Shay Given (now retired)

[ElDiablo]

It's bollocks anyway, don't reckon he'd fancy coming back here. Wenger should be all over this though.

[Anderson]

Only take him if Krul get knackered and we're allowed to have him on an emergency loan.

[LiquidAK]

Those that are saying you don't want Given back because of how he left, how many of you are the same people that were accusing the 'Given-lovers' of putting the player before the club? You're doing the same thing, he's a top keeper but you're putting your personal feelings about him before the well-being of the club.

 

Who's to say the current squad wouldn't be upset if he came back? It's not just us, its a squad who went down, slugged out in the Championship and come back as a written off team while he sits on his massive wages talking about the massive club he joined.

 

If I were a player i'd be well fuked off to see the return of the judas prick.

 

I agree, but that's not why most people don't want him back. They don't want him back because he's a 'judas prick', not because of the effect he might have on team moral.

 

So you agree some players will feel the same, so they in theory they would have to also put their feelings aside to have him back for 'the good of the club'

 

The good of the club for me is to blood our young keeper with currently a limitless potential, not go back to a keeper who's peaked and on the slide.

 

I agree with you mate, there's no argument here. If you read the thread you'll see I said a very similar thing, I don't want him here because it'll stunt Krul further. My point was that there are those posting here that had a go at people for putting their feelings of respect for Given ahead of the club when they said they didn't hate him for leaving, when they're doing the exact same thing, only with feelings of anger rather than respect.

[Kimbo]

Those that are saying you don't want Given back because of how he left, how many of you are the same people that were accusing the 'Given-lovers' of putting the player before the club? You're doing the same thing, he's a top keeper but you're putting your personal feelings about him before the well-being of the club.

 

I don't really know what you're talking about. My opinion has nothing to do with feelings, it's a based on the future, i don't care about Given either way. If Krul has a future at the club and is a potential number 1 then he should be given the opportunity that he has been waiting for. Bringing in Given would surely end his time here.

[madras]

Those that are saying you don't want Given back because of how he left, how many of you are the same people that were accusing the 'Given-lovers' of putting the player before the club? You're doing the same thing, he's a top keeper but you're putting your personal feelings about him before the well-being of the club.

its called principles. they are subjective and right at this minute we are not having to play him in the last game of the season to stop up, taking everything into consideration i'd rather not have him here.

 

But to say you'd risk relegation because of it is madness. Another relegation could kill us, are our principles worth that much?

firstly i dont actually think we'll be in risk of relegation really.....................and yes i'd stick by it. i dont feel comfortable watching and supporting a team of twats, i like the renegade come good (ie if barton carries on his current form on and off the pitch) but with given its too close, if it were 5 year down the line maybe but its too soon.

[merlin]

Gotta say, I know it's a bit sad, but I can't help but laugh at the way the careers of all the deserters have gone.

 

Given: Warming City's bench, desperate to move.

Owen: 5th choice striker, career pittering towards an end.

Martins: Already been moved on, turning into a journeyman footballer and is struggling in Russia.

Beye: Villa reserves.

 

Duff had a good season and Bassong is doing well, but he's like what, 4th/5th choice CB for Spurs?

 

 

 

Yes - its particularly noticeable that all the Oba fanatics have gone really quiet about him now...he was always an erratic player who was never going to be top drawer and we did really well to get decent money back for him...compare his play to the likes of HBA and Tiote - different positions maybe, but both players contribute far more to the team and have better skills.

[merlin]

...as for Given, the only way I would want him back is if we were really struggling for GKs or if Soderberg proves not to be up for it. Nobody can say that GK has been a real weakness in the past 18 months and I doubt that any of our results so far would have been better had Given been in goal.

[Ronaldo]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but how many times have you seen Tiote play in order to make that judgement?

[ElDiablo]

Gotta say, I know it's a bit sad, but I can't help but laugh at the way the careers of all the deserters have gone.

 

Given: Warming City's bench, desperate to move.

Owen: 5th choice striker, career pittering towards an end.

Martins: Already been moved on, turning into a journeyman footballer and is struggling in Russia.

