Red Kites are carrions I believe, so the low flying bomber command partridges are quite safe. More likely to be killed by a Wycombe forward hitting the target!
I am no ornithologist Dev, nor am I ornithophobic, but here are a few comments:
1. Red kites have relatively weak "feet" and rely mainly on carrion - there's a joke there I suspect - and small invertebrates (eg beetles and worms). They have been known to take very small (ie young) rabbits apparently but would not cope with a partridge.
2. Lord Carrington's West Wycombe Shoot is widely regarded as one of the best in the country and has pheasants as well as partridges. The latter apparently present quite a challenge. Good for them.
3. Goodness only knows.
thanks Ewan and Micra - my knowledge bank is hereby increased (not hard as I am sure Mrs Dev would tell you).
You are a lucky bunch from what I can see from afar. if Tuesday is anything to go by, attractive passing football complemented by attractive scenery, magnificent wildlife displays by the Kites and the odd comedy moment from Pat the Partridge. OK might not win every game, but life still pretty sweet n'est ce pas. Enjoy tomorrow.
Anyway, the new Facebook gallery of today's training is interesting. Looks like Hayes, PCH, Rowe and Freeman are back in contention - Muller strapped up - O'Nien, Weston, Brown (and Pierre) missing from the pics.
@EwanHoosaami said:
Red Kites are carrions I believe, so the low flying bomber command partridges are quite safe. More likely to be killed by a Wycombe forward hitting the target!
Or by a member of the ground staff if he'd responded to the City player encouraging him to bring the mystery pole down with
great force on the poor dead-playing partridge.
Red kites are rarely carrion. They're generally too quick to get run over.
If Brown is still not fit, then who plays in goal ? Are we signing Dawson on a longer loan deal ?
Cameron Dawson is on a 7 day emergency loan so (if fit) I assume he will play tomorrow. Tuesday is another matter of course and if Scott Brown has not recovered from his thigh strain, the loan will have to be extended (assuming that is an option under FA rules). If not, who knows? (@DevC has previous on this topic and may be able to reassure us).
Expert at tracking down obscure regulations!
Sounds like it's simply a matter of providing medical evidence to the FA and renewing week by week but I'm too lazy/busy to look up Regulation 55.2 to discover what the time limitation is. I'm guessing we're unlikely to need to go beyond whatever limit there is. Might be another matter of course if something similar were to occur in, say, a couple of months time.
55.2 The Club must supply to The League, (including by facsimile) written evidence to demonstrate the circumstances set out in Regulation 55.1 apply, together with the appropriate form(s) for his registration and The League having confirmed that the circumstances conform to the provisions of this Regulation:
55.2.1 in respect of any fixture played on a weekday when the Office is normally open, at least three hours before the match; or
Still don't get this emergency keeper thing. If Scott Brown, gets injured during a game and Baz replaces him, what happens the following game, as all those points "55.*" don't apply, as Baz was fully capable of guarding the nets when Scott was injured, but no so, the next game. I don't get it.
Very precarious this Energency Ruling as it obviously worked in our favor already, happy days of course.
Surely it would be possible if Brown got injured again to claim that Richardson took a knock in training and was also unfit, particularly in light of his age and hence get an emergency loan.
As the fount of all knowledge on the loan system, can Dev please confirm whether it would be allowable under the current rules to sign another keeper and loan him out to a non league sign with a 24 hour call back.
Richardson is irrelevant - if Brown is injured or suspended and we have no other GK on the books (BR doesnt count) we can have an emergency loan. As many times as we want.
Yes we can sign a Gk and then loan him out (to non league or league for that matter) and then recall him. Obviously have to find a club that agrees to this though.
53.1.5 Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 53.1.1, a Standard Loan of a goalkeeper (but not otherwise) may be subject to a recall clause exercisable at any time. Any recall may only be implemented:
(a) in extenuating circumstances and with the consent of The League, such extenuating circumstances to be determined in The League's absolute discretion; or
(b) where the Club seeking to exercise the recall has only one Professional Goalkeeper available (applying the criteria set out in Regulations 55.1.1 to 55.1.3 below). The recall will be subject to not less than 24 hours’ written notice.
