West Brom Sign Scott Sinclair on Loan from Manchester City
Sinclair, 24, joins Diego Lugano and Nicolas Anelka among manager Steve Clarke’s summer signings, and with confusion swirling over Anelka’s situation following the death of the Frenchman’s agent, the Baggies moved quickly to bring in the 2012 Olympian.
“We’re delighted [Sinclair] feels this is the right club for him at this stage of his career,” Clarke told the club’s official website on Thursday afternoon. “Scott understands he needs to play football and it will be good to work with him again.”
Clarke and Sinclair worked together over two years at Chelsea while the former served as assistant manager and the latter attempted to nail down a starting position, eventually being loaned out on four occasions.
West Brom will be the seventh club at which Sinclair has played on a loan basis. The club are understood to be paying his full wage packet.
Just last year the left-sided forward—who represented Great Britain at the London Olympics—joined City for £8 million following a successful, two-year spell at Swansea. But he made only 14 appearances in all competitions for the Eastlands side—many of them from the bench—and failed to find the back of the net over the course of the campaign.
Hoping to get more of a chance this season than last!!! Only time will tell.— Scott Sinclair (@Scotty_Sinclair) July 30, 2013
“He is frustrated he did not get the chances to play at Man City last season and hopefully he will take those frustrations out on Premier League defenders this season,” remarked Clarke, adding, “He is a pure winger who is quick, direct and scores goals. He has proven that over his career.”
Sinclair will be included in the team Clarke takes to Everton for Saturday’s match at Goodison Park, and given Anelka’s absence on compassionate grounds, it’s likely he will see some playing time as well.
On Wednesday the Daily Mail reported the 34-year-old had cleared out his locker after training and was “deliberating his future in football.”
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?