Jaap StamBBC reports that City are likely to be granted permission to sign a keeper on loan. Isn't this unfair to Villa, Spurs and maybe even Liverpool?
Is there a precedent for such a grant?
26.04.2010
kabulblueNot sure about precedent but it is within the rules for goalkeepers. I do not think it is right however as they have a first team keeper...their No.3 surely he should be allowed to play. When Cech and Hilario were injured we played Ross Turnbull without crying all the way to the Premier League.
26.04.2010
FeriAtsIf memory serves, Aston Villa had a keeper on loan well after transfer window a couple of years back.
27.04.2010
nvrIt was actually before the January transfer window. They signed Kiraly from Crystal Palace mid December on an emergency loan.
27.04.2010
ZolaDidn't Everton sign Westerveld(or however it is spelled) in a similar fashion?
27.04.2010
Jaap StamOk, I see, there's precedent. But is it fair? Liverpool would kill to get a striker on loan, not that I care, I'm just saying. Why should City be given the grant to sign a keeper while Liverpool would be denied one for a striker?
28.04.2010
Robert O'CarlosPerhaps the fairest solution would have been that City were allowed to make the signing but would have to field their own player (the Faroe Islander whose name escapes me - Neilsen?) as first choice.
:-)
02.05.2010
