You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Article In The Daily Mail
- Thread starter Manchester_City_Blue
- Start date
Its in The Blood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 511
We let Joe out on loan to hopefully push for World Cup and gain more Prem experience. The Season loan contracts are non returnable during the season unless the loaning club cancel the contract on some discpline rule.(Ie Joe at Everton) So Brum could have sent him back, but due to them wanting X amount of £ in return and the fact Joe had been voted No1 keeper in Prem the league stopped us getting him. Not Marwoods or Cooks fault.
We move on and support who ever players in these last 3 games and hopefully get that 4th position and we can all then hold two fingers up to the FA and Prem and be smug in the knowledge that whatever they have done to us or tried to do, we still did got to where we wanted.
Onwards and Upwards CTID.
We move on and support who ever players in these last 3 games and hopefully get that 4th position and we can all then hold two fingers up to the FA and Prem and be smug in the knowledge that whatever they have done to us or tried to do, we still did got to where we wanted.
Onwards and Upwards CTID.
hongkongblue
Well-Known Member
A bit harsh on Cook and on Brum.
I would be inclined to give Brum the benefit of the doubt over negotiations for the premature termination of the loan agreement. My understanding is that, although the compensation sought was steep, Brum was not immovable because sensible businessmen are not intransigent. (The directors have a reputation in HK of being fairly astute.) Brum are not going to significantly improve their position in the table and any improvement, or deterioration, is unlikely to be put down only to the presence or absence of a goalkeeper. If City wanted JH badly enough and some suitable arrangement that suited both clubs would have been arrived at, even though it may have strained goodwill.
As for City's handling of the loan agreement, the relevant PL rules on temporary transfers (Rules 5-10 in section M) are quite clear. A season long loan agreement means just that: a season long loan. It is nonsense to suggest that City can negotiate loan agreements which conflict with this requirement.
With the benefit of hindsight, City could have included a clause which dealt with premature termination of a loan agreement in 'exceptional circumstances'. The rules make it clear that the PL has a discretion to permit a premature termination in order to recall a loan player to provided needed cover. There is no dispute but that the discretion was engaged in this case but the PL decided to use it against City's request. The reason given, to preserve the integrity of the competition, was nonsense in my view as Rules 5-10 equally to all PL clubs. Competing clubs do not have a legitimate expectation that another club will not, through no fault of its own, not invoke the 'exceptional circumstances' clause when misfortune arises.
Be that as it may, I can see no reason why a club loaning a goalkeeper should not, as part of the deal, make provision for the possibility that the 'exceptional circumstances' situation might arise oner day. A suitable clause might deal with the financial consequences upon 'exceptional circumstances' arising, probably a pro rata scale of agreed compensation depending on the time remaining under the agreement when disaster strikes. There is no unfairness in this only prudence because any club can do this.If the other club looking to borrow a player does not like it, it can look elsewhere for a loan.
I would be inclined to give Brum the benefit of the doubt over negotiations for the premature termination of the loan agreement. My understanding is that, although the compensation sought was steep, Brum was not immovable because sensible businessmen are not intransigent. (The directors have a reputation in HK of being fairly astute.) Brum are not going to significantly improve their position in the table and any improvement, or deterioration, is unlikely to be put down only to the presence or absence of a goalkeeper. If City wanted JH badly enough and some suitable arrangement that suited both clubs would have been arrived at, even though it may have strained goodwill.
As for City's handling of the loan agreement, the relevant PL rules on temporary transfers (Rules 5-10 in section M) are quite clear. A season long loan agreement means just that: a season long loan. It is nonsense to suggest that City can negotiate loan agreements which conflict with this requirement.
With the benefit of hindsight, City could have included a clause which dealt with premature termination of a loan agreement in 'exceptional circumstances'. The rules make it clear that the PL has a discretion to permit a premature termination in order to recall a loan player to provided needed cover. There is no dispute but that the discretion was engaged in this case but the PL decided to use it against City's request. The reason given, to preserve the integrity of the competition, was nonsense in my view as Rules 5-10 equally to all PL clubs. Competing clubs do not have a legitimate expectation that another club will not, through no fault of its own, not invoke the 'exceptional circumstances' clause when misfortune arises.
Be that as it may, I can see no reason why a club loaning a goalkeeper should not, as part of the deal, make provision for the possibility that the 'exceptional circumstances' situation might arise oner day. A suitable clause might deal with the financial consequences upon 'exceptional circumstances' arising, probably a pro rata scale of agreed compensation depending on the time remaining under the agreement when disaster strikes. There is no unfairness in this only prudence because any club can do this.If the other club looking to borrow a player does not like it, it can look elsewhere for a loan.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
When hacks write 'It is believed . . . . .', they mean they are the ones who believe it, or they've just made it up. It's a dog-eat-dog profession, same as anywhere else, and whilst Joe's kind words to Shay are pleasant enough, I think he would have jumped at the chance to re-establish himself as No1. Were it to go tits-up for him, it wouldn't matter too much, 'cos it would be MCFC to blame, as the papers have it, and he could always be shipped out on another, but shorter, loan. It's a win-win for him.
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,234
It's like banging your fucking head against a brick wall in here at times.ocimpean said:Cook mistakes could cost us 4th place.
MCFC-alan88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 9,618
Dubai Blue said:It's like banging your fucking head against a brick wall in here at times.ocimpean said:Cook mistakes could cost us 4th place.
At times? it's a reprieve when I'm not.
ONTHERUNWITHTHAKSIN
Well-Known Member
No doubt in my mind that joe will be our number 1 next year.
As for Fulop he has got a great chance to prove himself to be a good keeper and get a decent move, he could even do enough to convince Mancini to take him on as cover for Joe as I can see Shay being out for a long time.
Brum have been greedy IMO and Sunderland have been very clever.
Next year players like Weiss, Nimely, Mak and even Boyata could go out on loan and Sunderland would be interested as would Brum, who do you think we would loan to.
As for Fulop he has got a great chance to prove himself to be a good keeper and get a decent move, he could even do enough to convince Mancini to take him on as cover for Joe as I can see Shay being out for a long time.
Brum have been greedy IMO and Sunderland have been very clever.
Next year players like Weiss, Nimely, Mak and even Boyata could go out on loan and Sunderland would be interested as would Brum, who do you think we would loan to.