£1m for Baldock, £10m for Jarvis? Mad or what?

So Baldock has been jettisoned at a £1m loss, great business for Bristol City who stung us for £1.5m for Maynard, the guy Baldock has been signed to replace; and meanwhile, if reports are true, we have bid an absurd £10m for Matt Jarvis, a player relegated from the Prem last season with Wolves.

Why? Because Allardyce only knows one way to play and there's no way in a million years that Baldock can lead the line alone nor play wide. Just as there's no way in a million years that Maynard can lead the line alone nor play wide either. Which begs the question, why did Allardyce buy them? Or perhaps, did Sullivan go ahead and sign them without talking to his manager?

That idea doesn't wash because Allardyce was singing Little Sam's praises before we "captured" him; Maynard, on the other hand, was one of those "last minute dot David" jobs: "'e's nearing the end of 'is contract, 'e's cheap, 'e's willing to join us so we'll 'ave 'im!" Just like Mido, Ilan, McCarthy, O'Neil (cover for the Martin O'Neill story in truth) and co.

Should we sign Jarvis? Not for £10m! He was tested by England and found wanting. I would rather see us do a deal for Adam Johnson from Man City: he's trouble but five times the player Jarvis will ever be! If we are going to spend big, we should spend big on quality.