James Chester joined Stoke City on 31 January 2020 on loan for the remainder of the 2019–20 season. He made his debut on 8 February 2020 in a 3–1 win against Charlton Athletic. The season was suspended in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic and restarted in June with Chester extending his loan to cover the remaining matches. He made 16 appearances for Stoke in 2019–20 helping them to avoid relegation from the Championship. Chester signed a one-year contract with Stoke on 10 August 2020. From Wikipedia
About a year and a half younger actually and I don't know if he'd be ridiculously cheaper than Chester. And even if Chester is more expensive, I think an experienced head in defence is arguably worth it.
When at Villa he got a knee injury and was told it would have to be managed for the rest of his career, so I suppose he should be considered a risky signing. So it seems he's done well to play so many games for Stoke. When he was here he had no bigger fan than myself, but he might be gamble. That should get his price down.
Talk about click bait articles. Just saw this on FB! I can see interest in Burke, Doc, KLP & Wilks, but I doubt we’d really cash in on them. Long & Magennis might go. The only 2 are Clark & JDV that I think will leave. Also I don’t see Eaves stepping up, although I’d love him to prove me wrong, but 2, pretty much, full seasons, says to me that he won’t. https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/8...ZhhHGR2kYJa2SRjmQJBWOX6ezUe3INodUFwoCmKfsl-SA
No chance of signing a player of Chester's age, even more so if he's carrying an injury. The policy now is too seek out the younger players who the club can bring on and develop.
He's played 30+ games for Stoke this season and we signed Smallwood last season on the logic that a few seasoned heads in the locker room are valuable, I'm not sure it's as farfetched as you're making it.
Fair comment but Smallwood wasn't nearly 32 and carrying an injury when we signed him. You could be right, and Chester might be on the wanted list, but I doubt it personally.
Off-topic but has anyone ever seen a website layout as gash as HDM? They print utter bollocks but when you want to read a City-related article, the page is cluttered with ads you can't click off and the ads cover parts of the article. Completely unreadable. A kid in a Year 9 IT class could do better at creating a website.
I know, the Daily Mail's webpage layout is exactly the same if not worse as it constantly glitches back to the top of the page when you try and scroll down. Telegraph, Guardian, Metro etc. don't have this problem and Metro are owned by the same holding group as the DM.