In the universe where it’s weird to slate someone immediately after they do something good. Not good, very very good. His tactics worked tonight. BVB are probably second or third fave to win the cup. Rangers just beat them away. It would be like following the Inter 1-0 against Barca being a little snark and saying ‘meeeeeh Jose is a cowardly manager’.I figured some people would be interested in knowing what type of manager he is.
Should I wait 'till he loses a game before I give my opinion? My bad, guess I was a week too late and should have posted after the Celtic loss
In what universe does a single result disprove the fact that he's boring and cowardly?
Feel free to share your in depth analysis on Gio's managerial style.
16
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 1
- Goals
- 0
- Assists
- 0
- Yellow cards
- 0
- Status
It's not, because most on here are familiar with Moe and aren't with Gio.
I just came into the thread, read a few posts and wanted to provide some context on what people can expect from Amad's new manager, which is risk averse and boring decisions and style. That's it.
I didn't watch the game, nor should I have to revise my opinion on him based on his latest result.
Great post.
If nobody will say we spent 20+20m on Amad, it’s probably because we haven’t spent 20+20m on him.
Would be interesting to see what our famous United scouts report on him. Ole never gave him a proper chance, just like DVB. So logically he's not by Ole. I doubt he was found by Glazers or Ed.
We need to revamp our scouting system or formula. Some heads need to roll. Keeping them, it will be the same shit again like the last 9 yrs post Fergie.
Last edited:
Fairly soon, it will be 40+40 if he struggles further. The Inverse Fee Principle on the Caf.
Two years down the road if he does well, it will be 2+2. But if he flops it will be 50+50 by then.
Amad was considered a top 10 best academy kid out there in the world when we got him. Its not like he was some Bebe buy.
So what have we spent on him then? By all accounts it's €40m after add ons. €25m before add ons. You seriously going to be nitpicky about me writing 20 + 20 instead of 25 + 15?
Fairly soon, it will be 40+40 if he struggles further. The Inverse Fee Principle on the Caf.
Two years down the road if he does well, it will be 2+2. But if he flops it will be 50+50 by then.
Still shit scouting, by evidence so far. Spending a fortune for a player which the manager had no use.
So what have we spent on him then? By all accounts it's €40m after add ons. €25m before add ons. You seriously going to be nitpicky about me writing 20 + 20 instead of 25 + 15?
https://www.transfermarkt.com/amad-diallo/profil/spieler/536835
He is only 19. A year was wasted due to injuries and his passport/visa issues. He needs to work his way into match rhythm. The fact that he doesn't start two matches in a row isn't anything -- he has to learn to play within the team structure and passages of play. And without any pre-season training at Rangers, he is jumping don't a moving train.
So what have we spent on him then? By all accounts it's €40m after add ons. €25m before add ons. You seriously going to be nitpicky about me writing 20 + 20 instead of 25 + 15?
Have spent - today - after add ons
Is probably the correct timeline.
Most sources I’ve seen, operate with €21 or €21.5, £18 or £18.7 as what we have spent. Then theres Romano, who I’ve seen quated for three different versions, so I’m inclined to not believe all of them.
I’m willing to bet pretty much on that his scandalously few minutes for a trophyless United will have acrued not a penny of add-ons so far, and for those who worry that Amad will be a dud whose level is a Scottish bench, I think it’s fair to say our lay out for him in that case will always remain around the 20m mark. Personally I will be surprised if we sell him on for less than what we bought him for, at least any year soon.
You can’t scold your cake and pay for it too - in this case.
They only put what's been paid currently, which is the upfront fees, not the add ons yet.
Nitpicking. Sure we've only paid 20m or whatever the upfront fee was and not the add ons yet, but the add ons do exist... My point is that we agreed to a 40m combined deal which was just a crazy amount of money for someone so unproven and far away. Like even just the 20m or so with no add ons would've been pretty aggressive. The add ons make it so that the only possible way it's a "good signing" is that he becomes worth well above a 50m player. It's just a really expensive, high risk transfer that won't pay off for years, at a time we had tons of gaps.
One moment people are shouting at why we don't buy these young random foreign players - the next they are shouting at us signing exactly that.
People never realise that the price of the players we buy is hardly reliant on the player - the prices go up a significantly high level as soon as it becomes apparent that we are the club that is interested.
This is why the media put our name to every transfer possible. We go about shouting that we are the biggest and richest club in the world - ultimately that has consequences.
We see it with every transfer we do - a good 30-40% increase in transfer fee because of who buys the player rather than the player itself.
This is why I never care about the money spent on players and don't cry about it. If we keep talking like we are the biggest/richest club in the world, then that will have its consequences.
People never realise that the price of the players we buy is hardly reliant on the player - the prices go up a significantly high level as soon as it becomes apparent that we are the club that is interested.
This is why the media put our name to every transfer possible. We go about shouting that we are the biggest and richest club in the world - ultimately that has consequences.
We see it with every transfer we do - a good 30-40% increase in transfer fee because of who buys the player rather than the player itself.
This is why I never care about the money spent on players and don't cry about it. If we keep talking like we are the biggest/richest club in the world, then that will have its consequences.
If he performs then the add-ons won't really matter. Long way to go to pass any judgement on a 19y.o. He needs to buck up at Rangers and learn to play in a men's environment. Jimmy Garner struggled to impose himself at Watford and initially at Forrest. And yet was some high potential kid coming out of the Academy.
Player development isn't linear esp at 19.
Back in the day Diallo would've cost us 10 million + add ons.
Sometimes people need to count inflation before bashing on his fee.
Sometimes people need to count inflation before bashing on his fee.
It's not so much inflation, it's just being smart. City buying this random Brazilian starlet for 6m. Arsenal signed Martinelli for 6m. And so on. There's countless examples of young high potential players for cheap when they have 0 experience. That was the idea with Amad.
My issue with the transfer is that the price we paid, at that level of experience, with that amount of risk, and knowing how far away he was/is from actual first team level.... He literally has to become a world class player to be worth it at those prices. Young players always have risk. When they have 0 exposure to professional football, that's usually reflected in the price... We took a punt on Amad, but essentially paid the price as if he's a guarantee success. It's just an incredibly stupid piece of business and it's pure luck if it works out. Spending that amount during the COVID transfer window on virtually a 5 year project with 0 first team exposure and then adding in add ons that make barely worth it if he hits anyway... Crazy.
This isn't me trying to bash Amad. He didn't pick his situation, and he has talent, so we'll see how he turns out. But the amount we spent on a random youth player essentially makes you expect he's a guaranteed future top player, but when you watch him that's not really the case. You mention Garner... We didn't pay 20m and then add in 20m in add ons in case he becomes first team level for him. We did that with Amad and yet he has all of the risk of any other youth players at the club, like what Angel Gomes was.
Ya'll hyped up the kid too much even though he hadn't played men's football and asking about why doesn't he start for us. With his small stature I am thinking he might go the Lingard route and be ready when he is 22/23. He needs time and patience.
Vinicius Junior costs €46 million at 18y.o and there was no guarantee that he could make it. He is only kicking on in his 5th year after his transfer. How much is he worth now? Ok he had some 1st team experience at Flamenco, a team where Andreas Pereira is rocking it now!!!
One is three transfers will bust. Thats the reality of the game.
Madrid actually Bought Vinicius at 16 years old (effective at 18) for a even bigger fee than what we paid for Amad according to reports. Vinicius was being roundly criticised at the age of 19/20 by many fans, including some on this forum.
We've paid about £20m upfront for him according to reports and transfers are normally paid in yearly instalments on the continent. So we're probably paying Atalanta around €7m a year for the upfront fee and the add ons are effective depending on player progression at first team level.
What actually would've been a waste is if we caved into the reported demands of Dortmund who were said to want €120m (£108m) for Jadon Sancho at the time. We put that deal on the back burner and signed Pellistri and Amad, which were sensible moves with a mid to long-term term mindset. And then signed Sancho a year later for a reported £73m, saving around £35m (depending on who you believe) on a player that is finally showing glimpses of his potential after a bedding in period. And what was even more perplexing was that it was clear to me at least that Sancho was happier playing from the left, but according to reports Solskjaer wanted to sign him for the right wing forward role. And now it's been confirmed by both Solskjaer and Rangnick that Sancho prefers the left.
No, I don’t think it’s nitpicking. If you think 20m is a too much money, then the difference between 20m and 40m is not nitpicking by the very same definition. We’ve spent about 21m, not 40m. We won’t spend 40m if he’s not a big success.