Beye: Villa reserves.

 

Duff had a good season and Bassong is doing well, but he's like what, 4th/5th choice CB for Spurs?

 

 

 

Yes - its particularly noticeable that all the Oba fanatics have gone really quiet about him now...he was always an erratic player who was never going to be top drawer and we did really well to get decent money back for him...compare his play to the likes of HBA and Tiote - different positions maybe, but both players contribute far more to the team and have better skills.

 

Definitely, Martins was ridiculously overrated by the majority on here and was cut an unbelievable amount of slack.

[Guest Ridzuan]

I would take him. Yes, Krul deserved his chance but we would be in trouble if he gets injured too. Ole is not ready for the big time. Or we could make the loan deal with an option to sign him on a permanent basis at the end of the season if he plays a certain number of games for us, just like the deal were having with Ben Arfa.

[QBG]

With Ronaldo on this one like. I wouldn't be against it in the slightest, having said that Krul clearly has better command of his area than Shay's ever had.

[Guest firetotheworks]

The answers in this thread are too sentimental. Let's say we need a draw to stay up on the last day of the season, who would you be more confident of keeping that clean sheet - Krul or Given?

 

That's essentially what it comes down to, every save and every point is crucial. But i'd be a tad surprised if there was anything in this beyond lazy journalism.

 

I agree on the sentimental point, but I think the players will think in the same way too unless Given came out with some 'I made a huge mistake...' admission. I don't think our team spirit is fragile, but because I feel that it's one of the most important factors in the way we've played since going down, I don't want to see it put in jeopardy.

[Incognito]

A big fat No from me.

When we were clearly on the slippery slope downwards,he was off like a shot.

Now it seems we're getting back on track,the last people we should be looking at are those who couldn't handle the adversity.

[ohmelads]

Give Krul his chance.

 

Bring Forster back or bring in a backup keeper on loan, from Chelsea or someone.

 

I think we should look at the greater good here, we have a good young keeper who has waited patiently for his chance. If we take a former player who f***ed off as we were fighting the drop and throw him back into the first team, it sends out completely the wrong message. I like to think we have moved on from that relegation season and entered a new era. Imagine Given came in and had a couple of bad games - people would be on his back straight away. He'd be under the spotlight, it would bring unwanted attention. Imagine he comes in, plays brilliantly, and after a couple of months buggers off back to City. It would make a mockery of Krul's role at the club.

 

If the club thinks Krul isn't good enough to deputise for a couple of months then he shouldn't have been on the bench. From the little I've seen of him he looks like a quality young keeper who simply needs games.

 

Surely there is a recall clause in Forster's contract? It would have been madness to send him out on loan without one.

[Guest]

Those that are saying you don't want Given back because of how he left, how many of you are the same people that were accusing the 'Given-lovers' of putting the player before the club? You're doing the same thing, he's a top keeper but you're putting your personal feelings about him before the well-being of the club.

 

Who's to say the current squad wouldn't be upset if he came back? It's not just us, its a squad who went down, slugged out in the Championship and come back as a written off team while he sits on his massive wages talking about the massive club he joined.

 

If I were a player i'd be well fuked off to see the return of the judas prick.

 

Hughton wouldn't touch him with a barge pole if he thought it would have that sort of effect on the squad so think if he was to come, it'd be because the players and Hughton are all for it.

[ChrisMcQuillan]

Give Krul his chance.

 

Bring Forster back or bring in a backup keeper on loan, from Chelsea or someone.

 

I think we should look at the greater good here, we have a good young keeper who has waited patiently for his chance. If we take a former player who f***ed off as we were fighting the drop and throw him back into the first team, it sends out completely the wrong message. I like to think we have moved on from that relegation season and entered a new era. Imagine Given came in and had a couple of bad games - people would be on his back straight away. He'd be under the spotlight, it would bring unwanted attention. Imagine he comes in, plays brilliantly, and after a couple of months buggers off back to City. It would make a mockery of Krul's role at the club.