A goalkeeper shall not be permitted to resume any Standard Loan following the exercise of a recall.
I am not the fount of all knowledge on anything, let alone the loan system, and certainly not on spelling. I rather thought it was "font" of all knowledge but apparently both are acceptable. Second bit of new learning today.
So Baz, is not on the books as a goal keeper, just a "player"? , we can bring Baz on as a player, to take the keeper gloves off Scott Brown and duties, if Scott gets injured during the game, thus does not constitute that Baz is souley a goal keeper.
Think I got it, it's not rocket science, after all.
I'm not sure but I think you guys might be missing something here. I think the current situation is possible because the official loan window is still open, so clubs are free to sign/loan as they wish regardless.
I don't think the signing of the keeper can be used (yet) as evidence that BR does not count. I don't know, I'm just speculating.
We are referring to "Emergency keeper", as any loans arrangements, are for a minimum of 5 months. We are returning the goods after 7 days, which we can do throughout this season, as we have no 2nd/Backup keeper.
Guess someone digested loan/emergency manual inside out and hence, saw the advantages of saving money, and able to get emergency loan keepers from a few infinite sources, when sh1t happens to SB,
He surely still qualifies as a professional goal keeper. It would be hard to argue that a goal keeping coach (which I believe is most likely his contract) who is a registered player (as he must be to be named as a substitute) is not a Professional Goalkeeper.
Hence if he's fit we can't sign an emergency keeper because regulation 5 clearly states - and I quote: -
55 Emergency Goalkeeper Loan
55.1 If all the Professional Goalkeepers at a Club are unavailable as a result of having been:
Blah blah blah.
I realise that this appears to be contradicted by the club statement and, frankly, I'm still baffled by the "Emergency Loan Signing" being sanctioned by the EFL. Maybe BR has also been declared unfit?
Even more baffling as I now see that BR was named as a substitute on Tuesday.
I guess you can argue that a goal keeping coach (which I believe is most likely his contract) who is a registered player (as he must be to be named as a substitute) is not a Professional Goalkeeper.
I would imagine common sense has come into play. Given that BR is employed by WWFC as a professional GK coach he is not technically a professional GK and I'm sure that the man on the Clapham Omnibus will happily recognise that 1 appearance as such in 10 years would reasonably disqualify him from that connection
It doesn't really matter what his contract says - it matters how "professional GK" is defined in the rules.
which is
‘Professional Goalkeeper’ means a goalkeeper who has been named by any Club (or Premier League club) in the starting eleven on five or more occasions in any matches in the relevant league or first team cup competitions (excluding any Goalkeeper registered as a Non Contract Player).
‘Non-Contract Player’ means any Association Football Player (except a Scholar or Academy Player) who is not playing under a written contract of employment with a Club.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section1.aspx#4sXO0zv7kiGvpvfy.99
I presume either as BookerT alludes the club has got a common sense dispensation or he qualifies as a non-contract player and hence isn't regarded as a "professional GK".
Either way the fact that we signed a loan GK on an emergency GK loan shows that BR isn't defined as a professional GK.
It probably doesn't hurt that we've been so accommodating to the EFL's public relations needs, with Ainsworth and Akinfenwa almost ubiquitous in the season launch coverage. It's a canny decision to scratch their backs if we're planning on calling in favours this season. I still think we'll sign this Sheffield Wednesday kid on a six month loan though and this whole debate will be moot by this time next week.
Comments
Thank you Dev, a genuinely helpful and insightful post.
Red Kites are carrions I believe, so the low flying bomber command partridges are quite safe. More likely to be killed by a Wycombe forward hitting the target!
I am no ornithologist Dev, nor am I ornithophobic, but here are a few comments:
1. Red kites have relatively weak "feet" and rely mainly on carrion - there's a joke there I suspect - and small invertebrates (eg beetles and worms). They have been known to take very small (ie young) rabbits apparently but would not cope with a partridge.
2. Lord Carrington's West Wycombe Shoot is widely regarded as one of the best in the country and has pheasants as well as partridges. The latter apparently present quite a challenge. Good for them.
3. Goodness only knows.
thanks Ewan and Micra - my knowledge bank is hereby increased (not hard as I am sure Mrs Dev would tell you).
You are a lucky bunch from what I can see from afar. if Tuesday is anything to go by, attractive passing football complemented by attractive scenery, magnificent wildlife displays by the Kites and the odd comedy moment from Pat the Partridge. OK might not win every game, but life still pretty sweet n'est ce pas. Enjoy tomorrow.
Anyway, the new Facebook gallery of today's training is interesting. Looks like Hayes, PCH, Rowe and Freeman are back in contention - Muller strapped up - O'Nien, Weston, Brown (and Pierre) missing from the pics.
If Brown is still not fit, then who plays in goal ? Are we signing Dawson on a longer loan deal ?
Or by a member of the ground staff if he'd responded to the City player encouraging him to bring the mystery pole down with
great force on the poor dead-playing partridge.
Red kites are rarely carrion. They're generally too quick to get run over.
@Gerry47 said:
Cameron Dawson is on a 7 day emergency loan so (if fit) I assume he will play tomorrow. Tuesday is another matter of course and if Scott Brown has not recovered from his thigh strain, the loan will have to be extended (assuming that is an option under FA rules). If not, who knows? (@DevC has previous on this topic and may be able to reassure us).
Hey I'm finally an expert in something
55.3 The period of any Emergency Goalkeeper Loan:
55.3.1 shall be for a period of 7 days, inclusive of the starting date and finishing date; and
55.3.2 may be renewed for 7 days at a time, subject to compliance with Regulation 55.2 in respect of each proposed renewal.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#zOkSC21UAg8FgvFI.99
Expert at tracking down obscure regulations!
Sounds like it's simply a matter of providing medical evidence to the FA and renewing week by week but I'm too lazy/busy to look up Regulation 55.2 to discover what the time limitation is. I'm guessing we're unlikely to need to go beyond whatever limit there is. Might be another matter of course if something similar were to occur in, say, a couple of months time.
55.2? we can do that
55.2 The Club must supply to The League, (including by facsimile) written evidence to demonstrate the circumstances set out in Regulation 55.1 apply, together with the appropriate form(s) for his registration and The League having confirmed that the circumstances conform to the provisions of this Regulation:
55.2.1 in respect of any fixture played on a weekday when the Office is normally open, at least three hours before the match; or
55.2.2 in respect of any other fixture:
(a) 12 noon on the day of the match; or
(b) at least three hours before the match,
whichever is the earlier
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#VdJOet1EhkKpzQRD.99
there is no time limit as long as still unfit/suspended/still scared of birds
@ DevC thank you for the info keep up the good work I like good replys to my questions.
Also thanks@ aloysius for keeping things on track.
Still don't get this emergency keeper thing. If Scott Brown, gets injured during a game and Baz replaces him, what happens the following game, as all those points "55.*" don't apply, as Baz was fully capable of guarding the nets when Scott was injured, but no so, the next game. I don't get it.
Very precarious this Energency Ruling as it obviously worked in our favor already, happy days of course.
Surely it would be possible if Brown got injured again to claim that Richardson took a knock in training and was also unfit, particularly in light of his age and hence get an emergency loan.
As the fount of all knowledge on the loan system, can Dev please confirm whether it would be allowable under the current rules to sign another keeper and loan him out to a non league sign with a 24 hour call back.
thanks guys....of course a 7 day loan means he's available for tomorrow....silly me.
Richardson is irrelevant - if Brown is injured or suspended and we have no other GK on the books (BR doesnt count) we can have an emergency loan. As many times as we want.
Yes we can sign a Gk and then loan him out (to non league or league for that matter) and then recall him. Obviously have to find a club that agrees to this though.
53.1.5 Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 53.1.1, a Standard Loan of a goalkeeper (but not otherwise) may be subject to a recall clause exercisable at any time. Any recall may only be implemented:
(a) in extenuating circumstances and with the consent of The League, such extenuating circumstances to be determined in The League's absolute discretion; or
(b) where the Club seeking to exercise the recall has only one Professional Goalkeeper available (applying the criteria set out in Regulations 55.1.1 to 55.1.3 below). The recall will be subject to not less than 24 hours’ written notice.
