Radek Vítek | 2025/26 Performances | on loan to Bristol City

city-puma said:
If he can’t get game time, it’s unfair to him.
Click to expand...
If the team puts in good runs in the FA Cup and League Cup, say the semi finals of both, that is 9 games, plus there are 8 league stage games in the CL, he could play around 15 games if Carrick lets him be the GK for the tournaments, he could be given a chance in some PL games as well.

It would be ideal to have two very good goalkeeper options.
 
It is not as if goalkeepers cannot get injuries that keep them out for a while as we are currently seeing with the scousers.
 
Smores said:
That's fine but there's very rarely a situation where a loaned player is going to come back as guaranteed starter. Hence you have to get them in contention whilst they're most willing to be a squad player.

It's up to the club to manage his expectations and what we can offer. Alternatively we have to accept there's no point signing young goalkeeper beyond making a profit.
Click to expand...
What you are suggesting almost never happens. There is a reason that most clubs don't keep 2 keepers that have a genuine hope of being first choice long term. It's because there is only one spot and keepers don't pick up injuries as frequently.

Bringing him back right now would only harm his development.
 
Smores said:
That's fine but there's very rarely a situation where a loaned player is going to come back as guaranteed starter. Hence you have to get them in contention whilst they're most willing to be a squad player.

It's up to the club to manage his expectations and what we can offer. Alternatively we have to accept there's no point signing young goalkeeper beyond making a profit.
Click to expand...
A young keeper will generally only be happy to be mostly on the bench for one season while they fight for the top spot. If by the end of that season they haven't claimed the #1 role they'll probably want to leave as they don't want to spend the most important years of their development sitting on the bench. Bringing him back too early before he's potentially ready to overtake Lammens wastes that opportunity.

Unless the club thinks he's truly ready, he should go off on loan in the PL (or at least in a top league) for at least one more season. Give him the best possible opportunity to reach a level where he's ready to compete, then let him battle it out with Lammens the following season. Whoever loses that battle will likely then be sold for good money and replaced with a cheap experienced keeper who is happy to be mostly on the bench for a while.
 
I care about United than Vitek's development. So bring him back and get rid of Onana and Bayindir. Simple. Lammens is so young that he will not be displaced unless injured.
 
Marcus said:
I care about United than Vitek's development. So bring him back and get rid of Onana and Bayindir. Simple. Lammens is so young that he will not be displaced unless injured.
Click to expand...
If the club thinks Vitek has the potential to reach a similar or higher level as Lammens, it's in the clubs own interest to ensure Vitek is ready to compete when he's bought back. Otherwise we then probably lose him and he goes on to reach his peak somewhere else, and fans sit around bitching about how poorly we handled the situation. Although I would hope we'd be smart enough to demand a buy-back clause in that case.

If the club doesn't think that he has that level of potential then sure, keep him to handle the transition away from Onana and Bayindir then worry about replacing VItek himself later.
 
Marcus said:
I care about United than Vitek's development. So bring him back and get rid of Onana and Bayindir. Simple. Lammens is so young that he will not be displaced unless injured.
Click to expand...
An unhappy player doesn't make for a great dressing room. Besides, it sets the wrong example.

Keep him with a mutually agreeable plan to feature in cup games and fight for the FT spot with Lammens. Or send him out on loan for 1st team football at a team fighting for Championship promotion, European top league or Premiership bottom team - maybe Inter as replacement for Sommer.

Part of me wonders if we should sell while his value is high. But we need to see how Lammens progresses next season.

Edit: Also, why the hell would we screw him over. Even though Olé did it to Lingard and Henderson, we are not that kind of club.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I disagree.

If Coventry or Ipswich have watched him all season and think he's better than their keeper then they would absolutely bite our hand off for a loan.

Whatever helps them stay up next season would be most important.
Click to expand...

That's a big 'If' though....

Coventry are trying to sign Carl Rushworth permanently.

I don't know too much about Ipswich's keeper situation.
 
He needs a PL loan. Then we evaluete next summer.

It's not easy though, it's a different beast playing for United than for a poorer team bombarded with shots every 5 minutes.
Henderson was fantastic for Sheffield United, not so much for United.

We know Lammens can handle it.
 
Floyd said:
He needs a PL loan. Then we evaluete next summer.

It's not easy though, it's a different beast playing for United than for a poorer team bombarded with shots every 5 minutes.
Henderson was fantastic for Sheffield United, not so much for United.

