TrentVilla Posted April 26, 2010 Moderator Share Posted April 26, 2010 If they have a keeper on their books who has a squad number and is fit then no, if they don't then yes. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 If they have a keeper on their books who has a squad number and is fit then no, if they don't then yes. Simples. We had Olejnik when we got Kiraly on loan. Not sure if he had a squad number or not. But I guess their Faroe Island keeper they actually bought from Blackburn I believe, so not quite the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Surely it is their own fault for letting a keeper go out on loan? You can't let people go out on loan and then moan you don't have a goalkeeper :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Dida? Not playing for Milan atm, but a big name keeper playing in Italy, which is where I think Mancini is likely to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted April 26, 2010 Moderator Share Posted April 26, 2010 Removing our obvious vested interest in their 'plight' for a moment. I think a club in their position should be allowed an emergency loan. As much as it may harm our top 4 aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 26, 2010 Moderator Share Posted April 26, 2010 We really have no right of complaint here, as has been pointed out, they are only asking for what we ourselves have previously been granted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 We really have no right of complaint here, as has been pointed out, they are only asking for what we ourselves have previously been granted Although at the time we didn't have a fit, healthy international goalkeeper that we had chosen to loan out and another fit, healthy international goalkeeper in our squad ready and willing to play. I have no real problem in them bringing in an emergency loan, but the situation isn't quite the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Not sure how i feel on this, part of me says they should be forced to get on with what they have, after all what happens if you're in this situation with the defence like when we had to play Clark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted April 26, 2010 Moderator Share Posted April 26, 2010 We really have no right of complaint here, as has been pointed out, they are only asking for what we ourselves have previously been granted Although at the time we didn't have a fit, healthy international goalkeeper that we had chosen to loan out and another fit, healthy international goalkeeper in our squad ready and willing to play. I have no real problem in them bringing in an emergency loan, but the situation isn't quite the same. OK but then who sits on their bench as a goalkeeping substitute? You need the pick of 2 keepers really. They'd currently probably have to go to 16 year old Loris Karius. So bringing someone in will in all likelyhood mean Nielsen drops to the bench again, but that's their choice. I just hope they don't bring in someone ridiculously good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 why can't they just play one goal and someone else goes in that's the rotation we use in 5 a side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 We really have no right of complaint here, as has been pointed out, they are only asking for what we ourselves have previously been granted Although at the time we didn't have a fit, healthy international goalkeeper that we had chosen to loan out and another fit, healthy international goalkeeper in our squad ready and willing to play. I have no real problem in them bringing in an emergency loan, but the situation isn't quite the same. OK but then who sits on their bench as a goalkeeping substitute? You need the pick of 2 keepers really. They'd currently probably have to go to 16 year old Loris Karius. Fine, he goes on the bench then and the international keeper who is paid to play football plays football. Olejnik was on the bench for us when Kiraly was in goal - and although he was a couple of years older the situation is no different in that Man City (should) need to put a young, inexperienced player on the bench. I don't really mind if they bring in Buffon in on a short-term loan - if we don't beat them then it will be out own fault not down to which keeper they are or aren't allowed to pick. But it's still not the same situation as when we brought Kiraly in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Yes, BUT only if it's someone's reserve keeper who would normally be allowed to leave. And so long as no money changes hands to allow them to get a better one than in normal circumstances. this, no 5m for 3 games international or even say joe lewis (? Peterboro, england team not so long back) Ive got visions of de gea or another shit hot youngster coming in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Apparently Hart will go back in a deal which sha can keep him next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 27, 2010 Moderator Share Posted April 27, 2010 We really have no right of complaint here, as has been pointed out, they are only asking for what we ourselves have previously been granted Although at the time we didn't have a fit, healthy international goalkeeper that we had chosen to loan out and another fit, healthy international goalkeeper in our squad ready and willing to play. I have no real problem in them bringing in an emergency loan, but the situation isn't quite the same. OK but then who sits on their bench as a goalkeeping substitute? You need the pick of 2 keepers really. They'd currently probably have to go to 16 year old Loris Karius. So bringing someone in will in all likelyhood mean Nielsen drops to the bench again, but that's their choice. I just hope they don't bring in someone ridiculously good. It was also their choice to send Hart out on loan, something they have had the benefit of twice this season when playing against Birmingham City, which is another issue and one I'm very much against. Man City have a international keeper in their squad, fit and able to play. That is not the same situation we were in when we needed a keeper on loan and you don't have to have a keeper on the bench that is just an option. Would you be allowed to bring a striker in on loan if all your strikers were injured and all you had left was Heskey? No you wouldn't. They have a keeper they deemed good enough to be in their squad, he should play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morkery Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 