Jump to content

Matt Targett - Joins Aston Villa (Official)

Kaiser Soze

By Kaiser Soze,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
Offers were made for lallana in the championship and league 1. Lambert and Fonte in the championship.

 

Why are you people defending our current transfer strategy and management model? It is garbage. We are treating the youth players poorly, not talking to them on loan and effectively blocking their progression to the first team. In the meantime we are spending fortunes on mercenaries that have zero loyalty and questionable passion.

 

And who are arguably not as good either.

 

I think a lot of the fans would be happy to see the likes of Sims playing more matches over any of Tadic, Boufal or Redmond for example.... Targett / Mcqueen also - and it just goes to show how good they are when you see the praise that Targett and Mcqueen have garnered in the championship. Or the fact that even Poch played and bought through more kids than the current model is managing - JWP and Gallagher being two of the same kids now struggling for game time and progression.

 

By who? and what sort of money where they offering?

 

Also I don't see to many people defending the current transfer strategy we got away with it for a while but it is a strategy that requires spot on recruitment which has failed badly the last couple of years hence our current issues. Having said that comparing saints in the lower leagues with saints in the PL is like comparing apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
Offers were made for lallana in the championship and league 1. Lambert and Fonte in the championship.

 

.

 

As others have said - name the clubs and the amounts.

 

The reason several people are asking you this question is because either there is a huge collective amnesia and we've all forgotten or maybe none if it happened.

 

Funnily enough I can remember Kelvin nearly going to WHU around the admin time and I can remember Lallana deciding not to go to Fulham at the same time. But amazingly I have no recollection of all these bids for players that we'd literally just bought or given new contracts to and were part and parcel of a charge through the divisions at a club owned by a fu cking billionaire.

 

Enlighten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
Not really fry, why are you joining a discussion you don't understand or can't be bothered to read. As usual you just want to misrepresent what people say... please show me where i said surman was sold by the current board... Oh wait, you can't. Duck was saying none of our players were loyal. I was using the example of Surman to say he didn't want to leave. Kelvin would be another one who did stick with the club and reach the premier.

 

Surman was neither loyal or disloyal. He was sold because we had to sell him and he had no choice in the matter. He wanted to stay because he was on a perfectly good little number with us. Stretching it to call it loyalty.

 

If he'd progressed into some wonder player with us then no doubt he would have been just as loyal as the Wallace brothers and Shearer and Steve Williams and Lallana and Shaw.

 

Quite frankly loyalty is a pointless currency to worry about. Fans aren't loyal - you're very happy to slate players and managers you don't like - so why they should be loyal to fans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted

Fulham bid £10m for Targett. No doubt if he wants to go, we will roll over & wilt.

 

@SkyKaveh: Fulham make £10m bid for Southampton’s Matt Targett.

Was on loan at Fulham last season. Southampton not interested in selling and see him as part of their future plans

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
If we do see him as a future part of our plans, then it would have been nice to communicate with him during the loan spell.

 

That news was really quite disappointing. How hard can it be to talk to them & offer encouragement to players out on loan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
Fulham bid £10m for Targett. No doubt if he wants to go, we will roll over & wilt.

 

Really wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

McQ is good enough as back up and if Bertrand leaves Targett is not good enough to be first choice for a top half team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted

£10 million seems a bit low in today's market. Young, England U21 international who was by all accounts the best left back in the Championship last year, if he was at like Middlesbrough or Brentford they'd be expecting us to be £15 million plus at least I reckon.

 

How about we give them £15 million + Targett for Sessegnon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted
Hasn't the VVD situation shown us we can't keep players who want to leave. All depends on whether Targett wants to stay.

 

VVD aside, if we can't keep hold of Matt Targett following a bid from a newly promoted club we may as well pack up and go home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
VVD aside, if we can't keep hold of Matt Targett following a bid from a newly promoted club we may as well pack up and go home.

 

That's like saying Chelsea couldn't keep hold of Romeu when we came calling, so they may as well pack up and go home.

 

Assuming wages will be similar (and we're hardly going to be breaking the bank to keep Targett) why wouldn't he leave to play first team football?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted
That's like saying Chelsea couldn't keep hold of Romeu when we came calling, so they may as well pack up and go home.

