They're under contract. The club has no obligation to send players on loan to the club of their desire.
28
- Status
Brought for £7m and loaned out to Alavas last season in January where he was limited to being a substitute. Last summer the club wanted him to go on loan to Club Brugge but he wanted to go back to Alaves again. This season again he's had limited opportunities almost exclusively off the bench. Meanwhile he's established himself this season as a Uruguayan international with some good performances in some must win World Cup qualifiers.
Nor does the player have any obligation to move to the club and city we choose for them.
"Oi Big Ben Foster, you are under contract so you are off to Shakhtar Donetsk next week". You game for that?
Ah so nothing new there...
Never claimed he did. But the club could've easily vetoed his move to Alaves and kept him with the U-23s.
Training with professionals is much better than playing youth games.
Slaves? Being paid millions to do a job is not called a slave. When Ronaldo was not allowed to leave for Real Madrid, Sepp Blatter said that United treated him like a slave. I assume this was also true. As well as every person who works for a living a slave?
I don't know how much improvement can he get by only training with a team like Alaves to be honest. I think it would had been much better for his development to play with the U23.
Got to admit forgot about him with all
the current noise….so we must have had good scouting reports on him to sign in the first place, albeit that scouting regime is on its way out and certainly doesn’t have much pedigree……however, would be good that when he comes back for preseason the new management get a good look at him and decide a career path that will be beneficial rather than complete shambles we have currently.
the current noise….so we must have had good scouting reports on him to sign in the first place, albeit that scouting regime is on its way out and certainly doesn’t have much pedigree……however, would be good that when he comes back for preseason the new management get a good look at him and decide a career path that will be beneficial rather than complete shambles we have currently.
If he's that good he can train with the seniors, like Elanga, Mejbri, Garnacho etc.
What the hell are you talking about?
Well, the club should be allowed to keep them at the club if they dislike a loan move. I mean, that's sort of the blanket assumption when signing a contract at a club.
In fairness, that happens in jobs all the time, consultants etc. do it on a regular basis while being paid a lot less than he is.
The club is allowed to keep them, that's the standard situation...
Isn't that what I said, mon souer?
You suggested that clubs aren't allowed to keep players. So, no it's not what you said.
"Well, the club should be allowed to keep them at the club if they dislike a loan move."
I'm confused
Let's just say it's not what I meant. United is free to keep Pellistri or any other player at United if they think the loan move sucks.
"Well, the club should be allowed to keep them at the club if they dislike a loan move."
I'm confused
Let's just say it's not what I meant. United is free to keep Pellistri or any other player at United if they think the loan move sucks.
I can see that you are confused. Your post made no sense because you stated what actually is as if it wasn't and it had nothing to do with what @roseguy64 was talking about.
poster A: The player shouldn't have much input in where he plays.
Poster B: Players aren't slaves.
Poster C (moi) responds: The club should be allowed to keep him at United, because that's what you supposedly sign up for. (implying: "players aren't slaves if the parent club holds them to their contract at United, which is different than sending him to Siberia when he wants to go to Hawai")
We're talking about a situation where we don't send a player (back) out on loan to Alaves.
Okay, sugar?
poster A: The player shouldn't have much input in where he plays.
Poster B: Players aren't slaves.
Poster C (moi) responds: The club should be allowed to keep him at United, because that's what you supposedly sign up for. (implying: "players aren't slaves if the parent club holds them to their contract at United, which is different than sending him to Siberia when he wants to go to Hawai")
We're talking about a situation where we don't send a player (back) out on loan to Alaves.
Let me know if it clicks for you, sugar
That's not what poster A said and behave yourself we don't have that type of relationship.
That's exactly what he said! It's literally the first sentence:
It takes some serious dishonesty to cut that post and claim that it's exactly what was written.
Leaving out an example citing Januzaj or a question on Garner's loan isn't dishonest, it's simplifying the source text for someone that is struggling to grasp it.It takes some serious dishonesty to cut that post and claim that it's exactly what was written.
Post A starts with a rhetorical question, and the full post conveys the meaning of: "The club should decide against a player's preferred loan destination if they think it's a bad choice", followed by an example (Januzaj) and a question on Garner, both things the slave bloke clearly didn't respond to!
It's clearly the part ("club shouldn't go through with a player's preference if they think it's a bad idea") that poster B ("players aren't slaves") responds to.
Good talk.
Great to hear he's making his mark at International level.
Another rubbish signing
I seem to recall him having a bright pre-season in the summer. Am I mistaken? I recall him impressing.
He's decent but lets be honest, the team that managed to spunk 40million on Amad and Pellestri need shooting let alone firing. What the feck are we thinking.
Panic buying to appease fans
Diego Forlan recommended him to us. Bout and Lawlor having a line on a youth prospect from South America...yeah right
People tie themselves in knots with players like this, trying to come up with reasons why yet another loan for one of our players hasn't worked out. Sure, he might be good. The more likely conclusion is that he's not good enough. At the moment, at least. He's spent two underwhelming seasons away at a club that would, I assume, be only delighted to have access to a player good enough to be a first team player for United, as some on here suggest. Their sparing use of them, having watched him every day, suggests there may be something lacking. Which tallies with what Andy Mitten wrote at the time, from memory. Decent player, but people were surprised a club like United picked him up.
It's possible but he's looked great for Uruguay and for our U23s. The problem with Alaves is that he's an attacking player and they're ridiculously shite. If they actually attacked they would be worse off than they are so he doesn't get many opportunities. He's young and only been away from Uruguay for two seasons, so the somewhat familiar experience of doing this in Spain should benefit him.
When we signed him many were surprised as he was good in the uruguayan league, but not "big league" good, never mind Manchester United good. We paid 8.5M which is not a big fee, its just strange that we bought him when he hasn't showned anything special.
I think realistically he has one more season to prove he can make it here, he has to go on loan again and make a name for himself. If he spends another year on the bench we should get rid.
This sums it up. Alaves essentially park the bus in every game and seem to have no more ambition than to limit the amount they get smashed by. The tactics and formation don't require a naturally attacking winger which make it baffling that they signed him and even more baffling that we did not recall him in January when we could have done and he was frankly expecting us too. I think at an attacking championship club like Forest he would have got a lot more game time and toughened up physically as well. Alaves was a terrible move in every sense.
Crazy how much money was invested in the panic buy of Diallo and Pellistri when we missed out on Sancho.
Wonder if they will ever start 5 games between them
Wonder if they will ever start 5 games between them
Amad will be a regular next season if other positions are prioritised in the summer window over right wing. He could still turn out to be a great player and good value for money.
Isn't he a squad player for Rangers? How does that translate to becoming a stater for United next season?
Who is going to play ahead of him? He's the only proper right winger at the club, along with Pellestri. Elanga is strongest on the left along with Sancho, Rashford can't play there at all. He's played well 90% of the game's he's featured in since joining us, he just had a bad game vs Celtic at Celtic Park and from that point Van Bronckhorst decided to rely on his experienced players in the important fixtures. He's got the potential to be good enough as he's already shown in a utd shirt.
A very mid table attitude. Settle for the best we can find on hand even he can't start in Scotland? It would certainly save money which could be used for dividends
It's rather realistic. I don't see us bringing in 2 players for that position in one transfer window.
Ralf sent Amad out on loan and decided to start Rashford. When he went on strike, Ralf was forced to play Elanga out of position.
I can imagine ETH making a different decisions...
I don't think why the loan hasn't worked out is what people are generally questioning.
What's baffling folk is why it's been allowed to continue.
- Status