Peterborough keeper out for season/Emergency Loan Signed



Nelson! said:
ah, I thought he hurt himself trying to save the free kick? Would explain why he struggled with a shot that was well hit but not right in the corner if he wasn’t 100%.
Click to expand...
I thought that as well, which makes my comment easier about the subby keeper going back in time a bit stupid now!
 
MarcoG said:
Finding it hard to get outraged by this. The reality is they aren't going to sign anyone good are they?
Click to expand...
I'm not outraged like but at the same time it seems like Ferguson is hustling. They probably took a gamble on spending elsewhere in the team for weaker reserves in goal and there is a consequence to the decision like there is if you choose to be weaker elsewhere. Personally i'll take any kind of opportunity to see them two above us lose a bit of form. It's that time when it all matters and its fine margins.
 
Nelson! said:
Between the PPG debacle, wage cap, making us play a game during a covid outbreak....if they let Peterborough do this you can see why the more conspiratorially minded think the EFL are trying to trap us in league one.
Click to expand...
I'll be a bit irritated but largely fine with it if they can show where the rules are stated. If it's clearly written somewhere that anyone u23 at the start of the season or anyone with less than 5 league appearances doesn't count as a "professional keeper" then I'll think its a shit rule, but it is what it is and they're rightly utilising it. If they've got a clear section on governance, it isn't covered there, but they have some some of leeway, or some unwritten rules then I'll be pissed off. It isn't fair unless everything is clearly documented so that we know for a fact we'd all be held to the same standard. Not got an issue with Peterborough BTW, I'd expect us to do whatever we could as well in this situation, it's the useless fuckers at the EFL. This situation was hardly unforeseen, having a clear note of when an emergency keeper can be brought in would seem a fairly basic thing to have
 
1more said:
This will be an absolute disgrace if its agreed and the biggest bending of rules I've saw. Firstly knowingly creating a 1st team squad with supposedly one senior keeper and secondly then being allowed to sign an emergency keeper when that senior keeper is injured

This should not be allowed and its bordering cheating
Click to expand...

This is my overwhelming opinion on it too like. Think there's been a few instances since we've been in League One where a team seems to have had their keeper pick up an injury to then bring in emergency cover just before they play us as well. Think Swindon is the most recent example, Accrington brought a lad in who subsequently crocked Wyke as well. These are likely co-incidental.

The rules have been posted in this thread, they have two keepers 18 or older who've been in their match day squad this season. There doesn't appear to be any provision in the rules that state anything to do with Under 23 keepers not being included or number of games played or any of the reasons cited as to why they can do this.

In hindsight I'd have liked to have not paid a wage to Matthews and just wanted an emergency loan in for the games Burge wasn't fit. That didn't happen, Matthews has played, and cost us points as well. Why is it one rule for us and another for these?
 
sir rowell cummins said:
I'm not outraged like but at the same time it seems like Ferguson is hustling. They probably took a gamble on spending elsewhere in the team for weaker reserves in goal and there is a consequence to the decision like there is if you choose to be weaker elsewhere. Personally i'll take any kind of opportunity to see them two above us lose a bit of form. It's that time when it all matters and its fine margins.
Click to expand...
It does make the role of back up keeper redundant like. Why bother paying one? Just have a first choice and, if you fancy, a youth keeper on the bench. First choice gets injured / sent off you hope the kid does alright for however long is left but after that you're covered, just get a back up from a higher league.

For me the emergency loan should be just that, for emergencies. The kind of things you can't really expect to happen. A professional football club should be required to have three professional keepers in the squad (one could be an u23 with a professional contract). Clear very early that if any of them get injured or suspended (again, hardly unforeseeable) they don't get a loan. The loan only comes into play if they lose 2 of them at once, which is less likely to happen.
 
Ferguson will be sending the back up keeper out around Peterborough to lick door handles and catch the virus so he can bring in someone better no doubt.
 
This could end in a points deduction,Fergie will have phoned up and asked EFL for a loan keeper saying they just have rookies.Then the EFL will see they have a 24 year old who has international caps,that Fergie doesnt fancy playing.Efl wont like the deception.Well thats my story and im sticking with it.
 
Seaham Towny said:
This is my overwhelming opinion on it too like. Think there's been a few instances since we've been in League One where a team seems to have had their keeper pick up an injury to then bring in emergency cover just before they play us as well. Think Swindon is the most recent example, Accrington brought a lad in who subsequently crocked Wyke as well. These are likely co-incidental.

The rules have been posted in this thread, they have two keepers 18 or older who've been in their match day squad this season. There doesn't appear to be any provision in the rules that state anything to do with Under 23 keepers not being included or number of games played or any of the reasons cited as to why they can do this.

In hindsight I'd have liked to have not paid a wage to Matthews and just wanted an emergency loan in for the games Burge wasn't fit. That didn't happen, Matthews has played, and cost us points as well. Why is it one rule for us and another for these?
Click to expand...

If Peterborough get away with this then they've rendered signing a full time no 2 GK void for any other team in the league, what would be the point in us paying and paying someone like Matthews if we can just decide to bring someone in on loan at any time anyway?

If they're allowed to do this then if we're in L1 next year I would just give Burge another deal, bin off Matthews and stick Adam Richardson/Patterson on the bench, if Burge then gets injured phone up a championship club and save a decent wage.
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
It does make the role of back up keeper redundant like. Why bother paying one? Just have a first choice and, if you fancy, a youth keeper on the bench. First choice gets injured / sent off you hope the kid does alright for however long is left but after that you're covered, just get a back up from a higher league.

For me the emergency loan should be just that, for emergencies. The kind of things you can't really expect to happen. A professional football club should be required to have three professional keepers in the squad (one could be an u23 with a professional contract). Clear very early that if any of them get injured or suspended (again, hardly unforeseeable) they don't get a loan. The loan only comes into play if they lose 2 of them at once, which is less likely to happen.
Click to expand...

Think for international tournaments you have to have 3 keepers in the squad. Think Charlton listed Quinn as his 3rd keeper in '94 and they started enforcing it properly.
 
stevo said:
This could end in a points deduction,Fergie will have phoned up and asked EFL for a loan keeper saying they just have rookies.Then the EFL will see they have a 24 year old who has international caps,that Fergie doesnt fancy playing.Efl wont like the deception.Well thats my story and im sticking with it.
Click to expand...
What a load of shit
 

Back
Top