So am I correct in thinking we don't want De Krup because we're aiming higher.... So buying the guy he's gone to replace at Brighton is the way to go according to some on RnB?
View attachment 51586
Man you're usually quite astute in your observations.
But are you telling me you wanted De Cuyper over Estupinan?
I fail to see any argument for that.
I didn't want De Cuyper in the first place. It wouldn't have been a great buy. One that we are hoping turns out well. And isn't very suitable to us. Where we can, lets stop making risky signings, especially when the back up is Bartesaghi..
Can we agree De Cuyper is an attacking LB? In truth very attacking. He isn't strong defensively.
Do we want to replace Theo with a poor mans Theo?
We are shit defensively. If we are going to have an attacking wing back, doesn't it make more sense for that to be the RB - Given how little Leao helps?
I'm not saying De Cuyper won't prove to be a great attacking LB - But even if he becomes one, I won't have regrets.
I don't care if Estupinan was replaced by him. That may prove to be a mistake by them. They can afford to take risks. They don't have the pressure of finishing anywhere. If it turns out badly for them and they have a bad season, they miss out on Europe. Which is likely any season anyway.
We are in the business of fighting for titles or at least qualifying for Europe. They don't hold on to players over 26 do they? Why? Because, instead of aiming for trophies - they aim to only make profit. De Cuyper could get a few goals and assists and be shocking defensively, and they'll still get Chelsea offering double what they paid for him. Even if he is so bad defensively he costs them many points...Who is more likely to increase in value De Cuyper or Estupinan? That's all they considered. Not who is better. We need better NOW.
If we had any top manager join us and had to pick between Estupinan or De Cuyper - given what the rest of the squad looks like - unless they want to play 3 at the back - they're all picking Estupinan.