No, I don’t think it’s very high risk. 20m is twice the amount of a Hannibal Mejbri, for a guy who is rated among the best in the world for his age. It’s about what Alexander Sørloth left Crystal Palace for in the same window, and what Everton paid for Docoure. The likelihood that Amad will be sold for less than that is not that big.
The fact that there are 20m attached to different hypothetical add ons is the very definition of lowering the risk. Does it however, mean that there is low reward? Maybe, but then again, if he develops in line with his talent, and becomes one of the 15th best players in the world (he was dubbed the 15th best talent itw by 4-4-2 last week), 40m will be seen as a bargain.
Just scored 4 goals v Dortmund away
Not to say he won't become a good player - time is still definitely on his side - but this does rather answer some of the more vocal posters who were up in arms about him not starting at united...
Ask the question why the hell did we waste so much money on him.
The guy was bought based on his potential. His potential has be stunted immediately by our fuking obscene way of blooding and loaning youth. We sign players with no plan whatsoever for their development. The fact we were stretching for a good loan for him says it all. Pellistri, VDB, full of potential- no plan. Tuanzebe in nearly 25 and we still don’t know what the fuk to do with him. Gave Williams a bumper contract and kept him on the bench for a season...no young player looking to develop should come anywhere near the club. Bellingham knee the craic and he wouldn’t be half as far along his development had he of joined Utd instead of Dortmund.
I guess the club would say that we paid it for potential? Though agreed, it's a lot for that alone! It just surprised me when posters were clamouring for him to start without really having anything to base it on.
Crazy £40m Donny £35m Amad, could have bought a very handy midfielder. I don’t think either have amounted to 20 games between them.
What's strange is that Dortmund predominately played him on the RW with the occasional switching to the left. But I suspect Ole wanted the 'wingers' and striker to be adaptable and switch constantly ala -- Rooney, Ronaldo & Tevez.
I actually mentioned this a while ago but was berated on here. Also, the signing came when we had way more pressing matters in our team so him and Pellistri signings made no sense. City who done something similar with Kayky and more recently Alvarez can afford to buy young players since their aren't many players in world football that can join their squad but when Pep was squad building he wasn't spunking 30 odd million on an 18 year old with 2 first team apps in his career.
People are mentioning Vinicius and Rodrygo, Madrid just came off 3 UCLs in a row for Gods sake. We had gaping holes in CB, RW, CM and had no CF and we signed Pellistri and Amad, If Madrid and City had a desperate need for those players they wouldn't have signed 16-19 year olds with no first team experience.
Also, we used him for a total of like 5-6 games since we've brought him and only now sent him out on load, another confusing and terrible decision.
Last edited:
Which is fine if you have some sort of plan to play and develop him, otherwise he should be loaned straight out at a level where he'll actually play (Rangers isn't it). He was never going to be ready for PL football with almost zero experience of the senior game.
To be fair the Feyenoord move falling through due to injury was a blow.
You're ignoring the fact he plays in a position we could've used him in.
Also his talent is really obvious.
He's just been poorly managed.
Got murdered against Celtic a few weeks ago.
Is his talent really obvious though? Any time I’ve watched him I’ve never seen anything to suggest he will be a top player. Elanga looks to have more talent..
Apparently he spent most of last season injured. Which is a big set back for a young player’s development. It also scuppered the first choice loan move. From what little I’ve seen of him he does seem like a potentially very special player. So the money could still look well spent in a year or two. With the absolute fecking clown show our club has become its hard not to be negative about absolutely everything but there are good reasons to not write this transfer off just yet.
Either you’re a terrible judge of talent or you haven’t watched him play for our reserves. For the first team he’s mainly only showing glimpses but in some U23 games he’s looked like he could be the real deal.
I’m not a terrible judge of talent, Adnan Januzaj springs to mind and he looked better than Amad.
Why do we have one of the highest nets spends in football, one of the higehigheste bills in football and yet have a dysfunctional squad that wouldnt be any worst if you gave the money to a school kid playing fantasy football?
Transfers such as this are why it is so worrying that we didnt hire a Director of Football from outside the club who had experience with squad building.
Have you watched Diallo play for the U23s? Because making such a definitive judgement based on limited first team cameos would be stupid.
- Status