Bursik

[Metalmicky]

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/breaking-doncaster-rovers-sign-queens-park-rangers-keeper-emergency-loan-3042297

[Filo]

Joe Lumley signs

7 day loan, pointless really

[NickDRFC]

Liam Hoden
@liamhoden
Regulations for the signing of goalkeepers on emergency loans state the player coming in must start matches they are available for during their stay. So the new signing for Rovers will start against Sunderland and Blackpool #drfc

Typical Rovers, committing to deals where they have to play their loan players

[GazLaz]

To be honest I'm not that fussed that he has gone back

Give Jones a chance on Saturday and if he does well then forget about another keeper

  I thought I was the only one that thought jones was the better keeper

No, I thought Jones looked more confident and assured too

Jones was poor in the FA Cup. Looked very nervy.

Thought the same, and thought he dived over the ball for the FCUM goal as well. It wasn't a great finish.

Not to write the guy off but we can't just assume he's ready to be #1.

FWIW I didn't rate Bursik too much either and had massive question marks over him. It's debatable for me whether at this stage in his development he's a better option than Lawlor.

I think this situation shows the pitfalls of relying on loans from other clubs though. Sometimes I accept they are necessary and the sensible option, but it leaves you vulnerable to situations like this.

Nice someone agrees. The effort with the goal wasn’t good. He miscontrolled one that ran under his foot as well.

[IDM]

Joe Lumley signs

7 day loan, pointless really

It’s a rolling deal isn’t it.?

Perhaps - I don’t know - these are the only terms on which clubs can sign emergency loan keepers outside the transfer window.?

[Campsall rover]

Liam Hoden
@liamhoden
Regulations for the signing of goalkeepers on emergency loans state the player coming in must start matches they are available for during their stay. So the new signing for Rovers will start against Sunderland and Blackpool #drfc

Typical Rovers, committing to deals where they have to play their loan players

Although i am surprised he is bringing someone in ahead of Jones it was a deal done obviously because DM wants him to be 1st choice.
So what is the problem Nick on having to play him.

I did think he would bring in an understudy to Louis but am wrong and as i said i respect DMs judgement.
He is the one along with Paul Gerrard who works with the keepers who is with the players day in day out. NOT US.

[NickDRFC]

Lighten up, there’s a winkie emoji after it - I wasn’t being serious.

[steve@dcfd]

The only way we could have brought in a gk to understudy Jones is by signing one on a Short term contract. Emergency loans mean he must play.
To make sure we have two keepers this week at least was an emergency loan.
To get a keeper on Short term deal would take longer with picking one negotiating wages and length of contract.

[RoversAlias]

I personally think this whole thing is a bit of a mess.

So per the regulations, we have to keep extending Lumley's loan each week until January. It also mandates we HAVE to play him because he's an emergency signing, so bet that makes Jones feel great.

What if Lumley has a wobble in one game or Darren wants to give Jones a go? We either can't or we have to decide there and then that we're going with Jones and Bottomley as our only goalies until January.

This situation needs to force the club to realise we shouldn't have a loanee goalkeeper as our first choice going forward.

[steve@dcfd]

If you remember DM wanted to bring in a experienced keeper in the summer but finances wouldn’t allow. So let see what happens in January. There is one thing if we had gone with Jones and Bottemley then unlike Bursik they would have been ammune to Criticism. Being one of our own.

[Metalmicky]

If you remember DM wanted to bring in a experienced keeper in the summer but finances wouldn’t allow. So let see what happens in January. There is one thing if we had gone with Jones and Bottemley then unlike Bursik they would have been ammune to Criticism. Being one of our own.

Or immune even.....

[Campsall rover]

Lighten up, there’s a winkie emoji after it - I wasn’t being serious.

Missed that Nick. If your going to post a sarcastic remark please make it more obvious.
3x emoji might just do it. Like this. 

[i_ateallthepies]

I personally think this whole thing is a bit of a mess.

So per the regulations, we have to keep extending Lumley's loan each week until January. It also mandates we HAVE to play him because he's an emergency signing, so bet that makes Jones feel great.

What if Lumley has a wobble in one game or Darren wants to give Jones a go? We either can't or we have to decide there and then that we're going with Jones and Bottomley as our only goalies until January.

This situation needs to force the club to realise we shouldn't have a loanee goalkeeper as our first choice going forward.

Or perhaps don't take a loan keeper where he is on a 24hr recall.

[Campsall rover]

I personally think this whole thing is a bit of a mess.

So per the regulations, we have to keep extending Lumley's loan each week until January. It also mandates we HAVE to play him because he's an emergency signing, so bet that makes Jones feel great.

What if Lumley has a wobble in one game or Darren wants to give Jones a go? We either can't or we have to decide there and then that we're going with Jones and Bottomley as our only goalies until January.

This situation needs to force the club to realise we shouldn't have a loanee goalkeeper as our first choice going forward.

We would not have had Deing in goal for us last season.  Would that have been a good thing or a bad thing?
Think we know the answer to that one.

It’s just very unfortunate Stoke City have injuries to 2 goal keepers.  You can’t really plan for that.

Also what Is DM supposed to do if he thinks Lawlor is not good enough ( and he isn’t imo ) and he must not have thought Jones was ready to be no 1
So I think DM’s hand was somewhat forced.

In principle though i agree it is better if we have our own no 1 keeper going forward.
I hope Louis Jones is that man in the not too distant future.

[RoversAlias]

Dieng was great, no doubt, but perhaps it would just be better to source and sign our own goalkeeper from now on? This situation is something that can always arise and it leaves us in the lurch with an unstable goalkeeping situation for at least 6 weeks now encompassing nearly a dozen games.

As for the 24 hour recall mentioned by the previous poster, I'm not sure you can have a goalkeeper on loan without that proviso because of the unique importance of the position. As we've seen with this situation.

To me, it's no good. We need to prioritise a permanent signing to play in goal in future.

[NickDRFC]

Signing any player on loan could put you in a position where they may be recalled and leave you short. Playing Devil’s advocate a bit but at least with a goalkeeper if this does happen you can sign an emergency replacement - you can’t do that with any other position.

[RoversAlias]

Signing any player on loan could put you in a position where they may be recalled and leave you short. Playing Devil’s advocate a bit but at least with a goalkeeper if this does happen you can sign an emergency replacement - you can’t do that with any other position.

True but at the same time, it is rare you will only have one player capable of playing in any outfield position, especially as others can move around (like James going into midfield or Wright moving to RB). With the goalkeeper position, it is highly specialised and we've gone with a policy this season of having a senior loanee and no experienced back-up, necessitating this emergency move.

If Sims or Smith are suddenly recalled, we wouldn't need an emergency loan even if they were allowed because we have 3, 4 or 5 different players who can step in. It isn't the case for goalkeepers.

[IDM]

Like all other signings, I would expect DM and his team have had a good look at keepers and the one(s) they want they just can’t get yet for whatever reason.?

[NickDRFC]

Like all other signings, I would expect DM and his team have had a good look at keepers and the one(s) they want they just can’t get yet for whatever reason.?

The only way we can sign anyone right now is either a free agent or an emergency loan. There are no other options available to us.

[IDM]

Yes I know that - I was generalising rather than meaning right now.

[steve@dcfd]

If you remember DM wanted to bring in a experienced keeper in the summer but finances wouldn’t allow. So let see what happens in January. There is one thing if we had gone with Jones and Bottemley then unlike Bursik they would have been immune to Criticism. Being one of our own.

Or immune even.....

Yes I have changed it

[Janso]

Signing any player on loan could put you in a position where they may be recalled and leave you short. Playing Devil’s advocate a bit but at least with a goalkeeper if this does happen you can sign an emergency replacement - you can’t do that with any other position.

Slightly different with outfield players though as they can only be recalled during transfer windows.



I'd have recalled Lawlor for the bench, anything that pisses off Oldham fans is a winner.

[silent majority]

Signing any player on loan could put you in a position where they may be recalled and leave you short. Playing Devil’s advocate a bit but at least with a goalkeeper if this does happen you can sign an emergency replacement - you can’t do that with any other position.

Slightly different with outfield players though as they can only be recalled during transfer windows.



I'd have recalled Lawlor for the bench, anything that pisses off Oldham fans is a winner.

Then we'd have to pay his salary.

And with a salary cap in place that's the last thing we need.

[Campsall rover]

Signing any player on loan could put you in a position where they may be recalled and leave you short. Playing Devil’s advocate a bit but at least with a goalkeeper if this does happen you can sign an emergency replacement - you can’t do that with any other position.

Slightly different with outfield players though as they can only be recalled during transfer windows.



I'd have recalled Lawlor for the bench, anything that pisses off Oldham fans is a winner.

How do you know that they would not be delighted to send him back to us?

[NickDRFC]

Signing any player on loan could put you in a position where they may be recalled and leave you short. Playing Devil’s advocate a bit but at least with a goalkeeper if this does happen you can sign an emergency replacement - you can’t do that with any other position.

Slightly different with outfield players though as they can only be recalled during transfer windows.



I'd have recalled Lawlor for the bench, anything that pisses off Oldham fans is a winner.

Then we'd have to pay his salary.

And with a salary cap in place that's the last thing we need.

It sounded to me that the suggestion was to have Jones in goal and Lawlor on the bench, so surely that would just replace what we are saving on Bursik’s salary?

[EasyforDennis]

Signing any player on loan could put you in a position where they may be recalled and leave you short. Playing Devil’s advocate a bit but at least with a goalkeeper if this does happen you can sign an emergency replacement - you can’t do that with any other position.

Slightly different with outfield players though as they can only be recalled during transfer windows.



I'd have recalled Lawlor for the bench, anything that pisses off Oldham fans is a winner.

Then we'd have to pay his salary.

And with a salary cap in place that's the last thing we need.

Does that mean we aren't paying any of Jo Bursik's wages?

[dickos1]

I personally think this whole thing is a bit of a mess.

So per the regulations, we have to keep extending Lumley's loan each week until January. It also mandates we HAVE to play him because he's an emergency signing, so bet that makes Jones feel great.

What if Lumley has a wobble in one game or Darren wants to give Jones a go? We either can't or we have to decide there and then that we're going with Jones and Bottomley as our only goalies until January.

This situation needs to force the club to realise we shouldn't have a loanee goalkeeper as our first choice going forward.

Completely agree,
We need to have our own number 1 in my opinion.

Not long ago we had 2 experienced goalkeepers fighting it out for the number one position that were both contracted to us.
And now we’ve got 0 experienced goalkeepers contracted to us

[EasyforDennis]

I personally think this whole thing is a bit of a mess.

So per the regulations, we have to keep extending Lumley's loan each week until January. It also mandates we HAVE to play him because he's an emergency signing, so bet that makes Jones feel great.

What if Lumley has a wobble in one game or Darren wants to give Jones a go? We either can't or we have to decide there and then that we're going with Jones and Bottomley as our only goalies until January.

This situation needs to force the club to realise we shouldn't have a loanee goalkeeper as our first choice going forward.

Completely agree,
We need to have our own number 1 in my opinion.

Not long ago we had 2 experienced goalkeepers fighting it out for the number one position that were both contracted to us.
And now we’ve got 0 experienced goalkeepers contracted to us

And we never will have if we don't give them a chance.

[DonnyOsmond]

Signing any player on loan could put you in a position where they may be recalled and leave you short. Playing Devil’s advocate a bit but at least with a goalkeeper if this does happen you can sign an emergency replacement - you can’t do that with any other position.

Slightly different with outfield players though as they can only be recalled during transfer windows.



I'd have recalled Lawlor for the bench, anything that pisses off Oldham fans is a winner.

Then we'd have to pay his salary.

And with a salary cap in place that's the last thing we need.

Does that mean we aren't paying any of Jo Bursik's wages?

Not included in the salary cap due to his age. Assume we'd be paying for Lumley in the wage cap though.

[dknward2]

Bursik told he will start tomorrow