Erling Haaland | Dortmund player

[vanderpants]

Good on him, i hope he goes onto become the best striker in Europe

 

[Classical Mechanic]

He made the right move for him and his agents. He gets to play at a better level than Austria in a country where defences give loads of space. He’ll fill his boots and be able to leave for massive money on that clause. The low fee will enable him to get massive wages and massive fees for his dad and Raiola. The deal would have never worked for United because it would have meant accepting status as a stepping stone club or getting bent over a barrel by Raiola and his dad when the clause kicked in.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

He made the right move for him and his agents. He gets to play at a better level than Austria in a country where defences give loads of space. He’ll fill his boots and be able to leave for massive money on that clause. The low fee will enable him to get massive wages and massive fees for his dad and Raiola. The deal would have never worked for United because it would have meant accepting status as a stepping stone club or getting bent over a barrel by Raiola and his dad when the clause kicked in.

Exactly. There's a reason both Juve and United backed off, the Dortmund deal was almost too good to be true for all parties. Dortmund will probably still be aggrieved in 2 years if he carries on like this but they are a selling club and they desperately need a top striker, so for 20€m it's a deal that they understandably broke their "no clause" policy for.

 

[izec]

Yeah, nothing to see here. Surprised so many cry over this deal. With that low release clause, no bigger club was going for him. We werent blind and didnt see his talent, Raiola and them wanting a release clause made us back off. For now that is bitter, but in 2 years, we would be crying on here if we bought him and he was on the verge of leaving for that fee if we werent winning things by then, which is likely.

 

[iKeano]

If Haaland had gone elsewhere and failed miserably, he wouldn’t be so highly rated.

BC (before Cardiff), Ole was very highly rated as a potential top manager, quite a few clubs wanted him.

"BC" was 6 years ago. A lot can change in 6 years, Man Utd are testament to this.

Good on Haaland, incompetent Ed & Olé hopping on a plane at the 11th hour thinking they're Fergie swooping in for Berbatov back in the day Vs Dortmund watching him in the flesh 28+ times, proper scouting, proper ambition, proper structure, proper club.

Hat trick on a debut, I recall someone else pulling off that feat and going on to do alright for himself at a certain club....

 

[ivaldo]

He made the right move for him and his agents. He gets to play at a better level than Austria in a country where defences give loads of space. He’ll fill his boots and be able to leave for massive money on that clause. The low fee will enable him to get massive wages and massive fees for his dad and Raiola. The deal would have never worked for United because it would have meant accepting status as a stepping stone club or getting bent over a barrel by Raiola and his dad when the clause kicked in.

This.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

"BC" was 6 years ago. A lot can change in 6 years, Man Utd are testament to this.

I have no idea what that has to do with my post, it makes zero sense if you read what I was replying to.

 

[Alabaster Codify7]

We missed out bigtime here. Kid is an absolute goal machine.

 

[Zehner]

Yeah, nothing to see here. Surprised so many cry over this deal. With that low release clause, no bigger club was going for him. We werent blind and didnt see his talent, Raiola and them wanting a release clause made us back off. For now that is bitter, but in 2 years, we would be crying on here if we bought him and he was on the verge of leaving for that fee if we werent winning things by then, which is likely.

Just out of curiosity, why should is it wiser for bigger clubs to not accept that deal in your opinion?

Personally, I think United would've been better of if they had accepted Haaland's conditions and I don't really see the disadvantages associated with it to be honest.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

I don’t think anyone but his old manager would’ve, that’s my point, we were in a unique position with Ole knowing how talented this lad was.

Ah so Norway is the footballing version of Wakanda, only a Norwegian can see a talented Norwegian footballer.

Don’t know why any clubs bother with scouting there then.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Ah so Norway is the footballing version of Wakanda, only a Norwegian can see a talented Norwegian footballer.

Stop acting the moron. No-one is better placed, no scout, or other manager of another club, even the manager of Rosenborg than a players actual fecking manager.

