Newcastle Fan Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 What are the odds of two goalkeeprs getting injured, i actually don't mind giving a shot to one of the young keepers, Didn't do Krul alot of harm when we were forced to bring him on against Palermo. again the point is why would we be concerned with signing a third choice GK when we have much much more important things to worry about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 What are the odds of two goalkeeprs getting injured, i actually don't mind giving a shot to one of the young keepers, Didn't do Krul alot of harm when we were forced to bring him on against Palermo. again the point is why would we be concerned with signing a third choice GK when we have much much more important things to worry about. We signed Srnicek as a senior back-up keeper then too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teohgk Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Again, why on earth are Celtic going to do that? they are the one who in demand, it's not like we begging them to take our player, if we can't even negotiate a clause with them, i would say we've got a pretty shit transfer dealing team working then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teohgk Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You can't add that clause when there's a loan fee involved not sure if there's fee involve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Again, why on earth are Celtic going to do that? they are the one who in demand, it's not like we begging them to take our player, if we can't even negotiate a clause with them, i would say we've got a pretty s*** transfer dealing team working then As Crofty pointed out, when a fee is involved you can't recall him, plus can you recall international loan deals anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teohgk Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Again, why on earth are Celtic going to do that? they are the one who in demand, it's not like we begging them to take our player, if we can't even negotiate a clause with them, i would say we've got a pretty s*** transfer dealing team working then As Crofty pointed out, when a fee is involved you can't recall him, plus can you recall international loan deals anyway? not sure, i'll check with football manager later Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 This really isn't a big issue, It's not even an issue. Pretty sure they wouldn't spend all day, every day working on a deal. We needed another keeper just in case so we brought one in, quickly. I don't think it's as simple as saying "well we can bring him in, why can't we get a left back/forward?". Different players at different clubs in different situations are obviously going to take different time/effort to conclude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So if harper stays there is no issue at all, he is more than good enough as back up, if Elliot is the one making the bench then he is obviously performing better than Harper. Sensible transfer. My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So if harper stays there is no issue at all, he is more than good enough as back up, if Elliot is the one making the bench then he is obviously performing better than Harper. Sensible transfer. My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 [move]BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!![/move] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So if harper stays there is no issue at all, he is more than good enough as back up, if Elliot is the one making the bench then he is obviously performing better than Harper. Sensible transfer. My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ? Forster wouldn't have agreed to that. Plus, won't Celtic by paying Forster's wages? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So if harper stays there is no issue at all, he is more than good enough as back up, if Elliot is the one making the bench then he is obviously performing better than Harper. Sensible transfer. My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ? Forster wouldn't have agreed to that. Plus, won't Celtic by paying Forster's wages? Aye, don't think Forster would have been entirely happy with sitting on the bench all year... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So if harper stays there is no issue at all, he is more than good enough as back up, if Elliot is the one making the bench then he is obviously performing better than Harper. Sensible transfer. My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ? Forster wouldn't have agreed to that. Plus, won't Celtic by paying Forster's wages? Forster wouldn't have a say he has a contract at the club. Who's to say he's to be sat on the bench, a moment ago Krul was getting suspended and Harper injured whats to say he doesn't get and keep his chance ? To many players unwilling to fight for their places now a days. Bet Hart's happy he fought for his place at Man City. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So if harper stays there is no issue at all, he is more than good enough as back up, if Elliot is the one making the bench then he is obviously performing better than Harper. Sensible transfer. My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ? Forster wouldn't have agreed to that. Plus, won't Celtic by paying Forster's wages? Forster wouldn't have a say he has a contract at the club. Who's to say he's to be sat on the bench, a moment ago Krul was getting suspended and Harper injured whats to say he doesn't get and keep his chance ? To many players unwilling to fight for their places now a days. Bet Hart's happy he fought for his place at Man City. He went to Birmingham for a season and came back number 1 for their first game didn't he? I'm sure if Forster had been given the gig against Arsenal then he'd have wanted to stay too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 This must mean we have completely decided we are fine and no longer require those two players. For real? Hard to tell as you're one of the most negative posters on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So if harper stays there is no issue at all, he is more than good enough as back up, if Elliot is the one making the bench then he is obviously performing better than Harper. Sensible transfer. My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ? Forster wouldn't have agreed to that. Plus, won't Celtic by paying Forster's wages? Forster wouldn't have a say he has a contract at the club. Who's to say he's to be sat on the bench, a moment ago Krul was getting suspended and Harper injured whats to say he doesn't get and keep his chance ? To many players unwilling to fight for their places now a days. Bet Hart's happy he fought for his place at Man City. It's quite clear players hold a lot of power these days. There's no point holding players against their will. Too many players may be unwilling to fight for their places but that's the way it is. Hart fighting for his place at Man City involved a few loans as well fwiw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So if harper stays there is no issue at all, he is more than good enough as back up, if Elliot is the one making the bench then he is obviously performing better than Harper. Sensible transfer. My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ? Forster wouldn't have agreed to that. Plus, won't Celtic by paying Forster's wages? Forster wouldn't have a say he has a contract at the club. Who's to say he's to be sat on the bench, a moment ago Krul was getting suspended and Harper injured whats to say he doesn't get and keep his chance ? To many players unwilling to fight for their places now a days. Bet Hart's happy he fought for his place at Man City. It's quite clear players hold a lot of power these days. There's no point holding players against their will. Too many players may be unwilling to fight for their places but that's the way it is. Hart fighting for his place at Man City involved a few loans as well fwiw. I was talking more about when Given signed, he appeared to have got the first team then Given came in. Rather than just buggering off he stayed there and made the spot his own. It was plain to see from pre season that Harper won't be first choice this year. From that should have been enough for Forster to say that he'd fight to make the number 1 spot his own. If it was entirely down to him not willing to have that fight I'd have sold him rather than the loan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 @lee_ryder Lee Ryder #nufc #cafc boss Chris Powell today: "I'm led to believe there has been a little bit of interest [in Elliot] from NUFC, at embryonic stage." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I wasn't even paying attention to this thread because I thought it was about Robbie Elliot. We signed a goalkeeper? Oh, I guess we really needed one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I wasn't even paying attention to this thread because I thought it was about Robbie Elliot. We signed a goalkeeper? Oh, I guess we really needed one. Not yet it seems. Chris Powell said today that we were interested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 The idea of signing a gk is horrible, though. The last position we need to look at in the transfer market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matta Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Why do we need a keeper? such bullshift from this club somethis its unreal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Why do we need a keeper? such bullshift from this club somethis its unreal. Because Forster just left us and we need the back-up. I doubt Pardew trust Søderberg to be up for the task in case of injuries/suspensions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matta Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Why do we need a keeper? such bullshift from this club somethis its unreal. Because Forster just left us and we need the back-up. I doubt Pardew trust Søderberg to be up for the task in case of injuries/suspensions. Emergency loan then like everyone else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 We still have Harper? We only had Harper and Krul last season as well. Only Krul for much of season, to be precise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now