Emergency keeper loan / Hart / Brum [All merged]

[avoidconfusion]

the bluemoon twitter is saying that the problem with hart is the fact that hart doesnt want to come back to us as he has a problem with us over the way we treated him.....i said this for months on this forum,he doesnt seem like he ever wants to play for us again...alll of his interviews on tv and papers suggest he never wants to come back.......

That twitter is full of shit. It's NBC isn't it?

 

[Pigeonho]

The PL are blocking us pulling out of a deal WE co-created. You can't do it mate, you simply cannot create deals and then want to renaign on it when it suits you.

But is it reneging on a deal if the other party involved in the deal (Brimingham) are agreeable? In terms of the legality of the situation, I'm not sure why getting our own keeper back is not a more acceptable solution than getting Fulop. Apart from the fact that if we get Hart, Villa and Spurs will kick off whereas if we get Fulop they won't. Mind you, if Fulop starts and plays well, maybe they still will. Basically nobody minds as long as who we sign is shit and plays shit.

It wouldn't matter if we'd loaned Hart to Hull, who are now down. Rules are rules and we allowed a player out for a full season and now we are in deep shit we want it back, cos it suits us. Doesn't work that way. As SWP'sback has had a pop though, i'll keep quiet now, as I don't want to offend anymore unwiped, hairy fanny's like him just cos I have a point of view which is in effect, an actual fact.

 

[SWP's back]

How can I say "fucking hell, you are really fucking boing me" without being personal?

Fucking contracts - always water tight, never been broken. Robbie stayed, Hughes wasn't sacked etc etc et fucking cetera.

WE ALL KNOW YOUR POINT - we know your feel;ings - let the fucker go.

ME let the fucker go?! What about the other 99% who agree with you? The other 99% who have helped create a 68 page thread? Comment on them. Its a forum.

But they agree WITH me, so I like their points. :)

 

[Bellamy's Caddy]

I respect that point mate. But if Joe Hart had been rubbish this season and Brum wanted to send him back early would the Premier League have blocked that? As long as in the premier leagues eyes Brum were ''sending him back'' then it should have been allowed regardless of what agreement was previously made, common sense should prevail. I know you have a different view and I respect that. However, personally I think its a disgrace.

Too much paranoia mate. Who knows if Hart had been on the bench like Maik Taylor all season if they would have said no? They more than likely would have for the reasons i've stated. Has nothing to do with anything anti City, its cimply just the rules.

It is the rules, I understand that. It would be interesting to know whether there has been a case previously where a player has been returned to his parent club before the end of his season long loan (injury aside).

If there has been a case like this surely City would have grounds to appeal, why should we be refused just because Joe Hart is playing well, when in the past they've allowed it just because the loan move hasn't worked out.

 

[moomba]

No reason why a loan deal can't be cut short, provided both clubs agree. It's happened heaps of times.

Don't know where things stand on eligibilty to play if you're loan is cut short but you'd think it would have been tested before.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

But is it reneging on a deal if the other party involved in the deal (Brimingham) are agreeable? In terms of the legality of the situation, I'm not sure why getting our own keeper back is not a more acceptable solution than getting Fulop. Apart from the fact that if we get Hart, Villa and Spurs will kick off whereas if we get Fulop they won't. Mind you, if Fulop starts and plays well, maybe they still will. Basically nobody minds as long as who we sign is shit and plays shit.

It wouldn't matter if we'd loaned Hart to Hull, who are now down. Rules are rules and we allowed a player out for a full season and now we are in deep shit we want it back, cos it suits us. Doesn't work that way. As SWP'sback has had a pop though, i'll keep quiet now, as I don't want to offend anymore unwiped, hairy fanny's like him just cos I have a point of view which is in effect, an actual fact.

I never mentioned Birmingham in temrs of season being over or anything. If Birmingham are happy to end the deal then we are not reneging on the deal. I do not understand why getting Hart is any different from getting a keeper from another club. As far as I am concerned they should either allow us to get a keeper or not. If they say we can't get anyone, I am fine with that. Saying we can have one but not another is ridiculous. They are clearly just going to draw an arbitrary line in terms of the quality of the keeper we are allowed to sign because they are afraid of Spurs kicking off. What happens if Spurs rate Fulop? Do we then have to go for Jensen etc etc

 

[Dubai Blue]

Thanks for the update.

Gutted. We're allowed to bring in another keeper, but not the keeper we actually own, even when Birmingham have agreed to it? Has to be the most stupid decision ever. Does make you wonder at times if its just a conspiracy against us, rules and fastracking of decisions always seem to work against us. I wonder if it was the rags in this situation if the outcome would have been the same....Forward with Fulop I guess.

The PL are blocking us pulling out of a deal WE co-created. You can't do it mate, you simply cannot create deals and then want to renaign on it when it suits you.

I appreciate your opinion on this matter but this simply isn't true. Birmingham could have terminated Joe's loan at any point during the season and he would've returned to us. Sounds like they've opted to do that and now it's suddenly against the rules. I'd love to know which rules exactly.

 

[Halfpenny]

Hope he doesn't turn out to be a fulop. If Hart definitely can't come I'd keep Gunnar in.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

It wouldn't matter if we'd loaned Hart to Hull, who are now down. Rules are rules and we allowed a player out for a full season and now we are in deep shit we want it back, cos it suits us. Doesn't work that way. As SWP'sback has had a pop though, i'll keep quiet now, as I don't want to offend anymore unwiped, hairy fanny's like him just cos I have a point of view which is in effect, an actual fact.

I never mentioned Birmingham in temrs of season being over or anything. If Birmingham are happy to end the deal then we are not reneging on the deal. I do not understand why getting Hart is any different from getting a keeper from another club. As far as I am concerned they should either allow us to get a keeper or not. If they say we can't get anyone, I am fine with that. Saying we can have one but not another is ridiculous. They are clearly just going to draw an arbitrary line in terms of the quality of the keeper we are allowed to sign because they are afraid of Spurs kicking off. What happens if Spurs rate Fulop? Do we then have to go for Jensen etc etc

spurs dont rate him, they sold him lol

 

[MCC]

Hart is our keeper. If we want him back and the clubs agree to it we should be allowed.