player and increase his level and value.
If a 20/21 year-old United prospect is being sent to League Two or the Scottish Premiership, that's not evidence of some brilliant academy pathway. It's evidence that United haven't found a better development environment for him.
And if you genuinely think these loans strengthen your argument, you're actually proving mine United's idea of loan management seems to be "find them somewhere to play" rather than "find them the right level to develop."
I'm sure we did, but that doesnt mean we'll be happy to let him leave for free. We may well take up the option to look to get some of our money back from signing him
No one is offering £5m for him are they? If they had we'd have sold him, he's on the last year of his contract, no one is paying a fee for him when they can pay nothing in a year
I'd be absolutely astounded if that happens.
Absolutely clueless..
Not every loan is going to be for a player the parent club feel is going to make it ...that's at a premium for all clubs not just United...
They are primarily to see if that player can make it, of there's something to work with, if they can develop.
Most loanees go back to the parent club to be sold on or sent back on loan.
We sent Dalot out on loan, that changed him as a player,
Garner went out on loan, Pellistri, Chong, Henderson, Hannibal, Diallo, Alvaro, Tuanzebe, Pereria.....etc etc
But yeah, our loan system is crap....
Yep - might well have done under Woodward. Almost certainly won’t now.
Still you dont give any specifics I provided specific example where most are loan failures yet you still generalize without arguments. Let's leave it there no point in discussing like this.
What makes a loan a success?
One where the player develops substantially, either by improving their performance level or increasing their market value.
+ gaining experience by playing in senior level competetive games
So the names of players who have been on successful loans that I've mentioned in that post are not proof enough for you no?!
Neither happen often, most loans are for young players who won't make it.
Other loans are for senior players who want out and need to be off the books,
Other loans are for genuine development purposes..
You live in a fantasy world where every loan is to improve a player or turn them into a money making machine, that is a tiny proportion of loans.
You just throw out names without providing any specifics. You're going back several seasons to bring up the likes of Pellistri, Chong, Henderson, Hannibal, Diallo, Álvaro, Tuanzebe, and Pereira.So the names of players who have been on successful loans that I've mentioned in that post are not proof enough for you no?!
And even then, out of all the players you mentioned, only Henderson, Diallo (in one of his loan spells), Pereira, and Carreras actually had good loan spells.
I don't know what your reasoning is for considering Hannibal's loan a success when he played less than 100 minutes for Sevilla over an entire season. Yet you throw his name out as if it somehow proves your point.
If you're going to argue that United have had good loans, at least provide some actual specifics rather than just listing names from years ago.
You live in a bizarrely mediocre world where apparently any loan counts as a success. I agree that most youngsters won't make it, and many of them will be loaned out to the bottom of the pyramid simply to give them a chance to build a career in football when it's already clear they won't make it here.
That's precisely why I didn't mention the youngsters who were never highly rated in the first place. Yet you threw them into the discussion as if their existence somehow proves we had successful loans, only to then turn around and say that most of them won't make it.
That's poor logic.
It's fine, you are just cherry picking information and changing the main point of the conversation to try and prove your point, which quite frankly isn't working very well for you.
The names I've given ven are all of players who have had successful loans, you forget Hannibal was on loan at Birmingham beforehand which again is fine because you conveniently left that out to clutch at straws for your point.
Anyhow, its clear you have a completely different comprehension of loans and the value they bring not just to the parent club, but the loanee club and the footballing pyramid in general, so as you were.
I think this was a petty power play by Amorim. They didn’t sign the keeper he wanted (Martinez) so he stubbornly refused to start the keeper they did buy until he had no choice.
Isn't Bayindir's contract expiring next year (excluding a +1 option)? I'm not sure what a more favourable loan would be in those circumstances.