Jump to content

Matt Targett


villan-scott

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

When it comes to chopping heads off, I suggest you have a look at Britain's history. 🙃

 

Don't know what you mean. Not one speck of blood hit the ground during the building of that glorious emprire.

Edited by sparrow1988
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sparrow1988 said:

Don't know what you mean. Not a speck of blood hit the ground during the building of that glorious emprire.

They were pretty good at getting it all in the bucket to be fair.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lexicon said:

We made a stupid loss with Tuanzebe so presumably this would recoup most of if not all of it. I don't see the problem, really. We know Targett isn't good enough for us and Newcastle are probably going to be a competitor in a couple of years regardless of this transfer - might as well extort some money out of them. 

I must have missed this. How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I know what you're getting at, but would it be that unfair to ask him to cover until the summer then we'll let him go?

I fail to see any benefit outside of a couple of million quid of us loaning him out unless we sign a replacement today. And it is a balancing act protecting the club's interest as well as player's.

We showed with Martinez and the Argentina stuff (as well as his dad) that we're not looking to cut off our noses to spite our face, but everything has to have a line in the sand somewhere. As Zatman said, in this case it could be telling him if he wants to leave to hand in a transfer request and get his agent to work on Newcastle. But that would mean the player losing out on a loyalty bonus...

Fair enough. Maybe we have somebody lined up or are happy for Young to cover for the rest of the season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, QldVilla said:

I’m interested to know whether Targett isn’t up to fight for his position or whether Gerrard has tapped him on the shoulder and told him someone is on there way in…?

Only 11pm will answer that question for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, penguin said:

This is incredibly simplistic.

Clubs are allowed more than one player per position, in fact the best clubs have competition for every position.

He was our player of the season last year and is an excellent defensive fullback, in my eyes he's a very important squad player not sure why you are so adamant we don't need or want him?

We hold all the cards if Newcastle want him. They are desperate to stay up and it's the January window, allowing them to have their cake and eat by loaning him and then allowing them to decide whether to purchase or not seems insane to me.

He was our player of the season because he improved so much and gave 100% every game. No way was he our best player. Sounds to me like he has been told he has no future at Villa so has been allowed to find opportunities elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds very much like Newcastle will be getting the most out of this deal. Selling him would be bad enough, but loaning him, what's in that for us really? There has to be an obligation for them to buy for £20m in the summer and a hefty loan fee, or they will use him until then and look to bring in a replacement for him during the summer at double the price, leaving us with a player that would be by then unsettled. Why are we and other clubs bending over backwards to help the Geordies in any case? I thought they were going to find it difficult to buy from fellow PL clubs during this window, but it seems money talks whoever has it. :(   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thunderball said:

Wow. This is madness. Also, how do you agree the loan and then after negotiate on a possible purchase in the Summer?? FFS is basic negotiation skill, we are surely not that naive or desperate to get rid of him??

None of it makes much sense really, a couple of weeks ago Gerrard wanted competition for places, that has suddenly changed. Targett appeared to be up for the fight for the position, now he’s off to Newcastle? As I wrote earlier, he’s either been tapped on the shoulder if so, why now and if he has decided to leave what has changed?

No way they buy him if they stay up, just doesn’t add up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see a straight up loan without the obligation to buy in it unless the Loan fee is big. Often we would say value a player at 25m and we would loan him for a 5m fee and then option to buy for 20. So total it's 25m but they've already kind of paid for him so are more likely to buy.

So buy now, fee 25m, or loan now 5m and option to buy 20m in summer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only concern is villa.. we stand to gain little from this unless it's an obligation to buy for a big fee. 

Surely villa ain't stupid enough to think after Newcastle stay up they will buy Targett unless we force them too. Not a chance in hell. They will buy real quality. 

So why would we help them now, with no obligation to buy, then they send him back to us and buy a replacement who is much better than Targett. Unless we are so hard up we need a loan fee. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â