Full Name: Radek Vítek
Date of Birth: Oct 24, 2003
Nationality: Czech Republic
Height: 198cm
Squad Number: 40
Position: Goalkeeper
Foot: Right
Player Agent: Sport Invest
Contract expires: Jun 30, 2028
Radek Vítek | 2026/27 Performances
- Thread starter MyOnlySolskjaer
- Start date
Full Name: Radek Vítek
Date of Birth: Oct 24, 2003
Nationality: Czech Republic
Height: 198cm
Squad Number: 40
Position: Goalkeeper
Foot: Right
Player Agent: Sport Invest
Contract expires: Jun 30, 2028
Someone should remind this guy he plays professional football at Manchester United
Looks like he's been told he's not going to be the number 1 keeper and that's what he obviously wants. Think that's fair enough on his part honestly, hopefully we get a full sale at a decent price and he goes on to have good career else where.
Signing Lammens and Darlow might have given that away
He probably saw Darlow's haircut and threw in the towel
Can't blame him!
It's an unfortunate situation for him. Even if we used him as backup keeper, he needs gametime. He won't get that unless he displaces Lammens, which is a long shot. So selling him (maybe with a buyback or something) just makes sense
The only plausible reason I can think of him leaving is he actually wants to leave and play consistently for a club where can start immediately. He's more than good enough to be our #2 and possibly even push Lammens a bit right now. Sadly, with Darlow here, it looks like he will be moved on before end of summer.
It makes sense for the club to sell him from a financial point of view too. We've held on to players for too long in the past and their valuations tank, while other top clubs have managed to get good fees out of these young players they don't have any immediate plans for.
Throw in a decent sell-on and we'll be fine.
Not sure about that. We kept Garner a while and got a decent fee at the time and Chelsea sold off Santos after a year with the first team for a lot of money. If we're willing to put him on the pitch keeping him another season even if we then sell him could easily see a bigger deal
But we're not going to play him over Lammens, and likely not over Darlow who we just signed
We sold Garner after a series of loans where he did reasonably well. That was an example of a time where we sold well. If we had kept him in the squad for a year with limited playing opportunities, his value would've dropped and it would've been harder to sell him.
Dean Henderson is the best parallel we can make when it comes to Vitek's situation. We attempted to keep him because we thought he might be good enough for us one day, it didn't materialise that way and we had to send him back on loan to Forest to push his valuation back up. If players don't play, their values depreciate. Even then, we probably still could've got more for him if we just sold him immediately following his Sheffield United loan a couple of years earlier.
Do they though? Santos played only as a backup we bought him for a lot of money. Garner yeah we never gave him a chance outside of preseason and was sold off of doing well in successive loan spells in the championship. So either way a loan or keeping him as a backup that just plays as a backup and rotation could lead to increased value than selling him now.
There is nothing wrong with what he said and this situation is what any reasonable observer would have seen coming since we bought Lammens. It's fine. We find him a good club, insert a buy back clause if possible, and wish him well. The idea of him being our #2 was always fanciful and would have done his development no favors at all.
Santos made 43 appearances for Chelsea last season (plus 4 appearances in the Club World Cup) off the back of a successful loan spell at Strasbourg, that doesn't really seem relevant to the point I made. Chelsea are also just better sellers than we are.
Goalkeepers don't get rotational minutes in the same way as outfield players, they play or they don't. Vitek is a year younger than Lammens so barring a freak injury to the first choice goalkeeper, he won't get the game time he needs by staying here. If we want to loan him out again, fine, but it should be with the aim of eventually selling him or Lammens. It would be stupid to attempt to keep both.
They play in different competitions. Usually you have a premier league goalekeeper and a lot of the european games have a different one. Same with the cups. If Vitek played 1k mins from those games (about 11 full 90 minute matches) I think we'd be in a better position either way, whether we keep him because hes doing decently or sell him for a higher fee because hes doing decently. To add to it I think Vitek in particular is worth holding onto instead of selling right now because he's a big goalkeeper and there will be certain managers who demand that from their new signing. I think after establishing that he can play at a higher level than the championship he would have a lot more interest and if we decide to keep him he may be looking like someone who can truly challenge Lammens.
