Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: ravenrover on February 23, 2017, 02:00:18 pm
-
1st Houghton now Joe Wright out for 3-4 weeks hope this isn't going to develop and cause problems.
Good news Baudry fit for Saturday
-
Seeing as we now lack cover at the back I think that guarantees it'll be Middleton or Keegan.
-
I think Wright has been unlucky this season,he's a good player and done well when he's played which hasn't been much...
-
Can we not now recall Garrett if needed?
COYR
-
Can we not now recalll Garrett if needed?
COYR
Mad dog left Eastleigh. He may not be in their plans now.
-
Lund will be back soon.
-
Lund will be back soon.
Another player I completely forgot we had to be honest!
-
Lund will be back soon.
Lund's loan ends after the Crawley game. I expect him back after that.
Garratt has been playing regularly for Eastleigh as a wing back. His loan was extended to the end of the season but I don't know if we have a recall clause. After the Curtis Main fiasco last season I would assume we have.
-
Lund will be back soon.
Lund's loan ends after the Crawley game. I expect him back after that.
Garratt has been playing regularly for Eastleigh as a wing back. His loan was extended to the end of the season but I don't know if we have a recall clause. After the Curtis Main fiasco last season I would assume we have.
When you loan player or recall a player all three parties have to agree. That's the loaning club, the club that has loaned the player and the player.
Curtis did not want to come back so Rovers could do nothing.
If DF wants to recall Garrett then it will be down to all three parties.
-
I'd rather leave Garrett there to develop. Lund back soon and potentially ATS too. With Mason, Baudry, Butler, Alcock, Lund and in a few week ATS and Wright we have enough.
-
Lund will be back soon.
Lund's loan ends after the Crawley game. I expect him back after that.
Garratt has been playing regularly for Eastleigh as a wing back. His loan was extended to the end of the season but I don't know if we have a recall clause. After the Curtis Main fiasco last season I would assume we have.
When you loan player or recall a player all three parties have to agree. That's the loaning club, the club that has loaned the player and the player.
Curtis did not want to come back so Rovers could do nothing.
If DF wants to recall Garrett then it will be down to all three parties.
I don't think any of that is true at all. Firstly, (as far as I can remember), the decision for Main was down to 2 parties agreeing. So, if he'd wanted to come back or if Oldham had wanted him back then that would have been it for him. Even if he had wanted to come back, Oldham wouldn't have wanted to send him given we were relegation rivals.
Secondly, each loan deal is different and depends on the clauses in it. If there is a recall clause, it may be that Rovers can activate it at 24 hours notice, a week's notice etc, or again it may need to be agreed by both clubs. But as TRB points out, surely Rovers would have learnt from what happened with Main and had any recall solely down to us.
-
I think it was partly true, what he said about Main. Though I think it was more a case of DF not wanting someone who didn't want to be here to come back to the club than anything official.
-
Lund will be back soon.
Lund's loan ends after the Crawley game. I expect him back after that.
Garratt has been playing regularly for Eastleigh as a wing back. His loan was extended to the end of the season but I don't know if we have a recall clause. After the Curtis Main fiasco last season I would assume we have.
When you loan player or recall a player all three parties have to agree. That's the loaning club, the club that has loaned the player and the player.
Curtis did not want to come back so Rovers could do nothing.
If DF wants to recall Garrett then it will be down to all three parties.
It depends entirely what is in the loan agreement. For example, I'm pretty sure Bournemouth wouldn't have wanted to lose Nathan Ake (their defence has gone to pot since he left) but Chelsea had the right to recall him from his (season-long) loan in the January window.
-
Shouldn't we be recalling fielding?
-
Shouldn't we be recalling fielding?
Isn't he still banned?
COYR
-
Shouldn't we be recalling fielding?
Isn't he still banned?
COYR
He only got a one game ban. He played the other night. Things would have to get worse before we recalled him.
-
I agree with that TRB.
By the way, do we have details of Wright's injury, and was it in training, or something from the Luton game?
-
why recall player just to sit on our bench. we have 2 players waiting for a chance middleton and kegs . play one of them. ATS should be back soon.
-
It might be that DF would want to send ATS out on loan first, like Lund, unless too many injuries to defenders make that impossible.
-
I agree with that TRB.
By the way, do we have details of Wright's injury, and was it in training, or something from the Luton game?
He was an unused sub against Luton, so I guess he was injured in training.
-
Didn't we have a behind closed door friendly arranged for Tuesday?
-
That's true. We played Notts County last Tuesday. Wright might have got injured in that.
-
Can we not now recalll Garrett if needed?
COYR
Mad dog left Eastleigh. He may not be in their plans now.
thing he might be going to rotherham
-
Can we not now recalll Garrett if needed?
COYR
Mad dog left Eastleigh. He may not be in their plans now.
thing he might be going to rotherham
Who Garrett?
COYR