A goalkeeper shall not be permitted to resume any Standard Loan following the exercise of a recall.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#WtEExD1e8ahIj4vc.99
I am not the fount of all knowledge on anything, let alone the loan system, and certainly not on spelling. I rather thought it was "font" of all knowledge but apparently both are acceptable. Second bit of new learning today.
So Baz, is not on the books as a goal keeper, just a "player"? , we can bring Baz on as a player, to take the keeper gloves off Scott Brown and duties, if Scott gets injured during the game, thus does not constitute that Baz is souley a goal keeper.
Think I got it, it's not rocket science, after all.
I'm not sure but I think you guys might be missing something here. I think the current situation is possible because the official loan window is still open, so clubs are free to sign/loan as they wish regardless.
I don't think the signing of the keeper can be used (yet) as evidence that BR does not count. I don't know, I'm just speculating.
We are referring to "Emergency keeper", as any loans arrangements, are for a minimum of 5 months. We are returning the goods after 7 days, which we can do throughout this season, as we have no 2nd/Backup keeper.
Guess someone digested loan/emergency manual inside out and hence, saw the advantages of saving money, and able to get emergency loan keepers from a few infinite sources, when sh1t happens to SB,
More bad injury news
I may be showing my age here, but that is possibly the worst account on the whole of Twitter.
Actually, it's not my age, as it seems all but 8 of Twitter's several billion users agree.
@DevC. On what basis is BR irrelevant?
He surely still qualifies as a professional goal keeper. It would be hard to argue that a goal keeping coach (which I believe is most likely his contract) who is a registered player (as he must be to be named as a substitute) is not a Professional Goalkeeper.
Hence if he's fit we can't sign an emergency keeper because regulation 5 clearly states - and I quote: -
55 Emergency Goalkeeper Loan
55.1 If all the Professional Goalkeepers at a Club are unavailable as a result of having been:
Blah blah blah.
I realise that this appears to be contradicted by the club statement and, frankly, I'm still baffled by the "Emergency Loan Signing" being sanctioned by the EFL. Maybe BR has also been declared unfit?
Even more baffling as I now see that BR was named as a substitute on Tuesday.
I guess you can argue that a goal keeping coach (which I believe is most likely his contract) who is a registered player (as he must be to be named as a substitute) is not a Professional Goalkeeper.
Well it is the EFL I suppose
Maybe his official contract of employment with the club is as an additional physio, mascot or water boy?
I would imagine common sense has come into play. Given that BR is employed by WWFC as a professional GK coach he is not technically a professional GK and I'm sure that the man on the Clapham Omnibus will happily recognise that 1 appearance as such in 10 years would reasonably disqualify him from that connection
It doesn't really matter what his contract says - it matters how "professional GK" is defined in the rules.
which is
‘Professional Goalkeeper’ means a goalkeeper who has been named by any Club (or Premier League club) in the starting eleven on five or more occasions in any matches in the relevant league or first team cup competitions (excluding any Goalkeeper registered as a Non Contract Player).
‘Non-Contract Player’ means any Association Football Player (except a Scholar or Academy Player) who is not playing under a written contract of employment with a Club.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section1.aspx#4sXO0zv7kiGvpvfy.99
I presume either as BookerT alludes the club has got a common sense dispensation or he qualifies as a non-contract player and hence isn't regarded as a "professional GK".
Either way the fact that we signed a loan GK on an emergency GK loan shows that BR isn't defined as a professional GK.
It probably doesn't hurt that we've been so accommodating to the EFL's public relations needs, with Ainsworth and Akinfenwa almost ubiquitous in the season launch coverage. It's a canny decision to scratch their backs if we're planning on calling in favours this season. I still think we'll sign this Sheffield Wednesday kid on a six month loan though and this whole debate will be moot by this time next week.
why would this Sheffield Wednesday kid benefit from sitting on our bench for six months.
Did Alex Lynch ever sign for another club?