Man City have £50m Kyle Walker bid accepted by Tottenham
- Thread starter mawspurs
- Start date
guiltyparty
Well-Known Member
- Sep 21, 2005
- 9,023
- 13,524
In this case, he's right though. If Rose wasn't injured we'd be in more fear of it
£50M for a fullback who will probably not be a first choice is good value for money. Its not the fans who decide whether Walker or Trippier is the better of the two. It's Poch's decision, and he has obviously favoured Trippier, even giving him a contract extension. The writing has been on the wall even before the end of last season.
Sum Monsterism
Looking for an anecdote
- Jun 12, 2012
- 5,311
- 10,696
Good player, good fee, good for the club, good replacement (already in squad) good bye
Good luck (except at trophies) Kyle Walker
Good luck (except at trophies) Kyle Walker
WhiteHeartLowe
Well-Known Member
- Jul 7, 2004
- 1,916
- 1,452
But hes still right.
Incredible money for a right-back. Trippier has proven himself a very able deputy & assuming we bring in competition for him, I personally won't lose sleep over this.
He is a very good full back but still prone to bad errors and, in my opinion, whole games where he'd have an inexplicable shocker (West Ham away). Poch would know whether he's taken him as far as he can & maybe feels he's expendable, especially if he wants to go & certainly at that price.
He is a very good full back but still prone to bad errors and, in my opinion, whole games where he'd have an inexplicable shocker (West Ham away). Poch would know whether he's taken him as far as he can & maybe feels he's expendable, especially if he wants to go & certainly at that price.
Combat Boot
Member
- Jul 9, 2017
- 53
- 84
Not surprised at the fee Daniel has stamped his authority
bigspurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2005
- 3,193
- 2,419
Ridiculous amount of money for a player like him. Don't mind him going, but it is a shame that we had to sell him to a direct competitor. To be fair though, it's been a long time since we have sold a decent player to a direct competitor in the Prem like this.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2003
- 9,243
- 11,265
I honestly don't know what to think. Part of me thinks we've done well with that fee given he missed the majority of 2017 and we coped okay without him, then I think what message does it send out that we are prepared to sell a player who 'on his day' is one of the best full backs around?
I suppose the fact I'm even sitting on the fence means it's probably the right move for both parties...
I suppose the fact I'm even sitting on the fence means it's probably the right move for both parties...
50 odd million I'll take that cos with got Tripper who will soon be England no1 full back better cross and under Poch will grow in to a better defender.Good luck to Walker but like they say the grass is not always green on the other side.Under Poch he became a key player cos Poch makes players belive in themself but under Pep he will suffer I hope.
Rose has more heart. Rose wins
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
I posted this on Walker's player thread. It belongs here, too:
It doesn't seem to occur to anyone outside Spurs that we are selling Walker because we want to. Even a high proportion of SC members are acting as if we are being bullied or pressurised into selling against our will. I can't imagine where, except assumptions based on history, that is coming from.
Without a shred of hard evidence, only mood and tone of voice, it has nevertheless been plain to me for months that the club, or at least Pochettino, is at least as keen to see Walker leave as he is to beef up his bank account at Man City's expense.
@Gaz_Gammon was raining heavy hints to this effect a couple of months ago, but no one really picked up on any of it and he never provided any proper details.
So we don't know why, because the club doesn't leak the way it used to. So this side of the tale seems, for want of gossip, not to have shown up on anyone's radar. The narrative has been about "losing Walker", not about "getting rid of Walker".
It doesn't seem to occur to anyone outside Spurs that we are selling Walker because we want to. Even a high proportion of SC members are acting as if we are being bullied or pressurised into selling against our will. I can't imagine where, except assumptions based on history, that is coming from.
Without a shred of hard evidence, only mood and tone of voice, it has nevertheless been plain to me for months that the club, or at least Pochettino, is at least as keen to see Walker leave as he is to beef up his bank account at Man City's expense.
@Gaz_Gammon was raining heavy hints to this effect a couple of months ago, but no one really picked up on any of it and he never provided any proper details.
So we don't know why, because the club doesn't leak the way it used to. So this side of the tale seems, for want of gossip, not to have shown up on anyone's radar. The narrative has been about "losing Walker", not about "getting rid of Walker".
I think people understand the logic of cashing in on a player at his peak with clear technical limitations for a sum that on an absolute basis at least looks ridiculous but "to the outside" we are selling the premier league RB of the year to a direct rival in a their weakest position and sorting out their defence which was their weakest link vs. their world class attack
True he is going to lose his pace but for the next couple of years he'll be one of the best, if not the best, player in his position in the league. We don't often get players like that and I'm sad to see him seemingly go to a rival. Just hope we someone lined up because he won't be easy to replace.
Rout-Ledge
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2005
- 9,636
- 21,816
i get the sentiment, but ultimately that leaves us weaker than last season, and City stronger as a direct result of us weakening.
If we're selling a starter to a rival, then we need to sign someone to improve the first team, otherwise we're going backwards.
Similar threads
