Man City request Emergency Keeper loan

[JH]

They have a 40-man squad, littered with some of the world's best players and Roque Santa Cruz.

 

 

 

[JH]

They should be allowed to sign a keeper under the following rules:

 

1. Independent medical advice confirms they keepers on their books are injured

2. Above to covers all keepers eligible at close of transfer window

3. If only 1 fit keeper then they can sign on from another Premiership club to sit on the bench to act as cover.

4. That keeper can only be one of similar standing, eg another principle bench warmer.

 

They've got reserves and an academy. Fucking use them.

[Minhosa]

Cleared to do so:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/8644269.stm

[SEMTEX]

*unshocked*

[midds]

Not surprised, but there you go. Not a biggie really but they've got away with one there.

[Pilko]

Agree with semtex that people are angry 'because it's city', although think it's a stupid rule to begin with. If that makes sense.

[Doctor Zaius]

Stupid that like. Emergency loans should be used for emergencies only, like for instance if Man City dont have a fit keeper, however they have a keeper and therefore should not be allowed to loan someone else.

[James]

BBC Sport understand that they will get permission.

 

Rightly so, as the rules are there and have been used by other clubs in the past, both in the PL and the lower leagues. There is nothing stopping other clubs doing the same should they be in the same situation.

 

The rule is a good one. There is only one place in the team for a goalkeeper and is a specialised position that can't be fulfilled by playing someone else out of position. Without the insurance of an emergency loan, certain clubs, particularly the rich ones will stockpile keepers, the result being a keeper that could be perfectly good for someone else is left to rot on a large contract.

 

For example, Joe Hart may not have got that crucial loan to Birmingham that could one day benefit England.

 

Spurs and Villa can moan all they want, but the rule is there for them as much as it is for City, and I wouldn't call any scenario involving a club losing their best two keepers an advantage. These clubs are going to be better off with the better matchwinners between the sticks.

 

Liverpool can't moan as they've used the emergency loan before.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

The easiest thing now would be for no one to lend them a keeper.

[SEMTEX]

The easiest thing now would be for no one to lend them a keeper.

 

£

[James]

The easiest thing now would be for no one to lend them a keeper.

 

£

 

 

Yep, clubs like us with nothing to play for wont mind doing it for some sort of bonus.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

The easiest thing now would be for no one to lend them a keeper.

 

£

 

Definately.  But it's a nice idea.

[James]

David James.

 

Portsmouth have nothing to play for and need to investigate their reserve keepers anyway. Chance to save and earn a bit of money, and he'll be back for the cup final.

 

James knows the club well and has a chance to show he can still play at a higher level club to stake his claim for the World Cup.

[JH]

The easiest thing now would be for no one to lend them a keeper.

 

Or start the bidding at £40m

[madras]

serves them right for not stipulating they could recall joe hart if necessary.

[James]

serves them right for not stipulating they could recall joe hart if necessary.

 

Think Birmingham paid to loan him, so they have a right to keep him if they choose.

[madras]

serves them right for not stipulating they could recall joe hart if necessary.

 

Think Birmingham paid to loan him, so they have a right to keep him if they choose.

and like city need the money. for how much they got it would have been insurance in case of this. to leave yourselves with only 2 keepers in their position (financially and going for a  champs league spot) is pretty stupid.

[Guest]

Seem to remember Kiraly to Aston Villa, Westerveld to Everton, Jones to Liverpool (?) in similar circumstances, so no idea why people are having a go at City for this.

[Pilko]

Seem to remember Kiraly to Aston Villa, Westerveld to Everton, Jones to Liverpool (?) in similar circumstances, so no idea why people are having a go at City for this.

 

I remember it was Westerveld who was in goal when Nobby scored them two goals, including that Goal of the Season one.

[ToonMonty]

They haven't really requested this, have they?

 

Please tell me they haven't.

 

Like Everton did with Westerveld in the run up to a game at SJP (beaten to it by the posts above)

[James]

serves them right for not stipulating they could recall joe hart if necessary.

 

Think Birmingham paid to loan him, so they have a right to keep him if they choose.

and like city need the money. for how much they got it would have been insurance in case of this. to leave yourselves with only 2 keepers in their position (financially and going for a  champs league spot) is pretty stupid.

 

Like I asked earlier, is it good for the game for clubs to have three decent keepers at the top club with one having no chance of playing? As that is what would happen without the insurance. Nielsen sounds like our Caig, there so we can play a reserve game.

 

The rules are there unopposed by the Premier League clubs. As pointed out by NUT and myself other clubs have used it in the past, and will do so again.

[madras]

serves them right for not stipulating they could recall joe hart if necessary.

 

Think Birmingham paid to loan him, so they have a right to keep him if they choose.

and like city need the money. for how much they got it would have been insurance in case of this. to leave yourselves with only 2 keepers in their position (financially and going for a  champs league spot) is pretty stupid.

 

Like I asked earlier, is it good for the game for clubs to have three decent keepers at the top club with one having no chance of playing? As that is what would happen without the insurance. Nielsen sounds like our Caig, there so we can play a reserve game.

 

The rules are there unopposed by the Premier League clubs. As pointed out by NUT and myself other clubs have used it in the past, and will do so again.

i'd guess most clubs would have 1 first choice,decent standard back up and a kid, if the kid has to play then so be it. it's the rules on loans that ought to be changed, far too much use of them and for too long. nominated 23 man squads is the way to go.

[midds]

serves them right for not stipulating they could recall joe hart if necessary.

 

Think Birmingham paid to loan him, so they have a right to keep him if they choose.

and like city need the money. for how much they got it would have been insurance in case of this. to leave yourselves with only 2 keepers in their position (financially and going for a  champs league spot) is pretty stupid.

 

Like I asked earlier, is it good for the game for clubs to have three decent keepers at the top club with one having no chance of playing? As that is what would happen without the insurance. Nielsen sounds like our Caig, there so we can play a reserve game.

 

The rules are there unopposed by the Premier League clubs. As pointed out by NUT and myself other clubs have used it in the past, and will do so again.

 

No-one is disputing the fact that other clubs have used the rule in the past. It's more the fact that if they have several keepers to pick from it's not that much of an emergency. If they had NO keepers then obviously they should be allowed to bring someone in. It's the fact they don't want to play any of the keepers they do have available.

[Incognito]

The easiest thing now would be for no one to lend them a keeper.

 

Chelski could offer Hilario.

Arsenal could offer Fabianski or Almunia.

 

Fuck it...Shay ,give us a look at that shoulder again!

[Ameritoon]

Looks like they want Marton Fulop.

 

lol