ED Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 It's so they can have a sub keeper surely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Yup, its for a sub. We cant whinge about it, we've used this rule before. Every club is allowed to do it if theyre down to the last keeper in their first team squad. Theres no special rule here for city, its a level playing field for everyone so suck it up and get on with it. Fulop is hardly givens equal, so theyre still under strength Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I think loans between teams in the same division should be stopped. Why? Not disagreeing, Im just not aware of too many disruptions! And you could argue that transfers between teams in the same division should be stopped. Its simple Does Joe Harts loan agreement allow him to re - join Manchester City under such circumstances? If Yes: Then fine If no: Then no The FA need to grow a pair of balls and practice the rules they set out, whichever team is involved. The biggest issue with inter-divisional loans is that bigger clubs can then get massive squads of top class players and keep them happy simply by loaning them out. The loaning club will usually have to pick up the wages bill and a fee, and they have no ownership on the player. Ultimately then the huge clubs then have masses of talent at their disposal that other clubs cant compete with. You shouldnt be allowed to do it - not in the same division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSufferingVilla Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Wonder when the last time was that a player played against the same team twice in the same week for 2 different clubs. I'd imagine it's quite common during the transfer windows for outfield players but still a rarity for keepers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Looks like Fulop might start, this makes me a little annoyed as they should start the keeper they still have there imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozyFresh Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 I think it's absolutely disgusting, i couldn't believe when i heard the news. I feel sorry for Gunnar Nielsen, he's set to make his first start for the club and then this. All of a sudden Mancini has no faith in Gunnar. He was good enough to be sat on the bench for the past few matches, but now he's not good enough to start? I don't know if anyone else watched the Arsenal match but he did well. Arsenal kept him busy and he didn't make any mistakes. He may be inexperienced, but it's not as if he's some 17 year old rookie. He's 23, played at international level and has been about for a long time. I hope you guys are right about it being so they can have a sub keeper and hope Gunnar gets to start, can't see it happening now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briggaman Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Looks like Fulop might start, this makes me a little annoyed as they should start the keeper they still have there imho This. Absolute disgrace that they are allowed to play Fulop. Imagine if he pulls off some great saves that result in us drawing or losing. Would that be fair?! Certainly not in my opinion as this game will have massive consequences... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts