Shame he wasn't tested more on Friday. Defences certainly ruled. Scott Brown looked very competent during the first half and, although he's nothing like as tall as Nik Tzanev, he seemed to command the box and has a wealth of experience which counts for a lot in goalkeeping of course. Not sure if it's either/or. I suppose one option would be to take one on loan and sign the other (probably Brown) on a one or two year contract. Or do we gamble on having just one 'keeper plus BR as sub? That would only work if the new loan rules would permit us to have an emergency loan in the event of an injury to the regular 'keeper.
Come on @DevC - remind us of the rules please.
@Croider said:
Which club do you propose we take one on loan from? Both are free agents.
If that was addressed to me, I think I (sort of) answered it by default. But I am hoping @DevC might have a view on the implications of having just one 'keeper and a coach in the context of the new loan rules. (Don't like the idea of a 'keeper being here merely to warm the bench.) In terms of which of the two on trial so far the club would be likely to go for, if having just one is realistic, the choice is not easy. Neither had much to do in last week's games but they are very different when it comes to height and experience. I think experience will probably be the deciding factor.
Each transfer window gets more and more stupid and the new loan rules have amplified that up to 11.
So lets pretend that Chelsea are the top of the money tree. Them signing a new player at lunchtime on the 31st of August can now impact us loaning a goalkeeper to a Conference side.
Its facking madness.
Hi Mr Micra. Not sure why you want me to spell out my understanding particularly but here it is.
Normally loans have to be completed by end of transfer deadlines. No emergency rules apply. However if club has no "first team goalkeeper" it can do an emergency loan.
First team GK is defined as a player who has made 5 or more first team appearances - obviously BR qualifies this test - so question whether or not the club can get an exemption for him on basis that his games are so long ago.
Two issues then come into play, injuries during a match and games following the date of injury.
First option of course is sign two Gks, but not easy to find one happy to sit on the bench all season on wages we can afford.
If BR can get an exemption, relatively easy to sign one, have BR on the bench to cover that game and in event of injury bring another GK in to play in event of injury.
If BR cannot get an exemption, maybe don't register BR which means outfield player would have to goal in goal during the injury game (a sad loss to the game that this no longer happens IMHO) and the club can then sign a replacement on emergency terms.
OR
GKs on loan can still play for their host club in non-competitive games. If you can find a club willing to do it, register BR and sign two GKs, one of whom comes to the club and plays with BR on the bench, the other stays and trains and plays for his host club, despite formally being on loan, and only comes anywhere near AP if GK no 1 gets injured.
Thanks @DevC. You de man!
It's not straightforward but your sixth paragraph gets to the kernel of the dilemma. I don't see how Barry Richardson can be defined as a first team goalkeeper. The rule must surely relate to a player's present club. But it wouldn't surprise me unduly if the FA viewed putting a 47 year-old goalkeeping coach on the bench as an unacceptable device to circumvent the new stricter rules!
We shall see.
These loan rules are messy and don't help sides like us who want a small squad. We'll have to have two keepers signed on in some capacity as I see it. Whether one of those can be a loan keeper with us not paying his wages will only be clear a day or two before the season starts. I still think Ryan Allsop will be back at some stage this season.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
These loan rules are messy and don't help sides like us who want a small squad. We'll have to have two keepers signed on in some capacity as I see it. Whether one of those can be a loan keeper with us not paying his wages will only be clear a day or two before the season starts. I still think Ryan Allsop will be back at some stage this season.
I would like to see Allsop back too. Why do you think he might return?
I know this thread started with a link to a piece written over a year ago on a New Zealand website about Nik Tzanev's involvement in the U20 World Cup but it has developed into a broader discussion and I think the headline needs to change.
How about "Blues' Goalkeeping Conundrum "?
Oh how we'll all laugh on opening day when it turns out Gareth forgot to buy one...there are some people on here who will never come to another match ever again!
@Wendoverman said:
Oh how we'll all laugh on opening day when it turns out Gareth forgot to buy one...there are some people on here who will never come to another match ever again!
"Two years ago (exactly) I was on my honeymoon, on a cruise. Had breakfast one day in Rangers away top, and later that afternoon a guy introduced himself as Gareth's dad. Top bloke. Had some great chats during the cruise...
Told me a story that one match, Flavio presented Ainsworth (who was caretaker manager) with a team sheet for the game.
Gareth said, ".. I ain't playing that team. No way."
The Orange one replied, "You will pick THIS team'...
Wild Thing, "...No way..."
FB... "Pick it, or you're sacked"
Wild Thing... "I can't pick that team; it's got no goalkeeper !!"
Comments
Shame he wasn't tested more on Friday. Defences certainly ruled. Scott Brown looked very competent during the first half and, although he's nothing like as tall as Nik Tzanev, he seemed to command the box and has a wealth of experience which counts for a lot in goalkeeping of course. Not sure if it's either/or. I suppose one option would be to take one on loan and sign the other (probably Brown) on a one or two year contract. Or do we gamble on having just one 'keeper plus BR as sub? That would only work if the new loan rules would permit us to have an emergency loan in the event of an injury to the regular 'keeper.
