Emergency keeper loan / Hart / Brum [All merged]

[1.618034]

We're going to have to get him back for next season anyway, since Given's out until probably October at the earliest..

It makes sense to everyone, including Brum who want to keep us sweet for any future loanees.


It'll be a real boost for us. Come on City, make it happen.

 

[Chris in London]

According to Tony Cascarino in today's Times, we don't need Hart back because we have got any number of 17 and 18 year olds on the Academy books.

So, that's that one sorted, then.

 

[the goats backside]

And thats all down to hart is it? They can give us maik taylor then because he usually has a good game against us (maybe apart from when we hammered them)

I have never heard of any team being arsed about the prize money by the way. It makes me think of the time under SP or keegan when the team were really shit, out of the UEFA chase and it was a media excuse to tell the players we still had something to play for. As I recall it didnt work and the players didnt give a shit.

£3m for Brum would have a say in their transfer budget next season. Ok they have a rich owner, but not on the same league as we do. Money is money, but when its millionS, well then its common sense to want it, not lose it. Letting our keeper go on loan all season was a gamble on our part, a gamble which more than likley looked to pay off cos it meant Hart getting experience and we were happy for that to happen as it ultimately only benefits us. That gamble also had the potential to fail though, like it is now and whilst long term we will still have the pay off of the gamble, right now we are suffering the effects of it failing, but as I say a gamble is a gamble and if it turns out to have some sort of fail, you have to suffer the consequences of it. Put it this way, if Given was ok would we be wanting Hart back? No, course not and the gamble would all be in our advantage, so just cos we need him back it shouldn't mean we can expect it just because the gamble appears to have some kind of negative efffect now.

I agree pig, everyone been saying 3 games left and we have no experienced keeper, should we not have thought about this when Taylor got injured, was it not a gamble going into last 6 or 7 games with only 1 experienced keeper

 

[Pigeonho]

£3m for Brum would have a say in their transfer budget next season. Ok they have a rich owner, but not on the same league as we do. Money is money, but when its millionS, well then its common sense to want it, not lose it. Letting our keeper go on loan all season was a gamble on our part, a gamble which more than likley looked to pay off cos it meant Hart getting experience and we were happy for that to happen as it ultimately only benefits us. That gamble also had the potential to fail though, like it is now and whilst long term we will still have the pay off of the gamble, right now we are suffering the effects of it failing, but as I say a gamble is a gamble and if it turns out to have some sort of fail, you have to suffer the consequences of it. Put it this way, if Given was ok would we be wanting Hart back? No, course not and the gamble would all be in our advantage, so just cos we need him back it shouldn't mean we can expect it just because the gamble appears to have some kind of negative efffect now.

I agree pig, everyone been saying 3 games left and we have no experienced keeper, should we not have thought about this when Taylor got injured, was it not a gamble going into last 6 or 7 games with only 1 experienced keeper

Its just like us to have something like this happen though, to be fair.

 

[Ducky_]

Am I the only one that rates Hart more than Given?

 

[lancs blue]

£3m for Brum would have a say in their transfer budget next season. Ok they have a rich owner, but not on the same league as we do. Money is money, but when its millionS, well then its common sense to want it, not lose it. Letting our keeper go on loan all season was a gamble on our part, a gamble which more than likley looked to pay off cos it meant Hart getting experience and we were happy for that to happen as it ultimately only benefits us. That gamble also had the potential to fail though, like it is now and whilst long term we will still have the pay off of the gamble, right now we are suffering the effects of it failing, but as I say a gamble is a gamble and if it turns out to have some sort of fail, you have to suffer the consequences of it. Put it this way, if Given was ok would we be wanting Hart back? No, course not and the gamble would all be in our advantage, so just cos we need him back it shouldn't mean we can expect it just because the gamble appears to have some kind of negative efffect now.

I agree pig, everyone been saying 3 games left and we have no experienced keeper, should we not have thought about this when Taylor got injured, was it not a gamble going into last 6 or 7 games with only 1 experienced keeper

We would never have been granted an emergency loan while Shay was fit.

 

[Shooter 83]

And thats all down to hart is it? They can give us maik taylor then because he usually has a good game against us (maybe apart from when we hammered them)

I have never heard of any team being arsed about the prize money by the way. It makes me think of the time under SP or keegan when the team were really shit, out of the UEFA chase and it was a media excuse to tell the players we still had something to play for. As I recall it didnt work and the players didnt give a shit.

£3m for Brum would have a say in their transfer budget next season. Ok they have a rich owner, but not on the same league as we do. Money is money, but when its millionS, well then its common sense to want it, not lose it. Letting our keeper go on loan all season was a gamble on our part, a gamble which more than likley looked to pay off cos it meant Hart getting experience and we were happy for that to happen as it ultimately only benefits us. That gamble also had the potential to fail though, like it is now and whilst long term we will still have the pay off of the gamble, right now we are suffering the effects of it failing, but as I say a gamble is a gamble and if it turns out to have some sort of fail, you have to suffer the consequences of it. Put it this way, if Given was ok would we be wanting Hart back? No, course not and the gamble would all be in our advantage, so just cos we need him back it shouldn't mean we can expect it just because the gamble appears to have some kind of negative efffect now.

They have Burnley at home Sat, win that and they have bagged 9th place. Simple.

 

[bluefandk]

Am I the only one that rates Hart more than Given?

Nope, always thought it was a huge mistake to let Hart go.

I do rate Given though, just think that Hart is going to keep improving, something Given is unlikely to do.

 

[NSBFL]

£3m for Brum would have a say in their transfer budget next season. Ok they have a rich owner, but not on the same league as we do. Money is money, but when its millionS, well then its common sense to want it, not lose it. Letting our keeper go on loan all season was a gamble on our part, a gamble which more than likley looked to pay off cos it meant Hart getting experience and we were happy for that to happen as it ultimately only benefits us. That gamble also had the potential to fail though, like it is now and whilst long term we will still have the pay off of the gamble, right now we are suffering the effects of it failing, but as I say a gamble is a gamble and if it turns out to have some sort of fail, you have to suffer the consequences of it. Put it this way, if Given was ok would we be wanting Hart back? No, course not and the gamble would all be in our advantage, so just cos we need him back it shouldn't mean we can expect it just because the gamble appears to have some kind of negative efffect now.

I agree pig, everyone been saying 3 games left and we have no experienced keeper, should we not have thought about this when Taylor got injured, was it not a gamble going into last 6 or 7 games with only 1 experienced keeper

When Taylor got injured, was the transfer window open? If not, there was nothing to be done. The FA wouldn't sanction a loaner keeper while given & Neilson (our #1 and #3 keepers) were fit.

 

[the goats backside]

I agree pig, everyone been saying 3 games left and we have no experienced keeper, should we not have thought about this when Taylor got injured, was it not a gamble going into last 6 or 7 games with only 1 experienced keeper

We would never have been granted an emergency loan while Shay was fit.

Probably not but we would for sure now, sometimes you have to preplan if a disaster could be round the corner, we didnt we gambled shay would be ok. Gunnar will be ok