Our on-loan Monaco striker, Radamel Falcao, is reportedly looking to secure a long-term contract here, at the club. But would it be a good move for us?
The Colombian told reporters that he is happy at the club and wants to stay, but after only three stars this season, it could not be the right move. Here are five reasons why we should or should not keep the striker after his loan deal expires.
Pros:
Form is temporary, class is permanent
At the end of the day, Falcao's European goalscoring record speaks for itself. At Porto Atletico Madrid, and even at Monaco, his goalscoring averages always found him scoring more than a goal every other game and, once he recovers from injuries and starts to hit his stride, he will be lethal and could be the man to lead us to silverware
Brand power
Falcao is still regarded as one of the 'big names' in world football and his marketing value is worth his weight in gold. Even if he's not spending time on the pitch, fans will still be buying shirts with his name on them off of it! As a brand, it's very helpful to have Falcao in Manchester United squads, because, beyond the massively populated Colombia even, he gives us extra appeal in South America and adds to our global image. We are the most marketable club in the world and to let him go would only take away from that.
Squad depth
Even though Robin van Persie is in great form right now, he has a poor injury record and, at 31, his best years may be slipping by every day… With Wayne Rooney playing more and more in midfield, Falcao is our only out-and-out striker with the necessary experience. Letting go of him could create problems if van Persie picks up another injury.
Cons:
Injuries
Falcao's ACL injury at the beginning of the year continues to haunt him and, even though we thought he was over it, he clearly still isn't. He has spent quite a lot of time on the treatment table this season and eight appearances this season (five off the bench) shows that he isn't adapting to the physical environment of the Premier League. This is a major con.
Age
The biggest concern with a player signing a long-term deal is about what kind of form they'll be at the end of it. Falcao will be 29 in February and if we hand him, say, a four-year deal, he'll be 33 by the time his contract runs out. Very few strikers can maintain their form after they reach 30 and injuries can often cut those "good years" down even further. So, it may be a better option to invest in a younger player.
All in all, I think it may be a bit early to tell, but I just don't think that offering Falcao a long-term deal is a good decision as things stand.
Do you think Manchester United should offer Falcao a long-term deal?
