Newcastle Transfers: So Who Was This Mysterious Yanga Replacement?

Having already established that there was no option to pull Jamaal Lascelles back from his loan at Nottingham Forest to Newcastle early to cover the loss of Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa in the latest NUFC Fans Forum, the club also confirmed that they actually had a good reason for sending Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa out on loan. Or at least they sort of did. When Mathieu Debuchy was sold to Arsenal, we were told the club would no longer sell players without already having a replacement lined up, which is why the Frenchman had to wait for his London move as the Magpies waited for the Janmaat deal to go through, so it's no shock that was the approach initially taken for the centre-back's deal. The club received a lot of criticism for not replacing Yanga-Mbiwa when he was sent to Rome, but according to their Fan Forum response, they actually did attempt to make a replacement:

€œThe club added that it had initially reached a verbal agreement for a replacement defender in the summer. Because the deal with AS Roma took longer than expected, the replacement transfer was no longer possible."

Obviously, that doesn't explain why the club would still go ahead with the deal to get rid of the Frenchman, leaving the squad too thin on the ground, but the suggestion from the rest of their statement on the matter suggests they were strong-armed into it by Roma.

€œThe move was sanctioned in the interests of all parties. There is the possibility that the transfer could become permanent at the end of the loan period at around the fee Newcastle United initially paid for him. €œThe club€™s view was that the deal to allow Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa to leave was in the interests of all parties and, after taking the medium-to-long term view, the club let him leave.€

Mid-to-long-term suggests Roma said do the deal now, or miss out on the opportunity to sell him in the summer, which would fit with the obvious fact that Yanga-Mbiwa simply wasn't wanted at Newcastle. They also say there's a chance of a permanent deal, but by Italian law, there has to be a provision for a permanent deal in any loan contract, so it's not like Roma could have said they'd remove that option if Newcastle didn't play ball. So who was the replacement? Was the verbal agreement in place with Toby Alderweireld of Atletico Madrid? Possibly, but why would there be a need to wait on that one if it was going to be the loan deal that was widely reported? The same goes for a Nastasic move, as he was said to be available only on loan from Man City. Presumably the need to remove Yanga-Mbiwa first meant the deal was going to be permanent. Or maybe we're reading too much into a statement that has no qualification.