Come on @DevC - remind us of the rules please.
Which club do you propose we take one on loan from? Both are free agents.
I reckon we might be waiting in the hope of borrowing a PL club's third choice keeper.
Ingram & Allsop are hard acts to follow.
If that was addressed to me, I think I (sort of) answered it by default. But I am hoping @DevC might have a view on the implications of having just one 'keeper and a coach in the context of the new loan rules. (Don't like the idea of a 'keeper being here merely to warm the bench.) In terms of which of the two on trial so far the club would be likely to go for, if having just one is realistic, the choice is not easy. Neither had much to do in last week's games but they are very different when it comes to height and experience. I think experience will probably be the deciding factor.
Difficult to judge from the 2 games. I don't think there is a lot in it. Would rather take a gamble on a younger player to be honest.
I think GA is holding out for a quality premiership/championship keeper on loan.
Are we able to take both (or two GKs anyway) then loan one out and call the back of our first choice gets injured?
Each transfer window gets more and more stupid and the new loan rules have amplified that up to 11.
So lets pretend that Chelsea are the top of the money tree. Them signing a new player at lunchtime on the 31st of August can now impact us loaning a goalkeeper to a Conference side.
Its facking madness.
Hi Mr Micra. Not sure why you want me to spell out my understanding particularly but here it is.
Normally loans have to be completed by end of transfer deadlines. No emergency rules apply. However if club has no "first team goalkeeper" it can do an emergency loan.
First team GK is defined as a player who has made 5 or more first team appearances - obviously BR qualifies this test - so question whether or not the club can get an exemption for him on basis that his games are so long ago.
Two issues then come into play, injuries during a match and games following the date of injury.
First option of course is sign two Gks, but not easy to find one happy to sit on the bench all season on wages we can afford.
If BR can get an exemption, relatively easy to sign one, have BR on the bench to cover that game and in event of injury bring another GK in to play in event of injury.
If BR cannot get an exemption, maybe don't register BR which means outfield player would have to goal in goal during the injury game (a sad loss to the game that this no longer happens IMHO) and the club can then sign a replacement on emergency terms.
OR
GKs on loan can still play for their host club in non-competitive games. If you can find a club willing to do it, register BR and sign two GKs, one of whom comes to the club and plays with BR on the bench, the other stays and trains and plays for his host club, despite formally being on loan, and only comes anywhere near AP if GK no 1 gets injured.
Thanks @DevC. You de man!
It's not straightforward but your sixth paragraph gets to the kernel of the dilemma. I don't see how Barry Richardson can be defined as a first team goalkeeper. The rule must surely relate to a player's present club. But it wouldn't surprise me unduly if the FA viewed putting a 47 year-old goalkeeping coach on the bench as an unacceptable device to circumvent the new stricter rules!
We shall see.
These loan rules are messy and don't help sides like us who want a small squad. We'll have to have two keepers signed on in some capacity as I see it. Whether one of those can be a loan keeper with us not paying his wages will only be clear a day or two before the season starts. I still think Ryan Allsop will be back at some stage this season.
I would like to see Allsop back too. Why do you think he might return?
Has anyone just asked @rmjlondon yet? If anyone knows who the new goalie is...
There IS no new goalie yet (so far as we know).
I know this thread started with a link to a piece written over a year ago on a New Zealand website about Nik Tzanev's involvement in the U20 World Cup but it has developed into a broader discussion and I think the headline needs to change.
How about "Blues' Goalkeeping Conundrum "?
How about 'Getting impatient about a problem we all know is going to get fixed'
(or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Barry Richardson)
Oh how we'll all laugh on opening day when it turns out Gareth forgot to buy one...there are some people on here who will never come to another match ever again!
It need's to be changed I've just started to read this thread, because I thought what was New Zealand taking on a trialist have to do with us.
Thanks @brittanywanderer !
Not impatient; just intrigued.
Don't be silly!
This story was found in the QPR Forum:
"Two years ago (exactly) I was on my honeymoon, on a cruise. Had breakfast one day in Rangers away top, and later that afternoon a guy introduced himself as Gareth's dad. Top bloke. Had some great chats during the cruise...
Told me a story that one match, Flavio presented Ainsworth (who was caretaker manager) with a team sheet for the game.
Gareth said, ".. I ain't playing that team. No way."
The Orange one replied, "You will pick THIS team'...
Wild Thing, "...No way..."
FB... "Pick it, or you're sacked"
Wild Thing... "I can't pick that team; it's got no goalkeeper !!"
So, there's a goalie coming from somewhere...
Could be 2+2=5 but Graham Stack has turned down a Barnet extention for 'a new challenge', a tweet liked by Bloomfield and Bean... incoming alert?
Sounds promising
He's no Barry Richardson...
Bit disturbing! But then he 'were but a lad' at the time.
I refer to the hairstyle of course.
I assume the ref was as well.
Sorry for the wording! I thought "take" was meaning "view" in this case would be OK in the context.