City to ask permission for Joe to come back [merged]

[Blue2]

Reported this morning that the reason Joe didn't come back is that Brum refused permission and thats why we signed Fulop. IN that case it sound like we told them that Joe wouldn't be going back there next season.

[Wooders]

from what I understand Birmingham have been told that no decision on Joe will take place until we secure champions league football, or not, as the case may be, but that hasn't stopped them hounding us for a decision so we've told them to F off..
I also heard that they agreed to send Joe back as a good will gesture, but Joe refused to return. Bit of a worry if true.

[Goaters 103]

from what I understand Birmingham have been told that no decision on Joe will take place until we secure champions league football, or not, as the case may be, but that hasn't stopped them hounding us for a decision so we've told them to F off..
I also heard that they agreed to send Joe back as a good will gesture, but Joe refused to return. Bit of a worry if true.

Really tenuous crap I know, but a cousin (City fan, Seasoncard Holder and not a bullshitter) who knows one of our players through his line of work - don't ask - also told me last night that Hart didn't want to come back. Word I heard is Hart is finished at City but won't be going back to Brum as we'd eat his contract rather than let him go back there. An no, I do not claim to be an itk, just reiterating what I was told.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

from what I understand Birmingham have been told that no decision on Joe will take place until we secure champions league football, or not, as the case may be, but that hasn't stopped them hounding us for a decision so we've told them to F off..
I also heard that they agreed to send Joe back as a good will gesture, but Joe refused to return. Bit of a worry if true.

Really tenuous crap I know, but a cousin (City fan, Seasoncard Holder and not a bullshitter) who knows one of our players through his line of work - don't ask - also told me last night that Hart didn't want to come back. Word I heard is Hart is finished at City but won't be going back to Brum as we'd eat his contract rather than let him go back there. An no, I do not claim to be an itk, just reiterating what I was told.

I also heard about a year ago that he was "homesick" in Manchester. Again, I'm as far from in the know as humanly possible but it was reliable source.

Personally I do NOT want the club to be pushed around and fucked over by likes of Joe Hart and hopefully they make him know that. Either he sorts his head out or rots in fucking reserves. And no, I don't give two shits about England goalkeeper situation. Sorry.

[Slim]

Well Birmingham have just shot themselves in the foot, they didn't have to do us any favours here and didn't, their choice. But we undoubtedly will be clearing out some players in the summer, possibly at cut rates in order to keep the squad size down. I can't imagine their need to finish in a higher nothing position to the nothing position they are in at the moment would be worth as much as having matchbid first option on our summer movers.

[Mase]

Personally I do NOT want the club to be pushed around and fucked over by likes of Joe Hart and hopefully they make him know that. Either he sorts his head out or rots in fucking reserves. And no, I don't give two shits about England goalkeeper situation. Sorry.

Exactly! Ben Foster went out on loan to Watford, got his experience and played for England a few times. Came back and played for the rags and look where he is now. A lot can change in a few months. If Hart wants to start acting like an ungrateful little shit then let him rot.

[Florida Blue]

Am I the only person that doesn’t think its right that we re-call Hart?

The rules state that we can sign a keeper in an emergency. Well we have a keeper who was deemed good enough to sit on our bench for the past 6 games who has been on our books for two years. The fact that we don’t think he is good enough is our fault. Not Birmingham’s or the FA’s.

We should be allowed to get someone in, but to sit on the bench only.

Ross, I agree and I disagree. I think we should be allowed to recall Hart, IF the agreement stipulated. I am not sure how standardized loans are, but if there was allowance to put an emergency recall clause in there, then the anger we are directing toward the FA and Brum is misguided and should be aimed at Cook for not providing such a clause in the deal. While I see that Vile and Spuds have a concern if it was in the contract they would have little leverage.

Where I do have an issue is that the FA decides it is ok to add another Prem keeper, but not our own. Why should there be a double standard here? Are they now in the business of determining ability and who is acceptable? If we had tried to add Niemi or Weaver would they have stepped in and said "they are not good enough" but Joe Hart is too good? So it goes back to how loans are structured, if it is a turnkey template than or Cook fucked up, then so be it, but it is was it is (hate the cliche, but true).

Bottom line is, we need to cheer Fulop as if he were the second coming and support him. We need to win, and there is NO DOUBT he has a lot to prove (as much as we need to win), as he is looking for first team football next season AND still wants to be Hungary's number 1. FACT.

[Blue2]

Cheeky twats, according to the following , Brum wanted more than £2m for Joe to come back.


City were angry last night after the Premier League appeared to do a U-turn about them bringing back Joe Hart for the rest of the season.

The Blues were also unhappy that Birmingham, where Hart has spent the season on loan, were asking for a compensation package, believed to be over £2m, in order to terminate the loan.

Now the Blues have had to settle for drafting in Sunderland reserve Marton Fulop, after the Premier League agreed to him signing as emergency cover for injured keepers Shay Given and Stuart Taylor.

Fulop is due to train with the Blues today, and should face Aston Villa on Saturday.

The league agreed on Monday to consider the recall of Hart, as long as City and Birmingham could reach agreement, as revealed by M.E.N Sport.

But they appeared to change their minds yesterday, possibly because they got wind of the fact that the two clubs had been discussing a financial deal for Hart's return.

