Search results

Why is it bizarre? We're allowed only two loans in total. By signing a third goalkeeper on loan, it ended any possibility of getting a striker in on loan.. What position was more important - a third goalkeeper or a striker?

And slightly too small.

But he might have come on loan? Who knows. Only we couldn't sign him on loan as we'd signed another keeper on loan, meaning our two loans were already used up. And why had we signed that keeper on loan? Because the one we'd spent £5 million on doesn't inspire confidence ?

Sorry, you're saying we've spent £5 million on a keeper who 'they may think will take time to adjust' and who may be great next year. That's just bizarre.