Manchester City Scrape The Goalkeeping Barrel


Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

17 Responses

  1. Alan says:

    Well done you worked out City have 4 Keepers out for one reason or another. How many do you suggest they sign then 10? Do me a favour stop talking Boxxocks eh, how many did Utd have when they got Goram or indeed Villa as you mention or was it alright for them? and how many do they have now? or any other team for that matter. ‘Left themselves short’ or just a bit of freak luck?

  2. admin says:

    Well, they have got nine in total, eight of whom are over eighteen. Maybe ten would have been a good idea.

  3. jak says:

    We are now a special club and we will get another keeper, there are ways and means, just like Utd did.

  4. durban bluemoon says:

    hindsight is a great thing, but surely there should have been a bring-back clause in the loan deal

  5. Scott Walden says:

    There should be no such thing as an emergency loan – anything left to discretion, is open to abuse. Allow Premier League teams to sign players on loan outside of the windows, but only from the Football League.

    Poor Durham City in the UniBond had to play their regular centre back in goal last week, due to having no goalies available.

  6. Alan says:

    Are there any site rules?

    The only thing that we ask is that you keep the comments decent and that you disagree with us (which you are more than welcome to do), you keep your criticisms constructive. All messages from people that haven’t posted messages on here before are moderated before being approved. Abusive messages will be deleted without appearing on the site and this extract from the site FAQ will appear in place of them, so you may as well not bother.

  7. Dermot O'Dreary says:

    Well done Alan – nice and constructive. Good to see that at least some Manchester City supporters are going out of their way to add to their club’s new-found unpopularity.

  8. Steve Thomas says:

    The FA need to sort this out now. Man City have a reserve team and multiple youth teams, use one of the ‘keepers who play in these teams. It’ll be good experience for them sitting on the bench if nothing else!

  9. kruador says:

    The problem is that the transfer window patently fails to do what it was intended to do: stop the top clubs being able to just buy a player they’re interested in and so cripple the opposition. Instead they just leak to the press and unsettle the players, and get the desired result anyway. It’s also had a very nasty side effect. It causes big clubs who can afford it to stockpile promising players, who then moulder on the bench or in the reserves. If they do go on loan, it still wrecks the loan club’s plans when the player is pulled out from them at a moment’s notice – at least if they owned the player they could say no!

    It also causes smaller clubs in the PL to do likewise and waste precious resources, and to a lesser extent the Football League. The seven subs rule is a direct consequence of the overstaffing of the larger clubs – have to keep them happy somehow.

    Scrap the transfer window. It’s not helping anyone and it’s harming both clubs with fewer resources and players in critical stages of their development.

  10. Planet Pie says:

    So what are you suggesting “kruador”? Go back to the “Buy a player at any stage of the season”? Or banish transfers forever?! I don’t know, there has been so much made of this “emergency loan” it is untrue! It’s not like City are bringing in Messi, Drogba, Rooney, Torres, Iniesta, Eto’o etc is it? A Sunderland reserve?!! Big deal!!

  11. Peter says:

    I’m still not sure whether allowing Man City to sign an emergency loan keeper should be allowed or not. On the one hand they seem to have had extraordinary bad luck with injuries to their keepers. On the other hand, if Nielsen isn’t a worthy back-up then why have City got him in the first place? Yes he’s young by goalkeeper standards, but not young enough to be considered a youth team keeper. All the same, Man City look more deserving of getting an emergency loan than my team Luton – in March we were allowed to sign Simon Heslop on what I think was an emergency loan, a midfielder from Barnsley due to an injury for Kevin Nicholls. However, we still have two or three reserves who can play in that position! Although it was nice to see a decision from the footballing authorities go our way at least….

    You’re right that the rules need clarifying though

  12. Gervillian Swike says:

    I think back to last autumn where Manchester United were forced to play a three-man back ‘four’ including Fletcher and Carrick because of the extraordinary bad luck they were suffering with injuries, and there was no question then – or even suggestion – that the transfer window rules be waived; and in the event the bad form they showed at the time (including a three-nil hammering at Fulham) may prove to be decisive. I agree with the article. If you have a huge squad, you’re expected to use it. If you decide not to, that should really be the end of the matter.

  13. Cuccir says:

    Normally I’d happily jump on the ‘criticise the large clubs’ bandwagon, but every year teams in lower leagues get goalkeepers on emergency loans due to this sort of situation. It’s obviously more common at a lower level because clubs can’t afford to have six keepers in their first team squad; the most famous example was Jimmy Glass of Carlisle Untied, scorer of the last minute winner to keep them league in the 1990s.

    City have keepers in their reserve squad, true, but I think here that senior is intended to mean ‘senior squad’. Perhaps the PL will clarify rules after this incident – they should do – but I don’t think this decision is wrong.

  14. Jertzee says:

    Transfer Deadline means just that – if they had no keepers on their books then maybe, but they have some so they should be used.

    AFC Wimbledon used a 17 year old in their final home game of the season….and an ijury crisis over the last year has left us going into matches without enough players for the bench rather than trying out youth team players. Contacting the FA wasn’t considered, and rightly so.

  15. Rob says:

    Well done Alan, for demonstrating once again that City fans cannot take criticism at any level.

    In my opinion, this was an interesting, balanced article regarding emergency loans in general, not a direct attach on City.

  16. sportspool says:

    We (Eastbourne Borough) werent allowed to get a loan keeper in for our final game of the season against Oxford. We had to use the backup keeper from Hastings United (two divisions below) that is dual registered with us. He rose to the occassion and so might Nielsen.

  17. frank says:

    is the rule not very simple, clubs submitting the required documentation to show they do not have TWO fit senior galkeepers in their first team squad may apply for permission to sign a goalkeeper on loan,to some posters please reread GOALKEEPER,not full back not midfielder ,not striker,a senior goalkeeper is one who has a squad number registered with the premier league,could it be more simple?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>