Yes if Vitek does well eventually one of them would be sold. But itll be better to sell Vitek if hes run Lammens close for a season than now. Regardless I just think in general its much better to give players at least 1 season and a chance in the first team, I'd almost guarantee it for any young player who goes to the championship and does well. Its better than not giving them the chance and then they turn out to be a player you've been looking to sign a year or two after you got rid of them.
Vitek isn't going to get the number one shirt for us based off a few cup appearances. Dean Henderson is proof of what happens when you try to do that, and that was when he was competing against a much older goalkeeper who we knew would need phasing out eventually.
The conditions Vitek would need to make it as number one here would be a successful loan in a top league or a move away with a buyback, with Lammens probably needing to have a bit of a nightmare in the interim. It looks like he has the sense to know this, hence he's looking for a move away. Likewise, the club have signed Darlow so don't look like they're going to stand in his way either. I'm glad we're being run more sensibly than we were a few years ago.
Weve always had young players emerge competing with older more experienced players. Its part of the club
He's been on loan for ages. My hope was that two previous season long loans in different environments would've resulted in us brining him back as our #2, but right now that doesn't look to be the case - especially with Altay still technically on the books.
Someone should look at the case and think properly. We have potentially a top level keeper and selling him early now should be considered really hasty decision. If the price is some 15m for sucha young keeper who can for sure get a very good loan with more exposure to improve his price even more.
His value will not go down unless some remarkable breakdown. And we have more time to asses Lammens. Before this season Belgian was in a Belgian league got incredibly lucky to get a shot and took his chance, but it doesnt mean he is guaranteed to improve and be the no1. I can still see some deficiencies in his athleticism, unlike Vitek who is a super confident type of keeper too, a dominant one. Lemmens can start making errors under pressure and what we are left with is Darlow and need to buy a starting keeper soon, which can be a 40+m easily..
So make Vitek sign an improved contract, let him go on loan and make a statement season, if he shows the potential like last year and improve, we can reasses the situation with him, or let him go for a decent money. Hes got nothing to lose. He's much better than Kovar.
His value will not go down unless some remarkable breakdown. And we have more time to asses Lammens. Before this season Belgian was in a Belgian league got incredibly lucky to get a shot and took his chance, but it doesnt mean he is guaranteed to improve and be the no1. I can still see some deficiencies in his athleticism, unlike Vitek who is a super confident type of keeper too, a dominant one. Lemmens can start making errors under pressure and what we are left with is Darlow and need to buy a starting keeper soon, which can be a 40+m easily..
So make Vitek sign an improved contract, let him go on loan and make a statement season, if he shows the potential like last year and improve, we can reasses the situation with him, or let him go for a decent money. Hes got nothing to lose. He's much better than Kovar.
I think we'll sell him too. But I wouldnt. Even if he started as #3 with just a few cup games he could still impress in training or Lammens might have a not very good spell. Young players always need to break through beyond good players. Its usually harder for a goalkeeper but not impossible
As a club, we should be doing all we can to keep him.
But we need to think of the player too, and as a player he'd probably want to move:
- chance of replacing Lammens is incredibly slim. He'd have limited chance to impress, and as a 2nd keeper any blunders will be so much worse.
- he's still young, and playing every week will definitely develop him more no matter how many cup games he plays. If he's outright 1st keeper at a smaller club, he'd be able to develop with less pressure and more forgiving circumstances. If he does well for a few years, he's still young enough to earn a move to a huge club anyway.
- as for a loan, why would he prefer that to a more stable and secure move to be a guaranteed no1 at a relatively good club (he's at least moving to a championship/lower prem level club)
Frankly, in his shoes, would anyone choose to stay? It's highly likely staying as a 2nd will only hinder his career, since if he plays well enough for a smaller club, he'd still get his big move and play at a top club for 10+ years. If it doesn't work out, he's still getting valuable playing time to maximise his potential.
