Erling Haaland | Dortmund player

Sayros

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
6,006
Supports
Paris Saint-Germain
The real deal! What a talent! Showed his speed as well. He's like a cyborg sent from the future to destroy goalkeepers.
 

Offside

Euro 2016 sweepstake winner
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
26,748
Location
London
Thank feck we’ve gone for Ighalo. This guy can’t hit a barn door.
 

Macern

Pee pee pants
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
13,538
Location
Oslo, Norway
Can’t believe what I’m seeing really. His movement off the ball is something else, it’s like he’s being controlled by someone with a full overview of the pitch.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,626
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
RedSky said:
:lol: 2 more goals. Mental.
Click to expand...
Last week it was three.. At this rate it'll only be one next week.

Seriously though thus far he's only put teams to the sword on the counter. It won't always be this easy.
 

Flanders Devil

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
450
Zehner said:
Of course I understand that buyout clauses have negative consequences for clubs and I also fully understand that elite clubs are willing to pay higher wages in order to compensate players for not having one. However, I'm speaking of this particular case, not the general one.

For me, your arguments ultimately come down to pride and pride is generally speaking a bad advisor when doing business. Assuming that Haaland generally preferred you over Dortmund, the choice for you was between signing him with a buyout option or not signing him at all. You guys think "we're Manchester United. Barcelona and Madrid don't grant players buyout clauses and we are also a big club, so why should we?" when you should actually be asking "why can Madrid and Barcelona sign those players without clauses and we can't?"I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but at the very moment, you don't have this third option of paying higher wages and not grant buyout clauses at all anymore. You are all like "Dortmund is a selling club, we aren't" when the whole point of being a "selling club" is that you develop players of a quality you otherwise wouldn't get your hands on. And that's exactly the problem you're having: The elite isn't willing to sign for you any longer. If a player nowadays plans his career, you aren't his ultimate destination. You may be considered as an intermediate stop but not the club he wants to spend his prime years at. Acting like a top club doesn't automatically make you one. Imagine a random small club would just copy that behaviour and in negotiations with a highly promising youngster would say "no, we won't give you a buyout clause. Sign for us without one or sign for someone else." This would just come across as silly. You can only play that card when you actually have the position of strength necessary for it and United IMO lacks this international standing.

In essence, you are still acting like you're one of the absolute top clubs when you actually aren't any longer. My point is that instead of refusing reality you should accept your current position and think of a way to regain your previous status. And for that, Haaland would've been a great signing. You argue "we develop him for 2 years and then he signs for City and Liverpool? Nah." but you'd have sorted out your striker problems for 2.5 years with a guy who's already good enough to lead the line at a top club and guarantee you 20+ goals a season and if he eventually leaves then this sends a signal into the world that improves your reputation as a good place to develop for young players. And in the meantime of those 2.5 years you'd have time to scout a successor for Haaland without pressure. And if he really leaves for one of your biggest rivals, what's the problem? If he goes there after spending 1.5 or 2.5 years at Dortmund, you'll get the same result.

So in the end, all of your issues with this deal are of symbolic nature. I don't get this kind of thinking. Imagine for once that you applied the same strategic approach Dortmund is currently applying. Take a step back, build up a young, talented squad and sign players like Hakimi, Sancho, Haaland, Brandt, Dembele, etc. and don't block their development by having (or signing) experienced players in your squad that may be just a little bit better right now but ultimately have a much lower ceiling. Over 1-2 years, you'd assemble an extremely talented squad with a great promising player in every position, pretty much like Dortmund has now. The only difference is, you have the financial prowess Dortmund lacks. That means you have much better chances of actually retaining those players. Imagine Dortmund could go into negotiations with Sancho, offer twice his salary and say that the strategy for the upcoming years is to hold this squad together, spend big on another two or three top stars and ultimately challenge for big titles. You certainly could. Of course one or two of those players would still leave but that doesn't matter, a club can compensate that. Liverpool also lost Coutinho who seemed irreplaceable for quite a while. And they lost Sterling to City. That's part of the business, everyone has to go through it.

Thing is, you want to make the second step before the first. You want to avoid the uncomfortable part and you are doing that for far too long already, essentially making matters worse.
Click to expand...
I am a united fan that desperately wanted us to sign Haaland - and I couldn’t agree more with this - exactly my reasoning too.

And the only I would make to back it up more is that once playing for a team eg United most players wouldn’t even sign for their direct rivals eg Liverpool / City afterwards anyway.
 

