SpunkyBackpack
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2005
- 7,831
- 9,372
I heard that Man City didnt have a manager and then they appointed another one and the league let them. And once they scored a goal.
Fulop joins city, Levy better go apeshit!
- Thread starter Maske2g
- Start date
raf18
Well-Known Member
- Aug 29, 2006
- 2,502
- 1,819
Nobody is saying we wont make it. But whytf should they be allowed to increase their dented chances whilst they DO have a senior GK available?
They shouldnt have a chance to recover from their injury situation. We should beat them whether they have fulop in goal or given or buffon. Bottom line is that this should not have been allowed.
I see the sense in the rule for the GK position only but not only do they have other pro keepers but anyone brought in should be forced to be a sub unless all pros are used beforehand to avoid them having no keeper at all only. Not as a 'I dont like my current keeper' ploy otherwise we have changed ours as soon as Gomes joined us.
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,456
- 21,818
Fulop should only be allowed on the bench unless this other keeper gets injured
Welshiespursboyo
Banned
- Feb 19, 2009
- 17,009
- 2,830
No they wouldn't. What evidence do you have to suggest that? If we were in the same boat as Man City - we'd get the same ruling. It's in the rules ffs.
simyid
Active Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 767
- 158
yes they would because in essence we would have 2 keepers injured is that really enough for an EMERGENCY loan
Exceptional circumstances IMO is not MAN CITY HAVING AN INTERNATIONAL GOALKEEPER TO START, and keepers on the books for the bench.
:violin:
Adam
Active Member
- Feb 23, 2004
- 2,556
- 82
But its in the rules!
Anyone that is disputing this needs to take off the Spurs blinkers and look at this from an objective point of view. They have one actual goalkeeper on their books, which is a remarkable and ridiculous situation-the fact that we are having this discussion/debate shows how rarely it actually happens.
All City have done is adhere to the rules set out by the FA that every club signs up to, and have signed a third choice Premier League goalkeeper who hasnt played for 3 months; by all accounts, its not like we've been too harshly done by here really is it?
Ill say again, had they got Hart back, it would have been the end of the transfer and loan system as we know it, and a direct contravention of the laws of the game and the contracts that players are signed up to.
There really is nothing to be complaining about
SpunkyBackpack
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2005
- 7,831
- 9,372
Yes you can. Can i just say you're talking nonsense?
cjsimba
Well-Known Member
- Dec 5, 2006
- 2,638
- 9,635
This means in the future teams are just going to send out their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice keepers out on loan to get valuable first team experience (as Man City have done with Hart) then if the 1st choice keeper gets injured, the team will just bring in another on an 'emergency' loan.......that for me is ridiculous
In my opinion it was City's gamble to let Hart go out and get experience. We could have done the same with Alnwick but we didnt take the risk in case Gomes got injured. Now that Given is injured, City should have been told tough shit by the FA
In my opinion it was City's gamble to let Hart go out and get experience. We could have done the same with Alnwick but we didnt take the risk in case Gomes got injured. Now that Given is injured, City should have been told tough shit by the FA
soup
On the straightened arrow
- May 26, 2004
- 3,498
- 3,608
We've got a better keeper than Given or Fulop anyway, so it shouldn't really concern us.
Be honest. Would anyone here actually consider this a prime factor if we were to finish below City? In a month's time you'd honestly have the gaul to bring it up if you met a City fan in a pub? It would seem a pretty poor argument, wouldn't it?
Be honest. Would anyone here actually consider this a prime factor if we were to finish below City? In a month's time you'd honestly have the gaul to bring it up if you met a City fan in a pub? It would seem a pretty poor argument, wouldn't it?
This makes sense to me. Why should City be allowed to improve on what they've got. By all means get a keeper (Its In the Rules, blah, blah) but he should sit on the bench, not play ahead of one who is generally considered to be inferior
If City had been due to play MU or Chavs, not Spurs & Villa all hell would have broken loose over this.
Finally it was City's remedially stupid mistake to let Hart go on loan in the first place.
Achap
Well-Known Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 501
- 810
I would never, ever, wish for any player to be injured - but I might smile if Craig Gordon caught a really bad cold, couldn't play the next two games, and Sunderland slipped back to 13th - thereby losing a couple of million in place money.
As for City, I couldn't care less if Fulop plays. Probably better him than some unknown 6'5" lump who turns out to be a blinding keeper, or at least a large object that JD simply can't avoid hitting.
As for City, I couldn't care less if Fulop plays. Probably better him than some unknown 6'5" lump who turns out to be a blinding keeper, or at least a large object that JD simply can't avoid hitting.
Chris12345
LADdam Hussein
- Jan 15, 2005
- 11,908
- 31
That's the entire fucking point :bang:
From a 'football in general' perspective, would it not be better to have goalkeepers like Joe Hart out on loan getting first team football rather than sat at home on retainer incase Given gets injured...
Goalkeeper is a specialist position, different from every other... a team not being able to field a decent one in important matches devalues the league as a whole, and is a seriously bad position for a club to find themselves in... if the provision was not there, that in an emergency (remember, this is at the leagues discretion, to stop clubs taking the piss) you can call in a back up, rather than clubs, as they do now, having 2 'first choice' keepers with a couple of good youngsters (in the mould of Hart/Foster) out on loan getting experience... we'd find the best (/richest) teams having 3/4 'first choice' keepers... Hart, rather than gaining experience for himself, for his team, and for his country, he'd be playing reserve football... helping nothing but his bank balance... at the moment, City have a good keeper getting experience, Birmingham are getting a good keeper, and England are getting a good keeper...
Did we have a massive discussion when Kiraly went to Villa? No. The rules are there for a reason, seriously... stop whining!
Chris12345
LADdam Hussein
- Jan 15, 2005
- 11,908
- 31
I know... I can't think of anything stupider than letting a promising, young, but inexperienced keeper get 40+ games of top level football under his belt!
:duh:
Chris12345
LADdam Hussein
- Jan 15, 2005
- 11,908
- 31
Then we'd get the bizarre situation of either:
a)City subbing him the first time the ball goes out of play
b)Him mysteriously getting ill/very slight injury
Chris12345
LADdam Hussein
- Jan 15, 2005
- 11,908
- 31
As I've said a million times, this happens fairly regularly, if not often. No ones ever kicked up a fuss... it's just people looking for excuses incase (when :lol
we bottle it against City.
berbplzstay
Member
- May 16, 2008
- 113
- 14
Yeah, still don't blame City for trying though, but had that happened it would be outrageous.
Not too bothered by Fulop. Be interesting to see if he starts all their remaining games. Hope he chokes.