If you want to argue against that point, I give up man, feck me.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

Stop acting the moron. No-one is better placed, no scout, or other manager of another club, even the manager of Rosenborg than a players actual fecking manager.

If you want to argue against that point, I give up man, feck me.

Depends on the manager, not every manager is the best at spotting talent in a football club. Ask Jose about that.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Depends on the manager, not every manager is the best at spotting talent in a football club. Ask Jose about that.

I don't know the guy so can't.

He bought Salah though because of the talent and desperately wanted KDB to stay, he rated them massively, and still, they are rightfully remembered as the biggest shittest mistakes in his career.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

I don't know the guy so can't.

He bought Salah though because of the talent and desperately wanted KDB to stay, he rated them massively, and still, they are rightfully remembered as the biggest shittest mistakes in his career.

Buying someone then not playing them to the point where he loses the player is not good management if indeed he was instrumental in signing Salah while he was at Chelsea, who were a bit of a conveyor belt of young players coming in and going straight on loan for a while there usually to be sold for a profit.

 

[hasanejaz88]

It's one game guys and, though the point about the Bundesliga being a glorified Dutch League is ridiculous, the defending from Augusburg for some of the goals was indeed poor.

Batshuayi and Paco both had amazing starts as well but then cooled off later on. Oppositions will get adjusted to how Dortmund play with Haaland and then we can see how effective he can be in the long run. Goals at the start won't indicate how great he will be in the future.

 

[izec]

Just out of curiosity, why should is it wiser for bigger clubs to not accept that deal in your opinion?

Personally, I think United would've been better of if they had accepted Haaland's conditions and I don't really see the disadvantages associated with it to be honest.

Depends. Both positive and negative aspects. Maybe he chose Dortmund above us, could be possible as well. We just said it to save face, but unlikely for me.

I think United doesnt like to be seen as a stepping stone and wants to have players for the long term, or at least as long as the club wants to keep them. They arent a selling club. It doesnt feel right to have a player with a low clause, i dont think we have ever done that. You make yourself vulnerable to future contract negotiations. Bayern would also never do that, Dortmund used it to catch up, which is fine, since they arent seen as the pinnacle. But at some point if they keep growing, they wont be doing it either in a decade or two (at least not that low, but an unrealistic number).

While we are desperate, the short term gain would be outweighted in a few years once someone activates it. Especially if he turned out a world beater here, people would go crazy. There is obviously a trade off and i prefer the solution of not buying him than buying him on the terms Dortmund got him. Others will disagree, but you cant please everyone.

The big clubs in form dont need a player like him with a clause, Barca or Real would never accept it, except if it was a ridiculous sum that no one will pay anyway (which they regularly do). While United arent a big club on the pitch, we still like to feel one off it. I just think it is likely a better PL rival could buy him on the cheap and that would be a first for us, so i see it as a no go.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Personally, I think United would've been better of if they had accepted Haaland's conditions and I don't really see the disadvantages associated with it to be honest.

You don't see the disadvantages of United developing him over 2 years to one of the top strikers in the World, only for City or Liverpool to just say "nice one lads, we'll have him for peanuts" whilst United can do nothing about it?

That's not even considering the precedent is would set.

 

[11101]

Like watching the rebirth of Rooney.

 

[Zehner]

Depends. Both positive and negative aspects. Maybe he chose Dortmund above us, could be possible as well. We just said it to save face, but unlikely for me.

I think United doesnt like to be seen as a stepping stone and wants to have players for the long term, or at least as long as the club wants to keep them. They arent a selling club. It doesnt feel right to have a player with a low clause, i dont think we have ever done that. You make yourself vulnerable to future contract negotiations. Bayern would also never do that, Dortmund used it to catch up, which is fine, since they arent seen as the pinnacle. But at some point if they keep growing, they wont be doing it either in a decade or two (at least not that low, but an unrealistic number).

