We signed him last year on a six and a half year deal(?).
If that’s true, wouldn’t have necessarily thought a new contract was of the utmost urgency at this particular juncture? As in, make him the starter now and give him a season or so to offer more clarity?
He probably had a release clause in the contract and this was to remove it. They have always been common among young goalkeepers.
Also, simply to demonstrate our commitment to him as number 1 by boosting his wages. And to demonstrate to other players that we’ll do right by them when they progress even if we had them on longer terms.
Very much in the fence with him being number 1
The Save against Leeds was unreal, but the first goal against Chelsea was very weak in the run of games he had.
We saw how a crap keeper costs you points last year, but on the other hand, if he's not given a chance we won't know if he is good enough to step up.
it's a limited run of games to base it on, but I thought he looked steady/confident, which helps the defence massively if they know what he's doingFair comments. How do/did you rate Kinksy when dealing with corners and aerial balls generally compared to Vicario?


We signed a keeper as back up? Think it's been accurately reported that Kinsky is starting as no.1...so we see how that goes.Output like this makes me not expect a further goalkeeper signing this summer.
Dubravka, yes. But no further signing that'd seem like a clear number 1, I'd wager.We signed a keeper as back up? Think it's been accurately reported that Kinsky is starting as no.1...so we see how that goes.
Think Austin is still with us as no.3
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.