Jump to content

Matt Targett


villan-scott

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Were Newcastle our rivals? For what? 10th place?

It was a good move - he wouldn't have got game time, he played plenty. If anything, we are getting either a more experienced player, or we have advertised our asset to other potential buyers.

It's a win win for everyone. 

We knew if Newcastle stayed up they had means to power past us. We should have made the sale permanent 

I think was a lose lose for us, we should have kept Targett as Digne missed a few games through injury. 

If Newcastle dont buy him I cant see another Premier League team paying 10-12 million for a specialist left back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, villa89 said:

It was a great loan for us. He got game time, played well and now we will have 3 or 4 teams interested in signing him. If we didn't loan him he would have sat on our bench and we would have to sell for a cut price deal this summer.

Is not a single rumour of him joining another team except from the Northern Echo

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zatman said:

Is not a single rumour of him joining another team except from the Northern Echo

Patience. He'll be gone by the middle of August, and also we seem to be quite good at keeping our business quiet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zatman said:

We knew if Newcastle stayed up they had means to power past us.

Newcastle may have finished just above us, but their squad is starting from a squad base miiiiiiles below us in terms of quality. There are, at most, 3 players from their squad that I would take to add to ours (ASM, Guimaraes, Trippier), and that was before we just added 3 top 4 quality players. 

They are at least 1 or 2 seasons away from "powering past us". Building a quality squad takes time, just ask Aston Villa. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

On verge of joining newcastle for 12m apparently 

If its 12m thats a rubbish deal we should be looking closer to 18m esp if its Newcastle 

We were the ones that overpaid for him, if the loan fee was £5m then I suppose we break even, Matt Targett was never going to be the type of player to increase in value. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gwi1890 said:

We were the ones that overpaid for him, if the loan fee was £5m then I suppose we break even, Matt Targett was never going to be the type of player to increase in value. 

We paid 11.5m with 2.5m in add ons in summer 2019 after promotion, he was a backup at Southampton then and playing second fiddle to Bertrand. 

 

In the last 3 years he has played pretty much every single PL game, is far more established at this level than when we first signed him, helped Newcastle finish 11th when they were 18th when he joined, and won our player of the season award in 20/21.

 

Be honest, 12m is an awful deal. I thought that 15m was what was agreed so we've clearly backtracked to get him off our books, but we should be getting at least 5m more for him. It's a bad deal whichever way you look at it and once again shows we're poor at getting maximum prices for our players, yet we're quite happy to get fleeced by the likes of Southampton and Bournemouth for Targett and Mings who both had no futures at the club. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, gwi1890 said:

We were the ones that overpaid for him, if the loan fee was £5m then I suppose we break even, Matt Targett was never going to be the type of player to increase in value. 

I'm not sure overpaid is the right term.

We break even financially given the loan but when you consider why we bought Targett it sheds a different light: We had Taylor as LB and no cover.

We definitely come out on top.

Edited by ozvillafan
insert "why"
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, VillaFaninLondon said:

We paid 11.5m with 2.5m in add ons in summer 2019 after promotion, he was a backup at Southampton then and playing second fiddle to Bertrand. 

 

In the last 3 years he has played pretty much every single PL game, is far more established at this level than when we first signed him, helped Newcastle finish 11th when they were 18th when he joined, and won our player of the season award in 20/21.

 

Be honest, 12m is an awful deal. I thought that 15m was what was agreed so we've clearly backtracked to get him off our books, but we should be getting at least 5m more for him. It's a bad deal whichever way you look at it and once again shows we're poor at getting maximum prices for our players, yet we're quite happy to get fleeced by the likes of Southampton and Bournemouth for Targett and Mings who both had no futures at the club. 

Like I said if there was a loan fee of £5m then that’s £17m. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know the loan fee was 5m or are we speculating here? 

Targett was our player of the season the year before and most us were happy to keep him until his poor performance vs watford.

That game made he go from hero to zero in some peoples eyes. 12m is a poor deal in my opinion. He is better than that as shown as he performed very well up there

Edited by Demitri_C
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gwi1890 said:

Like I said if there was a loan fee of £5m then that’s £17m. 

We don't know what the loan fee was, you're just guessing at 5m. It could have been much lower than that. 

 

The loan fee is separate from the transfer fee anyway, the loan fee was what Newcastle were willing to pay to avoid relegation which saved them millions and would have repaid itself. This is a separate agreement and once again we're receiving a fee lower than we should be. 

 

I don't particularly rate Targett but he's an OK PL player and is worth more IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Newcastle are getting a good deal if he goes there for 12m. He’s already had 6 months there so they know exactly what they are getting. 

I would have hoped to get closer to 20m but what can we do? Frees up some space in the squad and the wage bill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish him the best. Solid signing, did a good job. Looked a bit lost when Jack left and didn't seem to want competition for his place. Tis for the best he's moved on for all parties.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â