While we are desperate, the short term gain would be outweighted in a few years once someone activates it. Especially if he turned out a world beater here, people would go crazy. There is obviously a trade off and i prefer the solution of not buying him than buying him on the terms Dortmund got him. Others will disagree, but you cant please everyone.

The big clubs in form dont need a player like him with a clause, Barca or Real would never accept it, except if it was a ridiculous sum that no one will pay anyway (which they regularly do). While United arent a big club on the pitch, we still like to feel one off it. I just think it is likely a better PL rival could buy him on the cheap and that would be a first for us, so i see it as a no go.

You don't see the disadvantages of United developing him over 2 years to one of the top strikers in the World, only for City or Liverpool to just say "nice one lads, we'll have him for peanuts" whilst United can do nothing about it?

That's not even considering the precedent is would set.

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.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Buying someone then not playing them to the point where he loses the player is not good management if indeed he was instrumental in signing Salah while he was at Chelsea, who were a bit of a conveyor belt of young players coming in and going straight on loan for a while there usually to be sold for a profit.

Who said it was good management? I literally just said it was one of the biggest shittest mistakes of his career man! What on Earth are you arguing here?

As for Maureen, I'm not just making stuff up. From the horses mouth.

Mourinho spoke to beIN Sports (h/t Goal) and discussed the Salah situation, saying the reason he didn't succeed at Stamford Bridge was his lack of patience and his struggles to adapt to a new environment:

"For a start people try to identify me as the coach that sold Salah. I am the coach that bought Salah. It’s completely the wrong idea.


"I played against Basel in the Champions League. Salah was a kid at Basel. When I play against a certain team I analyse a team and players for quite a long time.

"And I fell in love with that kid. I bought the kid.

"I pushed the club to buy him and at the time we already had fantastic attacking players—Hazard, Willian, we had top talent there. But I told them to buy that kid. He was more a winger coming inside than a striker.

"He was just a lost kid in London. He was a lost kid in a new world.

"We wanted to work him, to become better and better and better. But he was more of the idea of wanting to play and not wait.

"So we decided to put him on loan, in a culture I knew well. Italy. Tactical football. Physical football. A good place to play."

He went on to add the Blues made the decision to sell Salah, not him.

Right, now we're off track anyway, you're just randomly making up arguments and I don't even know what about any longer. My original point still stands, I'm surprised Ole being his manager at Molde didn't make it prio number 1 in the Summer.

 

[Godfather]

You don't see the disadvantages of United developing him over 2 years to one of the top strikers in the World, only for City or Liverpool to just say "nice one lads, we'll have him for peanuts" whilst United can do nothing about it?

That's not even considering the precedent is would set.

I agree with that. On the other hand if we give him a 4 year contract he could just run it down and decide to go to these clubs for free as well. So all this talk about a transfer clause in his contract is a bit overblown.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

For me, your arguments ultimately come down to pride and pride is generally speaking a bad advisor when doing business.

Nothing to do with pride, United are building for the long term, that much is obvious. In that situation it's a stupid decision to build up a player who'll be free to feck off for peanuts in 2 years, and yes, it sets a precedent for future players and agents to demand similar, before you know if you're a selling club like Dortmund.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I agree with that. On the other hand if we give him a 4 year contract he could just run it down and decide to go to these clubs for free as well. So all this talk about a transfer clause in his contract is a bit overblown.

We'd give him a 5 year deal at that age and so what if he left for free then ? If he leaves for free in 5 years, that is a long long time away, he'd be part of the team for half a decade. 2 years is nothing, you can't plan for the future with a player in that situation.

 

[Godfather]

We'd give him a 5 year deal at that age and so what if he left for free then ? If he leaves for free in 5 years, that is a long long time away, he'd be part of the team for half a decade. 2 years is nothing, you can't plan for the future with a player in that situation.