We know Lammens can handle it.
Click to expand...

Lammens had no PL experience and is doing just fine. This is why imo, it’s always best to assess a player based on their individual characteristics and not the league they happen to play in. Vítek has already had a year in the Austrian league where several posters reported that he is excelled in, which if combined with his loan should be more than enough to justify bringing him back as #2.
 
Raoul said:
Lammens had no PL experience and is doing just fine. This is why imo, it’s always best to assess a player based on their individual characteristics and not the league they happen to play in. Vítek has already had a year in the Austrian league where several posters reported that he is excelled in, which if combined with his loan should be more than enough to justify bringing him back as #2.
Click to expand...

He's still lots of development to do. If he can get a loan to a top division side next year, even if it's in Spain or Italy, then he should do it for his benefit and ours. Best case he's ready to come back as challenger / no 2 the year after, worst case his value is higher when we flog him. Sitting around on the bench unsettled and unsettling our young no.1 is not the right move for next season unless he's stratospherically talented and guaranteed to win the no 1 jersey.
 
We should keep Vitek around next season. Overall, Lammens has been excellent. He doesn't strike me as someone who would easily lose their confidence. But there is the possibility that he has a few errors like the Liverpool equaliser and he might need dropping after a spell of poor form. Vitek would be a very good backup. With all the additional games next season, we need 2 players for every position, including goalkeeper.
 
Vitek has said he wants to play though. So while I like the idea of him as back up and getting the occasional chance, he will push for another loan as number 1.
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
We should keep Vitek around next season. Overall, Lammens has been excellent. He doesn't strike me as someone who would easily lose their confidence. But there is the possibility that he has a few errors like the Liverpool equaliser and he might need dropping after a spell of poor form. Vitek would be a very good backup. With all the additional games next season, we need 2 players for every position, including goalkeeper.
Click to expand...
 
Listening to TOTD Andy Mitten just said he doesn't think Vitek will come back to United and United might cash in. I know many will be surprised by that but I'm not. He might be the one good young player we could get a very decent fee for put in a buyback or sell on. Ideally I'd rather like us to loan him to a Prem side but that will be tough. I know many will say he can be the back up GK get cup mins but a young keeper thats never a good idea when in that position you need mins at that age.
 
Rooney1987 said:
Listening to TOTD Andy Mitten just said he doesn't think Vitek will come back to United and United might cash in. I know many will be surprised by that but I'm not. He might be the one good young player we could get a very decent fee for put in a buyback or sell on. Ideally I'd rather like us to loan him to a Prem side but that will be tough. I know many will say he can be the back up GK get cup mins but a young keeper thats never a good idea when in that position you need mins at that age.
Click to expand...
Yeah he won't want to be back up either. Get a good fee with a buy back and let him go and continue his career growth. If he gets to a point where he is on a better trajectory then Lammens then try and bring him back
 
Rooney1987 said:
Listening to TOTD Andy Mitten just said he doesn't think Vitek will come back to United and United might cash in. I know many will be surprised by that but I'm not. He might be the one good young player we could get a very decent fee for put in a buyback or sell on. Ideally I'd rather like us to loan him to a Prem side but that will be tough. I know many will say he can be the back up GK get cup mins but a young keeper thats never a good idea when in that position you need mins at that age.
Click to expand...

Not surprised in the least!

Saleable asset in a position he's likely backup for and won't want to be
 
Rooney1987 said:
Listening to TOTD Andy Mitten just said he doesn't think Vitek will come back to United and United might cash in. I know many will be surprised by that but I'm not. He might be the one good young player we could get a very decent fee for put in a buyback or sell on. Ideally I'd rather like us to loan him to a Prem side but that will be tough. I know many will say he can be the back up GK get cup mins but a young keeper thats never a good idea when in that position you need mins at that age.
Click to expand...

Pure profit :(

Makes sense to sell him as Lammens does look like the #1 for the foreseeable future (touch wood). We do need a better back up than Bayindir which should rather be an oldish PL experienced player. Keeping Vitek for the role would only lead to a Henderson like situation where his value depreciates as he sits on the bench for the most part.
 
Mitten didn't really sound like he was saying it based on any information he had but just got asked a question and said what his feelings was.
 
