mrbojangles Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Just been looking on the BBC and it looks like Man City are going to be given special treatment to sign a goalkeeper. Is it just me or does anyone else think this is slightly unfair, the way I see it dont leave yourself short incase something like this happens. If they had no keeper at all I could maybe understand but they have a keeper so make do. Any thoughts? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/8644269.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I don't think it's right. I didn't think it was right when we signed Kiraly either. The whole point of having numerous goalkeepers in your squad is so that in case of injur or suspension, they play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 A joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 26, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 26, 2010 I don't think it's right. but it's happened plenty enough times before for it to actually be unfair to City if they weren't allowed to, imo. Which is why I voted Yes. The difference is clubs usually bring in emergency loans to be back up, City will probably bring in some world beater to be first choice for 3 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Was it unfair when we signed Kiraly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 City will probably bring in some world beater to be first choice for 3 games. who is going to release a world beating keeper to citeh for 3 games? :? They would probably have to go abroad, and that is always big risk IMO, in the GK dept. Either way, in all of this, Citeh are much, much weaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardo Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I don't think it's right. but it's happened plenty enough times before for it to actually be unfair to City if they weren't allowed to, imo. Which is why I voted Yes. The difference is clubs usually bring in emergency loans to be back up, City will probably bring in some world beater to be first choice for 3 games. Who is there available though that would take up the offer of 3 games? Surely all world beaters have a place in a team already no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quizme Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Who is there available though that would take up the offer of 3 games? Magnus Hedman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b23avfc Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Bosnich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 They want Marton Fulop. Guarantee they will get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 maybe they can tempt enkleman? who can they get with 3 games to go? i wouldnt risk it personally stick with what you got at least you can assess what their strengths and weaknesses are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Apparently according to the BBC their request is going to be granted. Bull shit if you ask me, they shouldn't have loaned out their other keeper if they were worried about having to draft someone else in, they took the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 If it helps them pip spurs to 4th then they should be allowed to do it If it helps them pip us to 4th then it is utterly outrageous ! :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stato Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I don't think it's right. but it's happened plenty enough times before for it to actually be unfair to City if they weren't allowed to, imo. Which is why I voted Yes. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiganvillain Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Surely they get permission to get Hart back from bannishment to the temple of Doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Gabor Kiraly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Yes because it's happened before and it's unfair to allow one team I.E us for it to happen but not another team. The rule shouldn't even be in place though, ridicolous unless serious disaster i.e team bus crashes or something horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Why do they have an international goalkeeper in their squad if they aren't going to use him in a situation like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I don't see the big hoo har. Would anyone care if this was happening to Wigan or Bolton. The way I see it, Cit-eh are going to be severely weakened regardless as they will not be able to loan anyone even remoitely close to Given's level of ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I don't have a problem with it, I would want the same if it were Villa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts