Joe Lumley

[Retdon1]

Joins on loan from QPR

[steve@dcfd]

Seven day which we can extend for another seven days if we want to. This is ongoing for as long as we want him.
But unfortunately for Jones under the regulations he must play in every game he is available for while he is under emergency loan.

[IDM]

I suspect the rolling 7 day loan and “must play” terms are compulsory for these types of deals - ie if we need to take on another keeper we have no choice but to accept the terms.?

[silent majority]

I suspect the rolling 7 day loan and “must play” terms are compulsory for these types of deals - ie if we need to take on another keeper we have no choice but to accept the terms.?

Surely if we don't need to play him then it can't be classed as an emergency?

That's my interpretation IDM.

[IDM]

Exactly - that is why I think those constraints are in place.  Not by choice of the club.

[roversontheup]

So if Jones was injured and let’s say we didn’t have Bottomley does that mean if we had brought Lumley in he would have had to start and Bursik drop to the bench?

[IDM]

We wouldn’t have been able to bring in anyone, as  Bursik would be considered as sufficient not to justify an emergency loan for another keeper.

[keith79]

But can he do it on a cold Tuesday night in doncaster.

[Janso]

We wouldn’t have been able to bring in anyone, as  Bursik would be considered as sufficient not to justify an emergency loan for another keeper.

I'm not sure that's true. We'd still only have one "senior" keeper in the squad if Jones was injured.

Unless you mean it would be considered sufficient by the club, of course.

[IDM]

Read the explanation in the DFP..

If Jones had played 5 or more first team games we wouldn’t have been allowed to sign anyone on emergency loan.

[scawsby steve]

But can he do it on a cold Tuesday night in doncaster.

In empty stadiums, I'd imagine there's no difference between a cold Tuesday night in Doncaster, and a cold Tuesday night in Shepherd's Bush.

[donnievic]

Read the explanation in the DFP..

If Jones had played 5 or more first team games we wouldn’t have been allowed to sign anyone on emergency loan.

we would have been able to then because we would only have 1 fit keeper

[IDM]

No, read this:

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/explained-doncaster-rovers-signing-joe-lumley-how-long-it-can-go-what-it-involves-and-josef-bursiks-future-3042562

Emergency goalkeeper loans are only available if a club has NO professional goalkeepers available - “professional” means having made 5 or more first team appearances.  Jones has 4.

If Jones had made 5 appearances and was uninjured, we couldn’t sign another keeper.

It’s nowt to do with only having one fit GK at the club.

[donnievic]

We could if Bottomly got injured and we didn’t have another keeper to put on the bench

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Does it mean if we want to keep Lumley keeper jones can't play in the fa cup? If so would Lumley actually be eligible to play in the cup?

[donnievic]

Does it mean if we want to keep Lumley keeper jones can't play in the fa cup? If so would Lumley actually be eligible to play in the cup?

suppose would depend if qpr would want him to be cup tied or not but then if jones does play in that then surely we couldn’t sign him back unless Jones got injured

[Jersey Rover]

Welcome to Doncaster, Rovers first signing of 2021

[IDM]

We could if Bottomly got injured and we didn’t have another keeper to put on the bench

No I don’t think so, he doesn’t count as a “professional” goalkeeper so for the purposes of emergency loans or not, he can be discounted.

[steve@dcfd]

Does it mean if we want to keep Lumley keeper jones can't play in the fa cup? If so would Lumley actually be eligible to play in the cup?

If Lumley is available for that game he must play so it hangs on his availability.
But if Jones plays he will then have played 5 games classed has a professional keeper then we couldn’t have an emergency loan until Jones is not available.

[Campsall rover]

Welcome to Doncaster, Rovers first signing of 2021

Is that a statement or a question?

[since-1969]

I though Joe Lumley looked comfortable on his debut and the defenders seemed the same with him .

[Filo]

I thought he did ok, have a look a Birsik for stoke today, Stoke won but 3 goals got past him, probably should have done better with the first goal, and was in no mans land again for one  of the others

[PDX_Rover]

Better than Bursik imo.

[scawsby steve]

I thought that was an excellent debut. Positioning good, handling good, distribution fairly good; and he's quite a tall guy, who looks comfortable with crosses.

Having said all that, DM will probably play him in midfield on Tuesday.

[adamtherover]

I think we've just had an upgrade....

[EasyforDennis]

I thought that was an excellent debut. Positioning good, handling good, distribution fairly good; and he's quite a tall guy, who looks comfortable with crosses.

Having said all that, DM will probably play him in midfield on Tuesday.

After what we saw today he probably would be an improvement 

[StocktonRover]

Thought he was excellent today. At times he looked a bit frustrated that no-one was making themselves available for the quick distribution.

[RoversAlias]

I though Joe Lumley looked comfortable on his debut and the defenders seemed the same with him .

Fully agree. Happy with his debut and hope he continues in the same way if he stays longer.

[drfchound]

He looks to be a very assured and accomplished keeper.
I prefer him to Bursik.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Would agree with all the above. Seems QPR are hogging all the good keepers at the mo. Pat on the back for their keepers scout.

We all know what a difference it is to have an assured keeper behind you. I hope we make the most while we've got him.