It makes sense to sell on a high. Too often we've kept players too long, sent them on poor loans and then ended up selling when they're worth little to nothing (or even releasing on a free). The ideal would be that he has another good loan but this time at a lower PL team like Hull or Ipswich or something. Then he has a great season and we sell him on for so much more. Problem with that, though, is his contract is up in 2028 and he's unlikely to sign a new deal if he thinks it'll scupper him playing first team football at a good level. So he might have another good loan but, with one year left on his contract, he'll lose a lot of value. The worst scenario would be to send him on a loan that's unsuccessful and then he barely goes for anything next season. So maybe now is best to sell him, regrettably.
 
Rooney1987 said:
Listening to TOTD Andy Mitten just said he doesn't think Vitek will come back to United and United might cash in. I know many will be surprised by that but I'm not. He might be the one good young player we could get a very decent fee for put in a buyback or sell on. Ideally I'd rather like us to loan him to a Prem side but that will be tough. I know many will say he can be the back up GK get cup mins but a young keeper thats never a good idea when in that position you need mins at that age.
Click to expand...

I've been assuming this will be the case. This is the expected direction of travel after we signed a young, first choice goalkeeper in Lammens. It's a nice idea having two young keepers push themselves and eventually work out which one is better for us long term but in practice that just doesn't happen like that. Nor should it - if they're both ready for first team football at a decent level then they need to be playing every week. Vitek clearly feels the same way as he recently said he wants to play every week. He's not going to develop by being given the occasional League Cup game, which is what would happen if he stayed here next season.

Get a good fee and stick a buyback clause in there.
 
He's been unfortunate with timing. Without Onana's implosion at Grimsby it's possible Vitek would be coming back now with a genuine opportunity to become first choice. Or if his loan opportunities had come a year earlier he might have been the back-up this season and earned his chance that way.

I think it's inevitable he'll be sold, the only question is if it's this summer or next.
 
I also think there’s a reasonable chance this might happen. If we sign a new left back, and given he only has a year left on his contract, could be the same for Amass too if he feels his path to the first team is blocked.
 
Think this is a sell with reasonable buyback clause. Lammens has massively exceeded expectations, so there's not enough game time for Vitek. I think if you loan him this season, you end up in the same position next season anyway, so may as well extract as much as possible for us.
 
Lash said:
Think this is a sell with reasonable buyback clause. Lammens has massively exceeded expectations, so there's not enough game time for Vitek. I think if you loan him this season, you end up in the same position next season anyway, so may as well extract as much as possible for us.
Click to expand...
I personally would loan him to a premiership club next season as if he continues to develop we should receive a large fee next summer. Doubt we’d get much north of £10 million this summer
 
Rasmus_9 said:
I personally would loan him to a premiership club next season as if he continues to develop we should receive a large fee next summer. Doubt we’d get much north of £10 million this summer
Click to expand...
He'll only have one year on his deal then, you'll more likely only get £10m then. I think we could get £15-20m. We sold Kovar for about £8m and he wasn't as good.
 
Lash said:
He'll only have one year on his deal then, you'll more likely only get £10m then. I think we could get £15-20m. We sold Kovar for about £8m and he wasn't as good.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, there is very little chance he would sign a contract extension. Sale with a buy back clause would be the best solution probably.
 
Give him a new improved contract, loan him to a PL team, then let’s reassess in the summer. I think he’s a huge talent, and who knows, what if Lammens drops a level, we might regret letting Vitek go. If Lammens keeps his level/improves then we can sell Vitek for a larger fee.

That is, if he wants to sign a new contract. If he doesn’t, then yeah, might as well sell him, his stock is high right now.
 
Rasmus_9 said:
I personally would loan him to a premiership club next season as if he continues to develop we should receive a large fee next summer. Doubt we’d get much north of £10 million this summer
Click to expand...
Lash said:
He'll only have one year on his deal then, you'll more likely only get £10m then. I think we could get £15-20m. We sold Kovar for about £8m and he wasn't as good.
Click to expand...
Donut said:
Give him a new improved contract, loan him to a PL team, then let’s reassess in the summer.
Click to expand...

As an academy player, this summer is also the last summer where his sale would have the extra benefit of being pure profit for PSR.

Sell with buyback would make more sense, assuming a reasonable offer.

I'm also unconvinced there's a PL club who would loan him and guarantee starts every week
 
Last edited:
AjaxCunian said:
You are probably right, there is very little chance he would sign a contract extension. Sale with a buy back clause would be the best solution probably.
Click to expand...
It's also not the end of the world selling him, there's plenty of examples now where it works out well for the selling club. Heck, even Alvaro went full circle via Benfica.
goldenboy said:
As an academy player, this summer is also the lasy summer where his sale would have the extra benefit of being pure profit for PSR.