 

Assuming wages will be similar (and we're hardly going to be breaking the bank to keep Targett) why wouldn't he leave to play first team football?

 

It isn't though is it? If Chelsea wanted to keep Romeu then fine but they didn't. We supposedly want to keep Targett so if we can't that's a damning inditement of our attractiveness as a club. But then again, our fans appear to have accepted that we can't keep hold of any member of our squad whilst the cash coming in pays down Gao's debt. Pathetic really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Faz

Faz

Posted
Posted
It isn't though is it? If Chelsea wanted to keep Romeu then fine but they didn't. We supposedly want to keep Targett so if we can't that's a damning inditement of our attractiveness as a club. But then again, our fans appear to have accepted that we can't keep hold of any member of our squad whilst the cash coming in pays down Gao's debt. Pathetic really.

 

I appreciate you get off on knocking the club at every opportunity, but if Targett wants to leave to play first team football, and is unlikely to do so if RB says, how is that a damning indictment. If we want to keep him, he stays, as he's under contract. If we get offered full value and have, or acquire, sufficient cover, he goes. Simples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted
I appreciate you get off on knocking the club at every opportunity, but if Targett wants to leave to play first team football, and is unlikely to do so if RB says, how is that a damning indictment. If we want to keep him, he stays, as he's under contract. If we get offered full value and have, or acquire, sufficient cover, he goes. Simples.

 

I don't "get off" on knocking the club (whatever that's supposed to mean) but what you are saying plainly isn't true is it? You say that if we want MT to stay he will as he's under contract but how do you then explain Tadic going when we are woefully short of creative players? On your logic we'd force Tadic to stay as he's under contract when clearly that isn't happening. As for knocking the club, you might be happy with what's going on but right now there is very little positive noise out of Saints. For me, the fans willingness to place blind faith in Les and the gang when it comes to transfers is what has killed us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
our fans appear to have accepted that we can't keep hold of any member of our squad whilst the cash coming in pays down Gao's debt. Pathetic really.

 

For me, the fans willingness to place blind faith in Les and the gang when it comes to transfers.

 

You seem to like making things up to look smarter than everyone else. You aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted
You seem to like making things up to look smarter than everyone else. You aren't.

 

Putting the needless personal jibe to one side (isn't this a forum where people can post what they think about Saints?!) would genuinely be interested to hear why you disagree with what I've said. Which of those is "made up"? It's well known that Gao used debt to purchase the club and, in all likelihood, any money received by the club and not reinvested will be used to service the loan. Not really a controversial statement. I wonder how long it took Cov City's fans to realise they were being taken for a ride by SISU...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Albert

Saint Albert

Posted
Posted
Hasn't the VVD situation shown us we can't keep players who want to leave. All depends on whether Targett wants to stay.

 

...I’d imagine that his willingness to stay is subject to his prospects of getting first team opportunities at Saints this season. I’ll be interested to see how this pans out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
Putting the needless personal jibe to one side (isn't this a forum where people can post what they think about Saints?!) would genuinely be interested to hear why you disagree with what I've said. Which of those is "made up"? It's well known that Gao used debt to purchase the club and, in all likelihood, any money received by the club and not reinvested will be used to service the loan. Not really a controversial statement. I wonder how long it took Cov City's fans to realise they were being taken for a ride by SISU...

 

Never said I disagree. It's just incredibly patronising to think you're the only person who has noticed we have problems with recruitment/sales and concerns over Gao's investment in the club.

 

Try posting your opinion without the need to point out how ignorant everyone else is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted
Never said I disagree. It's just incredibly patronising to think you're the only person who has noticed we have problems with recruitment/sales and concerns over Gao's investment in the club.

 

Try posting your opinion without the need to point out how ignorant everyone else is.

 

Fair enough but don't think I ever said I was the only one who had noticed, just that a significant number on here appear to be resigned to us not being able to hold onto our players. Try replying without reading things into posts that aren't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vectraman

vectraman

Posted
Posted

If Targett wants to go and we have McQueen as back up left back, that’s okay. I’d have thought a slightly bigger fee than £10 million - £15 would be more like it, but we have a large squad and need to move players on who are just squad players. Assuming Bertrand stays, one back up left back is all we need really?

