Manchester City have no right to bring in new goalkeeper

Posted by - April 28, 2010 - Manchester City, Premier League, Ranting and Raving

Emergency? What emergency?

No one likes to see a player get injured (OK, that’s not strictly true), especially such a talented individual as Man City goalkeeper Shay Given. But the fall out from the dislocated shoulder the Republic of Ireland number one suffered at the Emirates on Saturday has caused much debate in the football world.

The Eastlands side have received special dispensation to sign Sunderland keeper Marton Fulop as a replacement for their remaining three games after getting the green light from the Premier League.

The race for fourth is the closest it has been since the position has yielded Champions League qualification, with Liverpool, Tottenham, Aston Villa and Manchester City all vying for the coveted spot. So when the competition is so tight, and with the circumstances involved, should City be allowed to bring a new face in so close to the season’s climax?

Apparently, all of their competitors have released ‘no comment’ on the matter, but many fans are up in arms. With five professional goalkeepers on their books, they have three currently unavailable; Shay Given and Stuart Taylor are both injured, and Joe Hart has spent the season on loan (with no recall option) to Birmingham City. They do however, have both Faroe Island international Gunnar Nielsen and Colombia’s David Giraldo available.

There was talk of bringing Hart back from St Andrews as a first option, but why should this be allowed? Spurs fans will argue that a few years ago, they (needing a win to guarantee the fourth spot) were struck down by food poisoning on the eve of the last day in the now infamous ‘Lasagnegate’ affair. Most of the squad were at best half-fit, but what did the Premier League say to a request to delay the game? “No chance, get on with it!”.

They lost 2-1 at West Ham, and Arsenal got the three points required to pip them to Europe’s elite competition.

Manchester City should not have been allowed to bring anyone in at all, and even if they are it should be stipulated that the player signed is without a club. Maybe with a bit of persuasion Fabien Barthez or Dave Beasant could be tempted to put the gloves on for a last hurrah? At present, what’s to stop them throwing Juventus a few million for Gigi Buffon’s services for three games?

The situation makes the Premier League look weak and swayed by money. The situation has arisen through nothing more than poor squad management on City’s behalf.

  • Bitterblue

    The columbians name is David Gonzales. He is also injured with a groin strain. So thats 4 out of 5 injured. No problem with neilson playing but we may be forced to play a 16yr old on the bench. By your way of thinking, if he gets injured before saturday are we to start looking at playing our under 14/13/12’s. Get real

  • Phil

    The other keeper is David GONZALEZ, and he has a groin injury, so City have no back-up for Neilsen, hence the need for an “emergency” keeper. Sheesh, you can’t even get your material facts correct. Emergency keeper loans are hardly a new thing. Motherwell, in the SPL, recently signed Kyle Letheren, Bournemouth signed Marek Stech of West Ham United, Gillingham signed Dean Brill of Luton, etc., etc., etc.

    So I guess your real argument, at its center, is that Man City should not be allowed to sign an emergency keeper because it has far more cash on hand than your club…..

    You are a total plank!

  • http://OffThePost David Hardy
  • BlueGuy

    You are incorrect – Giraldo is injured also, groin injury and unlikely to be available for selection in the final 3 games. City have Gunnar as the only non-youth GK currently available. This information is freely available everywhere, including the city offical site, so did you ignore it or just miss it?

    And we’ve hardly done the unspeakable have we? I mean, singing Fulop for three games? Oh, we are such cheats! There is no guarantee Fulop will even get a game – Gunnar did ok coming on as sub and will be looking to start against Villa I am sure.

    How about concentrating on the actual remaining games, 11 vs 11 where the way the fixture list has worked out will actually dictate that the best team over the next 3 games will win a CL place, instead of bawling like a baby over this injustice, this travesty of human rights? My God, it’s Tianamen Square all over again! Or not.

    There is also precedent for this – Villa a few seasons back for example – so City are perfectly within their rights and Premier League rules to do this. Don’t like it? Tough. Please stop blaming City for everything from ruining football to that damned volcano, it only makes you look petty.

  • BenS

    Good article in the Times by Tony Cascarino about this. Conclusion: city should pay the price for not preparing properly, particularly since they’re hardly in financial trouble. Furthermore, keepers aren’t like props in rugby – as in they’re not specialised players according to the laws of the game. Anyone can be a keeper.

  • http://thisisourcitymanchester.blogspot.com/ CiTyBlUe

    Comon David, do your homework atleast man, like those above

    1st Shay Given ‘injured’
    2nd Steven Taylor ‘injured’
    3rd Gonzo Giraldo ‘injured’

    Joe Hart ‘on loan at Birmingham and a no option’

    Reserve Team Gunnar Nielsen

    Why should City be forced to field a reserve team keeper, surely if Gunnar also got injured that would leave City with no keepers at all what so ever for both first team and reserve.

    Stuff what other clubs fans think, City has a given right to exercise our right to bring in a temporary replacement.

  • http://thisisourcitymanchester.blogspot.com/ CiTyBlUe

    Ben S you really are a tool, who the hell is goalkeeping not a specialised sport.

    Cascarino has a huge not so hidden agenda, it is a world wide known fact Cascarino hates Manchester City and he never ever has anything positive to say about City ever.

    The guy if having the chance would wipe us off the map without even thinking or blinking.

    The guy is a moron crying because City have been granted the option to take a keeper on loan until the end of the season.

    Cascarino can shove that were it hurts.

  • BenS

    If you run out of strikers do you ask for special dispensation to get another? No! You select the next best player for that position. It’s a team game, if you’re unable to forsee a scenario where you might get injuries and already know you’ve sent a keeper out on loan, deal with it, don’t get the rules bent.

  • steve

    City have gone through the right channels to get a Goalkeeper. If the Premier League had disagreed with it, they wouldnt have got one. As a result Liverpool, Tottenham and Villa can not do a thing about other than complain about the Premier League. Half of the idiots on here are probablt sad Villa,Liverpool and Spurs fans anyway

  • BenS

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m a swindon fan, so all this is largely irrelevant to me personally 😉 and yeah, ‘bent’ isn’t strictly true – in fact I don’t really blame city for having a go. It’s the fact it has been allowed that bothers me.

  • http://thisisourcitymanchester.blogspot.com/ CiTyBlUe

    BenS, how the hell is loosing almost all your goalkeepers only to be left with one goalkeeper to play both first and reserve team games for the rest of the season the right thing to do.

    See you lcak the bigger picture with blinkers on m8, Gunnar Nielsen was Citys only fit keeper with 3 injured and two out on loan,

    City showed Birmingham a hand in friendship by not putting a clause in the contract allowing City to take Hart back without Birmingham having any say in it, Birmingham were stupid enough to block our honest attempt to get Hart back when clearly they could have gaijned much more from us considering we have one of the best two academies on England, they could have even gained Hart for another season out of it but no.

    You can not ask a keeper to play both first and reserve games, it is too much, what if Gunnar got injured also?, then City would be without any keepers.

    I just forced you to chance your opinion where as I would have prefered you change it for yourself.

  • Bitterblue

    Ben S, if you consult the F A rules, you will find than goalkeeper is considered as a specialised position and is the only position that can be addressed outside of the transfer window in the case of emergency, due to the interest of fair competition. To compare the situation to the injury of outfield players is ridiculous as all outfield players can be switched if needs be.

  • BenS

    Of course it’s a specialised position, but not a specific one. Nothing is stopping any player in the city squad from standing between the sticks. And my point is a) the rules have been misapplied because city have keepers anyway, only they’re crap, b) maybe city should have planned ahead. The comparison with outfield players still stands in the context of squad building. City got it wrong, unlucky or not.

  • Slowey

    There are plenty of precedents for this because, the Prem League and FA rules allow it.

    Why do they allow it, because they consider the GK position as a specialised one, that no outfield player can fill adequately.

    City have only one fit senior keeper, ergo we get pemission to sign one on loan.

  • Joe

    I’m not a supporter of any of the clubs interested in 4th, so this decision won’t affect me at all, but here’s my question…if this is to be allowed, then why do we have a transfer window at all?

    I think the real mistake here was loaning out Hart with no option to recall him. Apart from he and Given, none of their other keepers are what most people would call ‘top class’.

  • Kishore

    if keeper injury is the excuse,then fulop shud only provide cover…which means he shud only be allowed to play if nielsen is injured…but knowing City,they might get him injured too and try to get Buffon on loan….crap

  • BennyB
  • S

    Ben S,
    “Of course it’s a specialised position, but not a specific one.”… Not according to FA rules. Nothing is stopping a player to go between the sticks but they deemed it as specialised for a reason.

    ” a) the rules have been misapplied because city have keepers anyway” yes they have keepers but they are all injured and require a reserve… hence the term ‘EMERGENCY KEEPER” once again… note the word Emergency. If one of the other keepers were fit the FA would not deem it as an emergency and would have rejected it. simple. move on.

    “City got it wrong, unlucky or not.” Once again… not according to the FA

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doug-Kerr/610081115 Doug Kerr

    You all say “a 16 year old may have to go on the bench!!?!?!?!?!!”

    Im sure you could remember the same thing happened to Chelski a while back and the FA just told them to “get on with it” as they did with Spurs.

  • Jeff Jeff

    Phil’s right, you are a total plank.

  • Dave Macbeth

    I dont know what all the fuss is about. It has happened before. A few years back Villa signed Gabor Kiraly outside of the transfer window on an emergency loan when their only goalkeeping option was an untested rookie. Wigan did the same with Carlo Nash. Carlisle signed Jimmy Glass after the transfer deadline had passed and we all know what happened there. It is a long-standing rule with several notable examples. There is nothing new here.