Reality Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 It has happened before, and City should be allowed to sign a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 26, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 26, 2010 City will probably bring in some world beater to be first choice for 3 games. who is going to release a world beating keeper to citeh for 3 games? :? They would probably have to go abroad, and that is always big risk IMO, in the GK dept. Either way, in all of this, Citeh are much, much weaker. World beater is the wrong word. I got carried away. What I meant was teams usually use an emergency loan to provide backup to their sub goalie, who would be taking up GK duties. But in this case City will be bringing in someone who they want to play first choice for 3 games, i.e not as backup which is what the emergency implies. The point I was trying to make was emergency implies the keeper is there in case your current 3rd choice also gets injured. Whereas for City it will be a first team loan, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 26, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 26, 2010 They are fuckwits for not putting a release clause in Hart's loan agreement. For that reason alone I'd say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Boruc or McShagger. Both their seasons are over and both are good enough imo. Oh, and I voted yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanky Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 They are fuckwits for not putting a release clause in Hart's loan agreement. For that reason alone I'd say no. This for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Was it unfair when we signed Kiraly? Yes - to all Villa fans! Seriously though, I think emergency replacements should be automatically granted but not from the same league - surely it compromises the competition by having the 2nd choice for one team going to another in the same league - essentially weakening one team to strengthen another... And poor old Stuart Taylor can't take a trick. Every time he has the opportunity to step into the spotlight he goes and injures himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddybloke Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Gabor Kiraly THis was going to be my exact post apart from id have gone with: Gábor Király Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 They are fuckwits for not putting a release clause in Hart's loan agreement. For that reason alone I'd say no. A player can't be recalled from within in the same league outside a transfer window i.e January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 They are fuckwits for not putting a release clause in Hart's loan agreement. For that reason alone I'd say no. This for me. I'm pretty sure you can't recall players on loan to clubs in the same division until the season ends. Otherwise you could loan out your players for important games against your rivals then recall them back again right after the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 26, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 26, 2010 If this guy was really, really young and was basically a youth player, I'd say that they had a point. But he's not. He's 23, he's part of their squad, he's their third choice as things stand. They should have to use him and have a youth player be their sub imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 They are fuckwits for not putting a release clause in Hart's loan agreement. For that reason alone I'd say no. A player can't be recalled from within in the same league outside a transfer window i.e January. Well a player can't be signed outside of a transfer window either. One of those rules is going to change in this instance - it's just a question of which one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Could we offer them Agent Marshall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NulliSecundus Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Why do they have an international goalkeeper in their squad if they aren't going to use him in a situation like this? Faroe Islands international FTW! The first guy from the little islands to play in the Premiership... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Absolutely not! I'm sure they have a young keeper on their books, stick him in there... Or.....let them sign a keeper but deduct 3 points from them for the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briggaman Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Load of bollocks if they are allowed to get someone in on loan. They can put a youth gk on the bench for all I care. If the FA bow down to this and let them loan a gk then it will be a complete disgrace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted April 26, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 26, 2010 I voted no as I think it’s unfair, and nothing like when we had to ask for dispensation. When we signed Kiralli it was for no other reason that we had no one to play outside of the kids. City have a fully fledged international replacement on their books and only want another option as they deem him not good enough. In a world not governed by dirty money the response should be 'Tough titties City'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 They are fuckwits for not putting a release clause in Hart's loan agreement. For that reason alone I'd say no. A player can't be recalled from within in the same league outside a transfer window i.e January. Well a player can't be signed outside of a transfer window either. One of those rules is going to change in this instance - it's just a question of which one. To be more specific, if a loan fee has been paid (as would the case with Hart or when we signed Carson) then there is no option to recall the player - it's not allowed. If it's done without a fee being paid (eg Bannon getting experience at Blackpool) then a recall option is normally put in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 They are fuckwits for not putting a release clause in Hart's loan agreement. For that reason alone I'd say no. A player can't be recalled from within in the same league outside a transfer window i.e January. Well a player can't be signed outside of a transfer window either. One of those rules is going to change in this instance - it's just a question of which one. It's not going to change because this emergency keeper loan already exists as we well know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted April 26, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 26, 2010 ..but surely if Small Heath were to want him to go back (say if Citeh bunged them a tenner for a vial of crack) the contract could be torn up and Hart could head back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts