I think it’s a great move by the club if my prediction is correct:
Bishop is out until at least January, if not longer. The club don’t trust Ravizzoli to be the number 1 for four months or longer. They bring in a new number 1 in Shamal George (we’ve paid money for him; he’s definitely going to be the number 1). This means Bishop’s development is squandered, so Sunderland recall him in January meaning we don’t have to pay his wages or any other loan fees from January to May. And we’ve got already got a number 1 goalkeeper in house for next season, so no need to recruit again.
We’ve forced Sunderland’s hand. I think it’s a very clever move from the club. I’m impressed.
Surely we should have cancelled it the second Shamal George signed? Paying him to sit at home right through to January doesn't sound very clever to me.
As far as I’m aware, with these sorts of loans we can’t cancel the contract. We’ve signed up to paying his wages for the year, unless Sunderland execute their recall clause in January.
If his injury was exaggerated because we allowed him to play on for 45+ minutes after it was incurred, I could imagine Sunderland being less than impressed if we then refused to cover the cost of his rehabilitation / wages while out.
Personally, I wouldn't write, let alone sign, a contract that meant I'd have to keep paying for him if he was out long term. I've seen plenty of players over the years return to their parent club after picking up a long term injury, if only because they're likely to get better rehab at the bigger club.
Matt Bloomfield said that they had to get another goalkeeper because if Shala got injured they would not have another goalkeeper on the bench as Ravizolli has played too many matches for the club to get an emergency loan. So whether Rav is no1 or no2 has no bearing on the signing.
Maybe insurance plays a part in such deals. However, I can’t see a parent club just taking a player back and allowing a season long contract to be cancelled without some sort of agreement being reached regarding outstanding payments.
It's down to the managers preference anyway.If he's got someone in mind and the backing is there why not, saves him hunting around for someone at short notice.
But they were talking about Allan Parry, not you @glasshalffull. I thought at first it was you they had in mind but then I saw Allan Parry mentioned ten (10) times and realised my mistake.
That's the punch in the ear that I was apparently the only person to notice. Certainly the only one mentioning it in this thread, most of the comments were about how "embarrassing" it was that one of our players went down at a corner.
OK, watched it again. I can't work out which were the two players who went down play-acting out of the grand total of one player that went down. Is it the one that got punched in the ear and the invisible man?
Comments
I think it’s a great move by the club if my prediction is correct:
Bishop is out until at least January, if not longer. The club don’t trust Ravizzoli to be the number 1 for four months or longer. They bring in a new number 1 in Shamal George (we’ve paid money for him; he’s definitely going to be the number 1). This means Bishop’s development is squandered, so Sunderland recall him in January meaning we don’t have to pay his wages or any other loan fees from January to May. And we’ve got already got a number 1 goalkeeper in house for next season, so no need to recruit again.
We’ve forced Sunderland’s hand. I think it’s a very clever move from the club. I’m impressed.
Surely we should have cancelled it the second Shamal George signed? Paying him to sit at home right through to January doesn't sound very clever to me.
As far as I’m aware, with these sorts of loans we can’t cancel the contract. We’ve signed up to paying his wages for the year, unless Sunderland execute their recall clause in January.
Pretty sure it's standard to be able to cancel a loan during the windows.
We may have also paid a loan fee.
Pretty sure it's not - unless it was within the terms of the original loan agreement.
A loan agreement is a contract just like any other, we can unilaterally cancel it because Bishop is injured.
If his injury was exaggerated because we allowed him to play on for 45+ minutes after it was incurred, I could imagine Sunderland being less than impressed if we then refused to cover the cost of his rehabilitation / wages while out.
Personally, I wouldn't write, let alone sign, a contract that meant I'd have to keep paying for him if he was out long term. I've seen plenty of players over the years return to their parent club after picking up a long term injury, if only because they're likely to get better rehab at the bigger club.
Matt Bloomfield said that they had to get another goalkeeper because if Shala got injured they would not have another goalkeeper on the bench as Ravizolli has played too many matches for the club to get an emergency loan. So whether Rav is no1 or no2 has no bearing on the signing.
Maybe insurance plays a part in such deals. However, I can’t see a parent club just taking a player back and allowing a season long contract to be cancelled without some sort of agreement being reached regarding outstanding payments.
I predict this will come up on Only Connect tonight
They could just bring in another young non-league keeper with no experience like Shala, this isn’t persuasive to me.
Not if he was under contract.
It's down to the managers preference anyway.If he's got someone in mind and the backing is there why not, saves him hunting around for someone at short notice.
I'm glad noone noticed the error in my earlier post at 3:04pm. It should read we can't unilaterally ...
Players often return to their parent club for treatment, if injured, during a loan. I don't know if that means the loan has been cancelled though.
An injured player might get treatment at a number of places without it affecting his contract status.
However, I think we can agree that the signing of another permanent goal keeper suggests we might not see Bishop play for us again.
We could just play "rush" or "fly" goalkeeper
That would not be the case it seems - https://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/football/sunderland-afc/sunderland-starlet-trains-with-wycombe-wanderers-ahead-of-potential-non-league-loan-move-4764579
I think a picture of me in your head would be the perfect antidote to having sex. In fact I might market the idea as a new method of birth control.
But they were talking about Allan Parry, not you @glasshalffull. I thought at first it was you they had in mind but then I saw Allan Parry mentioned ten (10) times and realised my mistake.
Really don’t know where the Alan Parry reference comes from.
I’m assuming this is the foul that led to their first equalizer?
if so , just shows how incompetent referees are
Incorrect. It shows how incompetent Darren Drysdale is.
fair point, he is horrendous, one of if not the worst at this level
That's the punch in the ear that I was apparently the only person to notice. Certainly the only one mentioning it in this thread, most of the comments were about how "embarrassing" it was that one of our players went down at a corner.
Play acting!
Neither of them were Dan Harvie were they. Watch again. I called out Joe Low. Keep up the good work though.
OK, watched it again. I can't work out which were the two players who went down play-acting out of the grand total of one player that went down. Is it the one that got punched in the ear and the invisible man?
The worst thing about this picture is that the ref is looking right at the scene of the crime.
I always groan when I see that Drysdale is our ref but nobody will be worse than Charles Brakespear.