[ad_1]
As soon as the ban on leaving home expires, Paolo Maldini will be able to return to Milan and meet Ivan Gazidis. To date, the two have chatted amicably about the club’s organizational problems at conference calls and each morning have evaluated the various humanitarian initiatives that will be taken. Neither Paolo nor the CEO of South Africa wanted to tackle the knot of the future over the phone for obvious reasons. To discuss such a sensitive topic, they have to look each other in the eye, they have to guess each other’s retrospective thoughts, and finally they also have to come to a conclusion. What will be
At this time, we can accept the interpretation of the Gazzetta colleagues who have credited the following thesis: namely, that Maldini would be ready to say “I will only stay if I receive guarantees about autonomy in the choice of coach and team.” We don’t know Gazidis’s answer yet, but we can anticipate that of Elliott and the Singer family, who have a dossier on the table full of clippings from interviews published by former Rossoneri captain in recent months. As many will remember, as soon as Leonardo left for Paris, Gazidis summoned Paolo to ask him what his intentions were. In fact, he had read in the same days in the newspapers some judgments about the work to be done behind the desk (“it weighs me a lot”) that did not guarantee the desire to take the lead in the technical area as it happened when Boban was involved in the operation and probing the ground first with Tara Lazio and then enlisting Massara as soon as he was released from the contract with Roma.
Not only that, but later, when it became clear that the elections of the new season did not offer the desired results, Paolo made it known, always through the media, that “he couldn’t wait 15 years to relaunch Milan.” In this circumstance – it was Boban who spoke to the English interlocutor – Elliott explained that Maldini’s intention “was constructive” and had no controversial objective. Therefore, the interview was placed back in the drawer.
In light of all these premises, the reflection that the background has already made is as follows: the experiment (in the sense of total autonomy in the choice of the coach and the players) has already been carried out and has not borne fruit . The obvious reference is the change of manager from Gattuso to Giampaolo with the refusal to take Rangnick into consideration since then, the candidacy presented by the CEO at the meetings. The objection that can be raised against Gazidis is the following: but excuse me, because in that circumstance, if you were not convinced of the potential of candidate Giampaolo, why did you not insist on your candidate? The indirect response provided by the interested party to Elliott was approximately the following: if he had said no to Giampaolo, given the storm caused by Boban in the Rangnick case, it would have ended with a sensational break. Credible and justified scenario since you cannot choose two names as voluminous as Maldini and Boban and then think about depriving them of the autonomy that had been written down in the contract of the two managers. Finally: Since Rangnick is Gazidis’s choice, how can Maldini get along with someone in whose name he curtly said “an unsuitable profile to lead Milan”? Conclusion: Elliott’s answer is more or less this, Gazidis’s cannot be very different. Unless it’s a sensational makeover that can’t be ruled out these days. See you in the next episode.
[ad_2]