I don’t see the problem with this personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
qwertyell

qwertyell

Posted
Posted

Squeeze a few more quid out of Fulham and negotiate a decent sell on clause and I'd take the deal.

 

McQueen is decent back up, Vokins is on the way if things get desperate, and if we sell Bertrand he'll have to be replaced by a new signing.

 

Targett isn't good enough to be first choice for us, never will be (unless we drop down the divisions).

 

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted

We have a bloated squad full of average players and Targett is very average I'd quite happily off load him along with the several others especially if it frees up funds for some better players. Honestly if we where looking to buy Matt Targett from another club as a Bertrand replacement this place would be having a meltdown. I get that every time we sell a player we have to have a meltdown on here, which I can understand if they are a big player for us like Morgan, Vic or Mane, but a player who hasn't ever been close to the first team, earns 45K a week and isn't even that good really isn't worth a major meltdown. Having said that in todays market when even dross is expensive, Fulham can **** off at £10 million we should be looking for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dusic

Dusic

Posted
Posted
Squeeze a few more quid out of Fulham and negotiate a decent sell on clause and I'd take the deal.

 

McQueen is decent back up, Vokins is on the way if things get desperate, and if we sell Bertrand he'll have to be replaced by a new signing.

 

Targett isn't good enough to be first choice for us, never will be (unless we drop down the divisions).

 

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

Agree personally. Targett lacks that yard of pace that Shaw and Bertrand have.

 

Decent player but gets ripped by quick wide players at PL level.

 

Those kind of numbers just shows you need to spend £30m for a proven player these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
batterseasaint

batterseasaint

Posted
Posted

There is no benefit in selling him now, as it is unlikely he will lose value for the next few years. I assume we don’t need the 10m, so if he really wants out, and Fulham want him, then he can go on loan again. Great deal for all parties, especially us if he comes back with a year of Prem experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Give it to Ron

Give it to Ron

Posted
Posted
There is no benefit in selling him now, as it is unlikely he will lose value for the next few years. I assume we don’t need the 10m, so if he really wants out, and Fulham want him, then he can go on loan again. Great deal for all parties, especially us if he comes back with a year of Prem experience.
Why do you assume we don't need the 10m when everything looks the opposite?

 

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted

If we let Targett go, it means Bertrand isn't departing. Happy days. Whether McQueen is good enough to be his alternative I'm not sure. Perhaps we will let both go and sign Tierney or some one else and achieve an upgrade. Not all young players coming through are actually top draw. Would hate to see Targett turn out to be a gem. The football people at the club hopefully know what they are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
musesaint

musesaint

Posted
Posted

I have a feeling that if we let Targett go we will regret it in the long term. He’s got more potential than many realise. Selling him must mean that Bertrand is expected to stay. Whether McQueen is better than Targett in that position is debatable

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red

Red

Posted
Posted
I have a feeling that if we let Targett go we will regret it in the long term. He’s got more potential than many realise. Selling him must mean that Bertrand is expected to stay. Whether McQueen is better than Targett in that position is debatable

 

Not if we have a reasonable sell on clause.

 

If Bertie stays, Targett will not be a starter (don't really see Bertie as one of of back three if that is the formation we play), and he will get frustrated. We have enough in the squad to cover that position in case of injuries, and will be the ideal opportunity for McQueen to show if he is good enough.

 

Take the money and use it to address more pressing positions - as long as they are starters and not squad fillers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shropshire Saint

Shropshire Saint

Posted
Posted

I think that Matt Target is a good player but as others have said lacks that yard of pace that is needed in that position. McQueen I think is a better allrounder as backup assuming Ryan stays. On the horizon we have Jake Vokins coming through. I have been impressed when I have seen him play for the Under 23's - he could be another Luke Shaw. Vokins probably needs another year before he challenges for a first team place but keeping Targett would only block his progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dusic

Dusic

Posted
Posted
If we're playing 3 at the back, imo McQueen is a better back-up to Bertrand than Targett. Offers much more going forward, and so better suited to the wing-back role.
McQueen is quite favoured on here, but is he actually better than Targett as a LB?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
McQueen is quite favoured on here, but is he actually better than Targett as a LB?

 

are either really top draw? Considering the wealth of Premiership sides, shouldn't the quality of squad players be much much higher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...