Jump to content

Matt Targett


villan-scott

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

No they haven’t. There’s a long way to go yet and the business they’ve done has been underwhelming at best. Trippier is the only one you’d say is proper quality.

Saying that “oh well they’ve already done enough so let’s just flog them someone” is a poor cop out.

Well we'll have to disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mattyvilla said:

He clearly wasn't prepared to fight to get his place back , thats the only reason i see for this

This is the reality we face.

The idea of having 2 quality players in every position is just fairy land stuff.

When players don't get regular football they will want to leave. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

We knew the fee for Axel was £5m. The fee for Lingard to Newcastle was public. We know there's no fee for Coutinho. A lot of them are known 

These things may be stated as "fact" somewhere on t'internet but are they usually stated by the clubs directly in their announcements? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, penguin said:

I just think it’s a disgrace they are owned by the Saudi state. Regardless of any whataboutery that may get thrown around.

I still think it would have been bizarre if we’d have loaned him to Norwich etc but I hate that we’ve done Newcastle a favour.

Yeah they should be treated as a pariah club, that includes any players willing to play for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Gerrard slowly getting rid of our weak links and replacing them with better quality.

I actually don't rate Targett at all, and don't think he will strengthen Newcastle significally.

I'm fine with it.

Sending Kesler out on loan is leaving us light though. Only Ash as backup for 2 positions.

Yes I know Hause, Konsa and Mings can do a makeshift job there but it's far from optimal

Chambers can play right back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

The benefits are clearly financial

Seem pretty inconsequential, given that a.) they're only taking him on for a few months and b.) will probably pale in comparison to the financial impact them staying up will inevitably have on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dudevillaisnice said:

Gerrard not rating him doesn’t mean we loan him out to help the cause of Newcastle. United have held on to Lingard. Arsenal have held on to Auba…It’s not a transfer fee it’s a loan. 

If he does really well we could end up getting more money out of him.

Think there could be positives from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

The benefits are clearly financial

I think it’s more a case of him wanting a move and we didn’t want an unhappy player in the squad. He’s been a liability this season when a first team player, I doubt he would be that great after we block his move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dudevillaisnice said:

Gerrard not rating him doesn’t mean we loan him out to help the cause of Newcastle. United have held on to Lingard. Arsenal have held on to Auba…It’s not a transfer fee it’s a loan. 

You get fees for a loan plus his wages paid - it's money into the club for a player who'd just be sitting on the bench otherwise. We have backup for Digne in Young, everything's fine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â