They should be allowed to do what we did - get a dodgy keeper in piss-drenched pyjamas. Do not agree with it if they get a world class keeper, that is unfair. Should be a keeper that would only be able to get on a premier league bench. The faroe Island keeper should be first choice, not sure how you could stop them saying he is injured however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maradona10 Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 You know they'll pay ridiculous money for a good keeper for a few games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maradona10 Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 I can just see it now Hart will go back this week, but i don't believe City will loan him back as Given will be out for most of the summer and will unlikely be fit for the start of the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troglodyte Posted April 27, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 27, 2010 Looks like they'll be getting Hart back, according to the Guardian. Manchester City are trying to persuade Birmingham City to allow Joe Hart to return to Eastlands for the final three games of the season after requesting special permission from the Premier League to help them out of a goalkeeping crisis. Hart is on a season-long loan at St Andrew's but Birmingham's vice-chairman, Peter Pannu, said tonight he would "consider it favourably" even though the manager, Alex McLeish, has made it clear he is against the idea. Pannu said: "I understand their [Manchester City's] concerns. I am very sympathetic to City and if I was Garry Cook [City's chief executive] I would already have been on the phone." Contingency plans have been put in place, with Manchester City's football administrator, Brian Marwood, contacting Sunderland earlier in the day to ask about the availability of the Hungary international Marton Fulop. The 26-year-old Fulop has not only lost his place to Craig Gordon but is now third choice behind Trevor Carson. It is understood his relationship with the manager, Steve Bruce, has been strained. Roberto Mancini, trying to steer City to the fourth Champions League qualification place, needs a replacement for Shay Given after the Republic of Ireland international dislocated a shoulder in Saturday's goalless draw at Arsenal. Two of Given's understudies, Stuart Taylor and David Gonzalez, are also injured. The third-choice goalkeeper, Gunnar Nielsen, a 23-year-old Faroe Islands international, is available but the next option is a 16-year-old academy player, Loris Karius. The club supplied medical statements to the Premier League today to request an emergency loan. The officials discussing the application have agreed that City meet the criteria, namely having no established first-team goalkeeping cover, and the club hope to be given official approval tomorrow. Hart, voted into the Professional Footballers' Association's team of the year, has one England cap and also forced his way into the squad this season. It is likely City would have to pay a one-off fee to Birmingham. Alternatively, a deal may be reached whereby Hart goes back to Eastlands but Birmingham are guaranteed he will return to St Andrew's for next season. The complex nature of the negotiations is not helped by the fact McLeish has already gone on record to say he would rather keep Hart for Birmingham's final two games, with the Midlands club on course for their best finish since 1959. However, Pannu said: "We have a great relationship with City and I will consider it [the approach] favourably because Joe has done a great job." Aston Villa and Tottenham Hotspur, City's main rivals, are monitoring the situation closely. Neither club have raised any objections with the Premier Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALL.IV.1 Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Nose at work says hart is going back in a deal that allows them to loan another player next season. "possible SWP" were the words. I can't see how loans between clubs in the same league is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted April 27, 2010 Moderator Share Posted April 27, 2010 We really have no right of complaint here, as has been pointed out, they are only asking for what we ourselves have previously been granted Although at the time we didn't have a fit, healthy international goalkeeper that we had chosen to loan out and another fit, healthy international goalkeeper in our squad ready and willing to play. I have no real problem in them bringing in an emergency loan, but the situation isn't quite the same. OK but then who sits on their bench as a goalkeeping substitute? You need the pick of 2 keepers really. They'd currently probably have to go to 16 year old Loris Karius. So bringing someone in will in all likelyhood mean Nielsen drops to the bench again, but that's their choice. I just hope they don't bring in someone ridiculously good. It was also their choice to send Hart out on loan, something they have had the benefit of twice this season when playing against Birmingham City, which is another issue and one I'm very much against. Man City have a international keeper in their squad, fit and able to play. That is not the same situation we were in when we needed a keeper on loan and you don't have to have a keeper on the bench that is just an option. Would you be allowed to bring a striker in on loan if all your strikers were injured and all you had left was Heskey? No you wouldn't. They have a keeper they deemed good enough to be in their squad, he should play. Come on Trent, we both know outfield players are a totally different kettle of fish. Goalkeeper is the most specialised position in the team. You can't just throw someone in goal and hope for the best. Outfield you can do a myriad of things from promoting wingers (in the case of replacing a striker), changing formation etc. A lot of outfield players can at least make a fist of trying other positions and a lot of positions outfield share skills with other positions. Keeper is keeper and there's nothing similar. I do agree with you that the Hart scenario complicates it slightly but then I'm sure they'd love to be able to recall him. I'm glad they can't because he'd probably be an improvement on what was there in the first place. But then I don't like Given (the person). I'm glad his shoulder is dislocated and, with him being a keeper, it will probably affect the rest of his career. Ho hum, tough shit and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts