Emergency keeper loan / Hart / Brum [All merged]

[bluwes]

Just found this on a Newsnow link, not sure if its been posted;



And, rather surprisingly, Birmingham’s vice president, Peter Pannu, doesn’t seem too bothered. He said this:

”I understand their concerns. I am very sympathetic to City and if I was Garry Cook I would already have been on the phone.”

 

[Dubai Blue]

I agree that Birmingham shouldn't just be expected to forfeit a possible £3m to help us out. The ball is very much firmly in their court. But is it not possible for us to pay a £3m loan fee (they technically own his registration)? There's also the possibility of loaning them other players next year for no fee and offering Joe himself a bumper new contract for next season in return for telling Birmingham that he wishes to go back to City now.

It just smacks a bit of us throwing our weight around to be honest. Don't get me wrong, I want Hart back because it will be a boost to the defence to know someone concrete is behind them, but it would also feel a little bit plastic to me too. I'm trying to think of a phrase to sum it up, like we want our cake and eat it and by that I mean we were willing to let Hart go all season to benefit both him and us in the long term, but now we are up shit creek, we now want him back and I think you'll (not you personally) find the agreement was a season-long loan agreement. If we go in and say we'll give you compo for any league positions lost, and a pick of our players next year it just feels a bit not-City that if you get my drift.

I know what you're getiing at. My initial reaction was that we got ourselves into this mess and we'd just have to get on and deal with it with what we already have.

But if we ARE given permission to sign someone, we should ensure it's the very best we can possibly get our hands on. That's what the best teams do; they don't mess around trying to play fair.

If we want to be the best, we need to become a little more ruthless in our attitude. Play to the letter of the law, not the spirit, because being 'good sports' has got us precisely nowehere for 30+ years and I, for one, am sick of it now.

Plus, the final decision will be Birmingham's and Birmingham's alone. If they don't want to play ball, we'll just have to look elsewhere.

 

[Pigeonho]

It just smacks a bit of us throwing our weight around to be honest. Don't get me wrong, I want Hart back because it will be a boost to the defence to know someone concrete is behind them, but it would also feel a little bit plastic to me too. I'm trying to think of a phrase to sum it up, like we want our cake and eat it and by that I mean we were willing to let Hart go all season to benefit both him and us in the long term, but now we are up shit creek, we now want him back and I think you'll (not you personally) find the agreement was a season-long loan agreement. If we go in and say we'll give you compo for any league positions lost, and a pick of our players next year it just feels a bit not-City that if you get my drift.

I know what you're getiing at. My initial reaction was that we got ourselves into this mess and we'd just have to get on and deal with it with what we already have.

But if we ARE given permission to sign someone, we should ensure it's the very best we can possibly get our hands on. That's what the best teams do; they don't mess around trying to play fair.

If we want to be the best, we need to become a little more ruthless in our attitude. Play to the letter of the law, not the spirit, because being 'good sports' has got us precisely nowehere for 30+ years and I, for one, am sick of it now.

Plus, the final decision will be Birmingham's and Birmingham's alone. If they don't want to play ball, we'll just have to look elsewhere.

Yeah, fair enough about the 'play fair' comment, i can see that. I think alot of my concern, (and its mad this cos I usually don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks), is what the media, other clubs around us will make of it, cos once again if all this was reversed and we were where Villa/Spuds are and one of them had the Sheikh as their owner and started doing anything possible to get their keeper back, possibly hindering our chance of 4th in the process, I'd be fucking fuming, bitter and any other negative emotion i could muster!<br /><br />-- Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am --<br /><br />Surprisingly Irani is on our side on TS, whereas fat twat Brazil isn't. A spurs fan just came on though and made the perfect point. They had many injuries in midfield of late, but they didn't go back to get O'Hara back from pompey, because the agreement was already in place. This is why I fear a real negative backlash if we are allowed to do it. I know the keeper situation is more extreme than Spurs midfield injuries, but effectively its the same thing. The agreement is in place and so it shouldn't matter what situations should occurr.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Seriously mate you can't be advocating that we pay £3m for him to come back?

Not really no, just pointing out that there are ways and means around it. £3m is what Brum would lose if they lost their remaining games and their rivals won all of theirs, which isn't going to happen. If he comes back, I'm sure there will be some form of compensation thrashed out, be it in terms of loans next year or future transfers. It won't be anywhere near £3m, I was just trying to make a point. Badly.

Hairy muff, tbh Brum have Burnley at home this Sat so shouldn't really need a keeper at all, as such can't see not having Joe as being too big a problem for them.

 

[dave_blue12]

Just found this on a Newsnow link, not sure if its been posted;



And, rather surprisingly, Birmingham’s vice president, Peter Pannu, doesn’t seem too bothered. He said this:

”I understand their concerns. I am very sympathetic to City and if I was Garry Cook I would already have been on the phone.”

City are now financially top dogs in the Premier League and as such there are likely to be some tasty scraps falling from our table to other teams. (loans etc)

Whilst Alex Mcleash may not see the bigger picture the guy quoted above appears to realise that it can only be good for Birmingham to do City a favour.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I know what you're getiing at. My initial reaction was that we got ourselves into this mess and we'd just have to get on and deal with it with what we already have.

But if we ARE given permission to sign someone, we should ensure it's the very best we can possibly get our hands on. That's what the best teams do; they don't mess around trying to play fair.

If we want to be the best, we need to become a little more ruthless in our attitude. Play to the letter of the law, not the spirit, because being 'good sports' has got us precisely nowehere for 30+ years and I, for one, am sick of it now.

Plus, the final decision will be Birmingham's and Birmingham's alone. If they don't want to play ball, we'll just have to look elsewhere.

Yeah, fair enough about the 'play fair' comment, i can see that. I think alot of my concern, (and its mad this cos I usually don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks), is what the media, other clubs around us will make of it, cos once again if all this was reversed and we were where Villa/Spuds are and one of them had the Sheikh as their owner and started doing anything possible to get their keeper back, possibly hindering our chance of 4th in the process, I'd be fucking fuming, bitter and any other negative emotion i could muster!

-- Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am --

Surprisingly Irani is on our side on TS, whereas fat twat Brazil isn't. A spurs fan just came on though and made the perfect point. They had many injuries in midfield of late, but they didn't go back to get O'Hara back from pompey, because the agreement was already in place. This is why I fear a real negative backlash if we are allowed to do it. I know the keeper situation is more extreme than Spurs midfield injuries, but effectively its the same thing. The agreement is in place and so it shouldn't matter what situations should occurr.

Fortunately, I still couldn't give a fuck what any other team's supporters or the media think. I want what's best for City and, as long as it's within the rules, fuck the rest of them.

The Spurs analogy doesn't fit. The Goalkeeper is classed as a specialised position. If a team has midfield problems, they can always shift a defender up the pitch for a few games. And vice versa. You can't do that with a goalkeeper, which is exactly why there is a rule that states you can get an emergency replacement in if two first-teamers are out.

We didn't make that rule up and it has been used plenty of times before by other teams, so fuck the whinging twats. It may well not be Hart, but we will bring someone in because that is exactly what we are entitled to do under the rules of the league. If a load of Spurs fans don't like that, I couldn't really give two flying shits.

 

[the goats backside]

Leave Joe where he is til the end of the season and get a back up to Gunnar and win all 3 games, easy

 

[Project]

Also, Spurs haven't had to put any non pros/registered players in their squad. That is basically the situation we find ourselves in right?

 

[J.Marr is Genius]

Leave Joe where he is til the end of the season and get a back up to Gunnar and win all 3 games, easy

... and simple !

For a year our managers thought Hart was as good as Gunnar, not good enough for 2nd, so why the fuss & hurry now ?

 

[Dubai Blue]

Leave Joe where he is til the end of the season and get a back up to Gunnar and win all 3 games, easy

... and simple !

For a year our managers thought Hart was as good as Gunnar, not good enough for 2nd, so why the fuss & hurry now ?

They never thought he wasn't good enough to be No.2. They thought he was too good to be a No. 2 and realised that sitting on the bench for an entire season would do him no good whatsoever at this stage of his career.