Sell with buyback would make more sense, assuming a reasonable offer.

I'm also unconvinced there's a PL club who would loan him and guarantee starts every week
Click to expand...
Maybe Ipswich, that's it. Leeds are probably a good candidate for a sale, but I think we'll likely sell abroad.
 
Rooney1987 said:
Listening to TOTD Andy Mitten just said he doesn't think Vitek will come back to United and United might cash in. I know many will be surprised by that but I'm not. He might be the one good young player we could get a very decent fee for put in a buyback or sell on. Ideally I'd rather like us to loan him to a Prem side but that will be tough. I know many will say he can be the back up GK get cup mins but a young keeper thats never a good idea when in that position you need mins at that age.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have a problem with this. It's always better to have a goalkeeper getting out there and playing first-team football, especially after such a brilliant season in The Championship. We should just ensure we insert a decent sell-on or buy-back clause in any deal.
 
Rooney1987 said:
Listening to TOTD Andy Mitten just said he doesn't think Vitek will come back to United and United might cash in. I know many will be surprised by that but I'm not. He might be the one good young player we could get a very decent fee for put in a buyback or sell on. Ideally I'd rather like us to loan him to a Prem side but that will be tough. I know many will say he can be the back up GK get cup mins but a young keeper thats never a good idea when in that position you need mins at that age.
Click to expand...

Its what I expect too. Other than Amad where we signed him for a chunk of money, I'm quite sceptical of loans to the championship or lower now after Garner had 2 loans to the championship, was among the best players and we used that to get a decent sell fee for him instead of giving him a chance.

I personally want a strong number 2 to drive competition with Lammens and Vitek may be able to provide that, but so might selling him and buying someone else with more experience. Not sure what will happen or what would be the better case until we see what we do with Vitek and/or a new goalkeeper signing
 
I’d keep him this season and let him fight it out with Lammens. Having genuine competition will at worst push Senne to be even better and could even bring Vitek up to a level where he surpasses him. Who knows!
 
Adamsk7 said:
I’d keep him this season and let him fight it out with Lammens. Having genuine competition will at worst push Senne to be even better and could even bring Vitek up to a level where he surpasses him. Who knows!
Click to expand...

You assume the worst case is Lammens gets even better with serious competition but that's wrong.
Lammens could perform at the exact same level of this season and not improve - he's still not getting dropped in that scenario so you end up stunting the progression of a promising young keeper.

He's better off playing regularly and getting to a stage where we have enough evidence of his quality and have to make a tough decision about one of them.
 
Globule said:
You assume the worst case is Lammens gets even better with serious competition but that's wrong.
Lammens could perform at the exact same level of this season and not improve - he's still not getting dropped in that scenario so you end up stunting the progression of a promising young keeper.

He's better off playing regularly and getting to a stage where we have enough evidence of his quality and have to make a tough decision about one of them.
Click to expand...
See I don’t agree with that only because of the glaring fact that Bayindir isn’t good enough - not even as a second choice. Vitek could get opportunities in FA Cup, League Cup and a few Prem games plus working and training with a top premier league team and coaching staff.

I just don’t see the point of selling Bayindir and buying someone else when we already have someone perfectly good enough to fill that role. We’ve had some great number 2 goalies in our time.

Being on the bench for us will always stunt progression but we can’t let every promising youngster just continue to be loaned out until we eventually sell them - having control of their development in house is more positive than many on here make out.
 
Lash said:
It's also not the end of the world selling him, there's plenty of examples now where it works out well for the selling club. Heck, even Alvaro went full circle via Benfica.

Maybe Ipswich, that's it. Leeds are probably a good candidate for a sale, but I think we'll likely sell abroad.
Click to expand...

Coventry need a keeper I think, assuming Brighton want to bring their lad back from loan which I think they might.

Not sure why mind unless Verbruggen gets sold maybe?

Edit: just looked and Rushworth is actually older than Verbruggen and has been bouncing around on loan for years by the looks of things. Not that that makes him a bad player of course, didn't do Heaton any harm for example. But if they actually rate him then it seems like Brighton would be hoping for a good world cup from Verbruggen and a nice bid comes in and you tag him out for Rushworth. If the bid doesn't materialise then if I were Brighton I'd perhaps send Rushworth back to Coventry and see what happens next year.
 
Last edited:
Chelsea would have sold this fella for £40m easily. The amount of money they get from no names surprises me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.