Matt Targett is highly thought of and signing a left back of top value (say 10-15m) with the money we have, could block his progress. This signing says to me that the club believe he can't be far off. Bertrand (who I think is getting some unfair stick on here) can be our insurance. He's on loan. He may start the season and then find Targett displace him or even Targett start the season and then nlbertrand comes in when the club want to protect the young lad.
Remember a 17 year old that came into our team October 2012? He'd been talked about for a while.
I'm ok with what they'd done; so spend the money elsewhere.
Much like the Chambers sale, when viewed on it's own it makes complete sense, but coupled with other departures it turned out to be the straw that broke the camels back.
If this signing was announced on the back of three big money signings it would have been greeted with slightly more enthusiasm, but because we still have all that cash sloshing around it seems like a terrible cheap signing.
Roll on September One
It's pretty funny that the main justification for signing him is "well, he's **** enough that Targett will probably get in"
Safe pair of hands with Bertrand I reckon. Has anyone else heard anything about Redmond and Fer?
Wasn't that long ago that some on here were suggesting we got him instead of Villa. He's not Luke Shaw but he' a lot better than last years back up. A solid signing.
Much like the Chambers sale, when viewed on it's own it makes complete sense, but coupled with other departures it turned out to be the straw that broke the camels back.
If this signing was announced on the back of three big money signings it would have been greeted with slightly more enthusiasm, but because we still have all that cash sloshing around it seems like a terrible cheap signing.
Roll on September One
I like Rory Smith's take on it: unspectacular, but astute.
He also says we want Forster, Van Dijk and Redmond. And a couple of others...
I like Rory Smith's take on it: unspectacular, but astute.