Anyone else think City would have been better keeping Trippier? Can see him being ahead of Walker in the England side next summer now he's got a clear run at the Tottenham first team. Another ex-Red doing well for himself. If only we could have signed him permanently instead of him going to Burnley.
Kyle Walker has just had his best season, I reckon he's got another one in him before he starts to decline. That England place is Trippier's in the long term though I reckon. Sent from my WAS-LX1A using Tapatalk
too old too expensive want too much in wages if we had a plan then he wouldn't have fitted in, i'm sure the club would come up with some reason.
They reckon with add ons and with the £4 million that will have to paid to the Blunts in "sell on " costs the final fee could end up being circa £53 million. Although at 26 he's only a year younger than Walker I would agree Trippier is probably a better option for the future. Walker has a tendency to overrun the ball and his crosses are sometimes not as effective as Trippier's. To my mind it's a lot of brass to pay for a player that can be prone to niggling injuries every season.