How much is the supposed clause? I'm really not sure on that. I agree that it's not ideal at all but who says he'd feck off the moment someone would pay the clause. At least you'd get some years out of one of the best talents around. But anyway maybe we'll get our act together in the next couple of years (big chance) and become a more attractive option again so we can come back in for him.

 

[ghaliboy]

Reminds me of a quick and wiry early Huntelaar.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

How much is the supposed clause? I'm really not sure on that. I agree that it's not ideal at all but who says he'd feck off the moment someone would pay the clause. At least you'd get some years out of one of the best talents around. But anyway maybe we'll get our act together in the next couple of years (big chance) and become a more attractive option again so we can come back in for him.

It’s not supposed and it’s 60m euros.

It’s a daft deal for anyone but a club like Dortmund where it’s a brilliant deal. Plus, Red Bull > Dortmund > top club is a perfect career course for the player, Raiola etc. The clause means both the player & agent want a move in 2 years if all goes well and both will absolutely rake it in being in incredible positions of power compared to the clubs.

 

[Godfather]

It’s not supposed and it’s 60m euros.

It’s a daft deal for anyone but a club like Dortmund where it’s a brilliant deal. Plus, Red Bull > Dortmund > top club is a perfect career course for the player, Raiola etc. The clause means both the player & agent want a move in 2 years if all goes well and both will absolutely rake it in being in incredible positions of power compared to the clubs.

I'd guess there would have been quite a lot of clubs jumping on a chance to get him even under these conditions. But Dortmund is a perfect place for him to develop-

I agree thoguh I wouldn't have wanted him here with that clause.

 

[do.ob]

Hattrick on debut is one hell of a headline, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a Bundesliga side offer so much space behind their backline so easily, when they were two goals up. I think his first was a pretty clinical finish, but in general it was probably tougher for him to score in Austria than it was yesterday.

It’s not supposed and it’s 60m euros.

It’s a daft deal for anyone but a club like Dortmund where it’s a brilliant deal. Plus, Red Bull > Dortmund > top club is a perfect career course for the player, Raiola etc. The clause means both the player & agent want a move in 2 years if all goes well and both will absolutely rake it in being in incredible positions of power compared to the clubs.

source for 60m please

Afaik the number comes from an English paper that wrote "more than 60m". The German sources who reported that he has a clause claimed that it was significantly higher than that.

 

[Dinghy]

Right, now we're off track anyway, you're just randomly making up arguments and I don't even know what about any longer. My original point still stands, I'm surprised Ole being his manager at Molde didn't make it prio number 1 in the Summer.

Heh, of course you are... The kid had barely gotten his debut in the Austrian league after being there for half a year. Last striker we signed from Molde that was tearing it up in the norwegian league was Mame Biram Diouf and he wasn't exactly a roaring success. The fact is Haaland is where he is today because he's been playing regularly in a lesser league and been given time to develop. He wouldn't be at the level he is now if we'd signed him in the summer, that's for sure. Then you'd be moaning about why the hell he'd bought someone that would limit Greenwoods development.

 

[Josep Dowling]

He made the right move for him and his agents. He gets to play at a better level than Austria in a country where defences give loads of space. He’ll fill his boots and be able to leave for massive money on that clause. The low fee will enable him to get massive wages and massive fees for his dad and Raiola. The deal would have never worked for United because it would have meant accepting status as a stepping stone club or getting bent over a barrel by Raiola and his dad when the clause kicked in.

I think this is ridiculous attitude to have. Surely it would be better to have a good player’s services for a couple of years? If we are doing well he may wish to stay and let’s face it any club is a stepping stone to Barcelona and Real Madrid. The club has too much snobbery on our status in world football, and we also missed out on Klopp because of it.

 

[Josep Dowling]

And people saying you can’t plan for the future with a player with a release clause. Loads of players around the world have release clauses, how do all these club manage to plan?

It’s called finding a sufficient replacement when he leaves. Dortmund are a better team with him in the squad, we would have been as well.

 

[Irrational.]

I don't think we'll be waiting very long for him to be back on the market, Dortmund are a feeder club and that fat slug Raiola will start throwing some chairs around in a season or two.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

Who said it was good management? I literally just said it was one of the biggest shittest mistakes of his career man! What on Earth are you arguing here?

As for Maureen, I'm not just making stuff up. From the horses mouth.



Right, now we're off track anyway, you're just randomly making up arguments and I don't even know what about any longer. My original point still stands, I'm surprised Ole being his manager at Molde didn't make it prio number 1 in the Summer.

My point was and some Norwegian fans may know is that I think that release clause activated after 12 months. I could be wrong but no need to call me a moron for coming up with an opinion. I get banned for less.

 

[Red Devil]

I don't think we'll be waiting very long for him to be back on the market, Dortmund are a feeder club and that fat slug Raiola will start throwing some chairs around in a season or two.

I thought about that as well but if Sancho leaves, I think he might stay

 

[Josep Dowling]

Sounds like a great debut, but geeeezus, what a giveaway from Augsburg.

Augsburg up 3:1 and play so high that they get countered into a 3:5

That’s a manager that deserves some stick

Just seen the highlights and the defending is so bad. Practically every highlights I see from Dortmund they have 3 players beyond the last defender when they score a goal. Defending in Germany seems to be shocking.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

This excuse that we didn’t want him because he would be able to leave in two years because of a clause is laughable.
First of all if we are winning things are in the champions league and back to being one of the best clubs in the world he probably wouldn’t want to leave.
And second of all if a player wants to leave for Real he can leave wether there’s a release clause or not see Ronaldo.
We missed out on one of the best strikers at bargain price and are full of excuses

 

[laughtersassassin]

If the rumours are true and Rashford us potentially our for the season we look even more idiotic for not getting this done and playing him up front with Martial back left.

I know maybe he wouldn't join us no matter what but our brief implied otherwise, not that I believe it

 

[Lee565]

We've missed our chance ever getting him now and just have to deal with it, far bigger, ambitious and successful clubs will be way ahead of us of getting this guy in the next year or two.

This is on our board and Ole, maybe if Ole didnt waste our transfer money on a defensive full back and a donkey like Maguire who's ability is not hard to find in another decent defender just like Leicester have shown and instead brought a right winger which we have needed since forever and an attacking midfielder then maybe haaland would have been tempted to join us rather than looking at no assists lingard constantly favoured and periera as another one of our usual attacking starters and thinking no thanks.

 

[reelworld]

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.

this is the best take of the situation I've seen here so far.
United fans need to stop acting like Ferguson is still in charge. Ferguson would have the ability and reputation to persuade young worldclass talent to come here on long term contract. But that time is long gone now. It's a rebuilding process, we need to think like it's one.

Signing Haaland should be a no brainer if he wants to come to United, even if the release clause means he'll be gone for little money down the road.

Best case scenario? He'll do fantastic here and we can renegotiate his contract before other club can activate his release clause and he'll stay here for a long time
Worst case scenario? He'll do fantastic here and he wont renegotiate his contract here, and he can leave. But we still got 2 good seasons from him and we can use it to find a replacement

Either way United have a chance to get something out of this but didn't because something that may or may not happened in the future. That's fecking stupid.

My guess is he actually reject us and choose Dortmund

 

[Member 117152]

And yet, not a single fecking gong next to his name. Ruud is a great striker and a premier league legend, but he was in a club at the time (much like Lewa) who should have won champions leagues and didnt. They're the focal points of attack.

People give Ronaldo shit because he's often market out of finals but he virtually gets them there on his own.

I'm not giving Ronaldo any shade he's obviously been better than both.

However, right now Lewa is a better player than Ronaldo. His level for the past year has been ridiculous. The best striker in the world currently.