 

If the club thinks Krul isn't good enough to deputise for a couple of months then he shouldn't have been on the bench. From the little I've seen of him he looks like a quality young keeper who simply needs games.

 

Surely there is a recall clause in Forster's contract? It would have been madness to send him out on loan without one.

 

There is no recall clause. I think due to it being in Scotland. But Celtic probably wouldn't have taken him with one, since he's clearly going to be their first choice keeper. Makes sense. Hughton said it's the price for letting him play in that calibre of team.

[Cronky]

Krul is good enough for the first team, and it's a chance for him to gain some experience. We're looking for a back-up, rather than a replacement, and Given won't be available anyway - it's outside the window.

 

What most clubs do in this situation is sign up on a short-term contract an experienced keeper from the lower divisions who's out of the first team picture. He doesn't have to be brilliant - just someone who isn't going to completely fuck up due to nerves. That's the danger with promoting a very young keeper like Sodeberg.

[Guest johnson293]

Give Krul his chance.

 

I think we should look at the greater good here, we have a good young keeper who has waited patiently for his chance. If we take a former player who f***ed off as we were fighting the drop and throw him back into the first team, it sends out completely the wrong message. I like to think we have moved on from that relegation season and entered a new era. Imagine Given came in and had a couple of bad games - people would be on his back straight away. He'd be under the spotlight, it would bring unwanted attention. Imagine he comes in, plays brilliantly, and after a couple of months buggers off back to City. It would make a mockery of Krul's role at the club.

 

If the club thinks Krul isn't good enough to deputise for a couple of months then he shouldn't have been on the bench. From the little I've seen of him he looks like a quality young keeper who simply needs games.

 

Agree with all of this. ^

 

 

[Guest Slippery Sam]

Personally can't see Man City wanting to loan Given out to one of their rivals for the European spots.

 

Aren't the owners of Man City the same chaps Ashley pissed off by not giving them the courtesy of a meeting in Dubai ? If they are, and if they bear grudges, there may not be a hope in hell of ever getting one of Man City's players on loan. Just a thought.

[NG32]

No thanks.  He was a high earner and a part of the relegation fiasco last season.

 

No ta.  Give Krul his go and bring back Fraser.

[relámpago blanco]

We can't bring back Fraser Forster, Hughton confirmed this.  I want to give Krul a chance but I'm scared that if he's isn't ready, he could cost us points, he only needs to make 1 or 2 mistakes a game.  I wouldn't bring shay back but think we need a backup plan if Krul is not ready.

[Broadsword]

So what stupid idea was it to loan out Forster if a single injury means we have to ask special permission for a new keeper. I think the PL should tell us no and we should be made to use Krul, if he then gets injured then yes a special case could be argued.  If we don't trust our young keepers that much then why didnt we get a new no 2 keeper in the transfer window. 

 

It may be typical media nonsense though.

[relámpago blanco]

Man City Loaned out Joe hart and when given got injured they gave them permission, I've no doubt the premier league will allow this, but I think we should give Krul a chance before going for anyone.

[JH]

Devils advocate here (/partly my opinion) but if Krul does end up not being ready, then what? I wouldn't like to rely on some 3rd rate, past it keeper.

 

In an ideal world, it'd be great to keep Krul as no.1 and give him chance, but this is still a make or break season. It might not be Given, but we do need somebody good enough to start in the Premier League, because Krul can't do it all by himself.

 

Fuck Krul's development (for this season anyway ), as has been the case since day one, survival is what matters first and foremost - and I'd do anything to reach that aim.

[Guest koye]

Man City Loaned out Joe hart and when given got injured they gave them permission, I've no doubt the premier league will allow this, but I think we should give Krul a chance before going for anyone.

 

Man.City only had one goalkeeper available when Given got injured. Taylor was injured and Hart was on loan. They only had Gunnar Nielsen, and had to use a junior goalkeeper on the bench, because of that they were allowed to bring Fulop in on loan.

 

Our situation is different because we have two senior goalkeepers available at the moment. Ole Soderberg is 20 years old...

 

Anyway, I believe Tim Krul will handle this situation very well.