Okey

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
2,436
So what now, 5 goals in less than an hour of football??? Unreal stuff. Still can't believe people saying we shouldn't buy him cos of Martial and even Greenwood, when he's clearly better than both. Improvement is a never ending pursuit. If you see better than you have, you covet it and upgrade if you can. The incumbents can shape up or ship out. I know it was his decision not to come in the end, but this will hurt for a while...
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,731
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Why are people commenting like we declined the chance to get him?
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
13,891
The defending is pretty comical for most of his goals. With our poor service and playing in a stronger league it would not be as easy for him.
Still we should have got him if we could.
 

paulscholes18

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
20,204
RoyH1 said:
We're assuming that he would have performed just as well here, but let's face it, we don't have the vertical attacking prowess of that Borussia side
Click to expand...
If he had those chances Martial missed United would have beaten Burnley
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
To be fair he's come into 2 matches where the defence have played stupidly high lines, they're clearly not respecting him yet.

They've been smart bringing him into the matches late where he's fresh and can make use of the open space, but my god is he a born goalscorer. Composed as hell.

I'm absolutely gutted we missed out on him, but honestly he made the right choice going to Dortmund didn't he. That pains me to say it.
 

RRCE

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
926
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
I don’t think we took any stand, the guy just wanted to join Dortmund and had a great deal to do so.
Click to expand...
I agree. Perhaps my sarcasm didn’t come through. Its obvious that he snubbed us, which sadly was probably a very wise choice. Stories of United not doing the deal because of release clauses, agent’s demands, etc, are all just spin in an effort to save face.
 

.mica

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
388
Supports
Dortmund
Zehner said:
Of course I understand that buyout clauses have negative consequences for clubs and I also fully understand that elite clubs are willing to pay higher wages in order to compensate players for not having one. However, I'm speaking of this particular case, not the general one.

For me, your arguments ultimately come down to pride and pride is generally speaking a bad advisor when doing business. Assuming that Haaland generally preferred you over Dortmund, the choice for you was between signing him with a buyout option or not signing him at all. You guys think "we're Manchester United. Barcelona and Madrid don't grant players buyout clauses and we are also a big club, so why should we?" when you should actually be asking "why can Madrid and Barcelona sign those players without clauses and we can't?"I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but at the very moment, you don't have this third option of paying higher wages and not grant buyout clauses at all anymore. You are all like "Dortmund is a selling club, we aren't" when the whole point of being a "selling club" is that you develop players of a quality you otherwise wouldn't get your hands on. And that's exactly the problem you're having: The elite isn't willing to sign for you any longer. If a player nowadays plans his career, you aren't his ultimate destination. You may be considered as an intermediate stop but not the club he wants to spend his prime years at. Acting like a top club doesn't automatically make you one. Imagine a random small club would just copy that behaviour and in negotiations with a highly promising youngster would say "no, we won't give you a buyout clause. Sign for us without one or sign for someone else." This would just come across as silly. You can only play that card when you actually have the position of strength necessary for it and United IMO lacks this international standing.

In essence, you are still acting like you're one of the absolute top clubs when you actually aren't any longer. My point is that instead of refusing reality you should accept your current position and think of a way to regain your previous status. And for that, Haaland would've been a great signing. You argue "we develop him for 2 years and then he signs for City and Liverpool? Nah." but you'd have sorted out your striker problems for 2.5 years with a guy who's already good enough to lead the line at a top club and guarantee you 20+ goals a season and if he eventually leaves then this sends a signal into the world that improves your reputation as a good place to develop for young players. And in the meantime of those 2.5 years you'd have time to scout a successor for Haaland without pressure. And if he really leaves for one of your biggest rivals, what's the problem? If he goes there after spending 1.5 or 2.5 years at Dortmund, you'll get the same result.

So in the end, all of your issues with this deal are of symbolic nature. I don't get this kind of thinking. Imagine for once that you applied the same strategic approach Dortmund is currently applying. Take a step back, build up a young, talented squad and sign players like Hakimi, Sancho, Haaland, Brandt, Dembele, etc. and don't block their development by having (or signing) experienced players in your squad that may be just a little bit better right now but ultimately have a much lower ceiling. Over 1-2 years, you'd assemble an extremely talented squad with a great promising player in every position, pretty much like Dortmund has now. The only difference is, you have the financial prowess Dortmund lacks. That means you have much better chances of actually retaining those players. Imagine Dortmund could go into negotiations with Sancho, offer twice his salary and say that the strategy for the upcoming years is to hold this squad together, spend big on another two or three top stars and ultimately challenge for big titles. You certainly could. Of course one or two of those players would still leave but that doesn't matter, a club can compensate that. Liverpool also lost Coutinho who seemed irreplaceable for quite a while. And they lost Sterling to City. That's part of the business, everyone has to go through it.

Thing is, you want to make the second step before the first. You want to avoid the uncomfortable part and you are doing that for far too long already, essentially making matters worse.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.