In this case, it's better to just part ways amicably, try to get as much cash as we can, and wish him the best. (buy-back clause if possible)
But we need to think of the player too, and as a player he'd probably want to move:
- chance of replacing Lammens is incredibly slim. He'd have limited chance to impress, and as a 2nd keeper any blunders will be so much worse.
- he's still young, and playing every week will definitely develop him more no matter how many cup games he plays. If he's outright 1st keeper at a smaller club, he'd be able to develop with less pressure and more forgiving circumstances. If he does well for a few years, he's still young enough to earn a move to a huge club anyway.
- as for a loan, why would he prefer that to a more stable and secure move to be a guaranteed no1 at a relatively good club (he's at least moving to a championship/lower prem level club)
Frankly, in his shoes, would anyone choose to stay? It's highly likely staying as a 2nd will only hinder his career, since if he plays well enough for a smaller club, he'd still get his big move and play at a top club for 10+ years. If it doesn't work out, he's still getting valuable playing time to maximise his potential.
In this case, it's better to just part ways amicably, try to get as much cash as we can, and wish him the best. (buy-back clause if possible)
I think the renewal of Heaton and signing of Darlow means that he’ll either be sold or loaned for this season. Could see us keeping Altay as well unless someone comes in for him, but I don’t think he has many suitors.
Looks like the word is he’s joining Middlesbrough with a buyback clause.
Not ideal but if it's a good move for him with some sort of fee and a buyback then it's at least getting some money in and doing right by a promising young keeper.
£9m with sell on fee is my guess
United: We've set his price at £15 million.
Boro: We'll offer £4.50p and a box of Maltesers.
United: Deal! (still got it).
Boro: We'll offer £4.50p and a box of Maltesers.
United: Deal! (still got it).
Coventry have just signed the best keeper in the Championship last season for £22.5m.
So I'd say we will get £4.5m for Vitek..
So I'd say we will get £4.5m for Vitek..
Apparently there is a buy back clause.
We never use these
We never use these
And a large sell on % I think. The record for an incoming Championship GK is less than £8m so they'll do well to get that.
Not a big fan of this, if we loaned him and he has a decent season in the pl it feels like he could be worth 40m in this market
Who was loaning him in the PL?
Nor am I, but the writing was on the wall once we signed Darlow. At least we have a buy back clause.
Isn’t he quite good? Like probably top level Champo/maybe low level PL? Ideally we’d get a bit more but we are naff at selling
I doubt we could have got a Prem loan for him unless Ipswich or Hull need a keeper.
My preference would've been to look for a Bundesliga loan for him but maybe we need the money or the club don't rate him as highly as I do.
My preference would've been to look for a Bundesliga loan for him but maybe we need the money or the club don't rate him as highly as I do.
What do you think the highest fee paid for a GK by a championship club is? I might be wrong, but it's probably Burnley signing Trafford for £15m.
We might have gotten something like that if Vitek was English, but he's not. We'll be lucky if we get £10m.
Nobody, not to be first choice
Coventry are now a PL club
Just unfortunate timing really with Lammens coming in and doing so well. Nothing else the club can do but sell with clauses.
It doesn’t sound like the worst deal ever depending on the value of the buy back.
Imagine lammens doesn’t kick on, vitek tears it up and we buy him back for 25m after a couple of years.
He gets the development and we get a great keeper at a good price.
If vitek turns out not to be all that we’ve still banked 10m
Win win
Imagine lammens doesn’t kick on, vitek tears it up and we buy him back for 25m after a couple of years.
He gets the development and we get a great keeper at a good price.
If vitek turns out not to be all that we’ve still banked 10m
Win win
Which PL club was taking him on loan/who had a goalie gap?
Would also mean he’d be 7 months from discussing a free (by end of loan)