They became concerned about the "integrity" of the Premier League, apparently worried that City could be trying to buy their way into fourth place.

Hart's return would have brought inevitable protests from Tottenham and Aston Villa, who both face City in the next seven days in matches which will decide the fate of the final Champions League place.

There had already been rumblings of discontent from Villa, who were almost denied two points by a brilliant Hart display on Sunday.

Hours later, Hart was revealed as his fellow professionals' choice as the best keeper in the country this season.

City refused to comment on the matter, other than releasing the following statement: “We have been in contact throughout the day with both Birmingham City and Sunderland with regards to bringing either Joe Hart or Marton Fulop to the team on an emergency basis.

“Agreement has not been reached with Birmingham, but we anticipate that Marton Fulop will join us in training today and we sincerely thank him and Sunderland for their help in this situation.”

City preferred to bring back their own player rather than bring in an emergency loan and so had to turn their full attention to striking a deal with Sunderland in order to bring in Hungary international Fulop, who has been relegated to third choice at the Stadium of Light and is expected to leave this summer.

Six ft six Fulop said he would leap at the chance to join City.

He said: “I will go there happily and would be hungry to play for Manchester City.

" This is an enormous honour for me that my name has been linked with a club which has such a great history.”

Fulop has 20 caps for his country and was considered to be on an equal footing with Scotland international Craig Gordon when Roy Keane was Sunderland manager.

But under Steve Bruce, it was made plain that Gordon was No 1 and Fulop No 2, which threatened to damager Fulop’s international chances.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Fulop has 20 caps for his country and was considered to be on an equal footing with Scotland international Craig Gordon when Roy Keane was Sunderland manager.

So he IS fucking shite then.

[Wooders]

give the fucker a chance man - its an emergency keeper, we're hardly gonna get a god between the sticks and its not as if we splashing out millions on him

[lets all have a disco]

Fulop has 20 caps for his country and was considered to be on an equal footing with Scotland international Craig Gordon when Roy Keane was Sunderland manager.

So he IS fucking shite then.

Errrrmmmm Craig Gordon kept Sunderland in the match against us a few weeks back.

Easily MOTM,Gordon is NOT shite.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Fulop has 20 caps for his country and was considered to be on an equal footing with Scotland international Craig Gordon when Roy Keane was Sunderland manager.

So he IS fucking shite then.[/quo

LOL.

I dont know what to think...I was too pissed off yesterday and so went out and got pissed.

Im still fucked off with Birmingham though and the negative comments about Hart where city is concerned is starting to grate me.
I hope its bolloks.

[eastlandsblue]

Has anyone actually heard this from the footballers mouth, ( I doubt it ) so why as all and sundry decided to jump on Joes back. It was reported on numerous media sites last night that the FA refused to sanction his return from Birmingham, now all of a sudden, its reported, Joes refused to come back. Wake up and smell the roses, he'll be back next year to challenge Given for top spot. Which won't be hard concidering he could be out for 6 months. And who knows maybe this time next year Given might be number 2

At the end of the day Mancini had nothing to do with Joes loan deal, so they'res no reason for him to react the way he alledgedly has. So im keeping an open mind, and maybe others need to do the same thing.
Otherwise we might just alienate one of Englands top keepers, from even concidering his future with the club.

Enjoy the rest of your stay at Birmingham Joe, and your welcome, to come back to US after a good world cup.

[Blue2]

Has anyone actually heard this from the footballers mouth, ( I doubt it ) so why as all and sundry decided to jump on Joes back. It was reported on numerous media sites last night that the FA refused to sanction his return from Birmingham, now all of a sudden, its reported, Joes refused to come back. Wake up and smell the roses, he'll be back next year to challenge Given for top spot. Which won't be hard concidering he could be out for 6 months. And who knows maybe this time next year Given might be number 2

At the end of the day Mancini had nothing to do with Joes loan deal, so they'res no reason for him to react the way he alledgedly has. So im keeping an open mind, and maybe others need to do the same thing.
Otherwise we might just alienate one of Englands top keepers, from even concidering his future with the club.

Enjoy the rest of your stay at Birmingham Joe, and your welcome, to come back to US after a good world cup.

Good point, was thinking the same myself.

[john68]

In these hard financial times, it seems that Brum, like other clubs, see City as a cash cow to be milked at every opportunity. One lesson we have learned over this season is that we seem to be pretty friendless in English football. If money hasn't changed the soul of our club, it has certainly changed the way others view us.

Regarding some of the comments aimed at Hart on here. We do not know for certain what he has said nor if he has said anything. The anger and criticisms of Hart are based only on rumour and speculation and so we should temper it until we have a clearer picture and actual evidence of Hart's attitude. At this moment, he is still our player and at some point we will be probably shouting his name in support from the stands.

Regarding Cook, We don't know who agreed to what when the contract was made to loan Hart out to Brum. We don't know what conditions were put into that contract and we don't know who actually took the decision. Maybe Cook, maybe on orders from higher.
From what I am led to believe, the decision to loan out Hart and the conditions of that loan would have been a group decision.

Instead of turning our anger inwards towards City, we should be venting our anger at the absolute greed of Brum and the way they have attempted to pressurise Hart and City.
I would hope that City will learn to be a little less philanthropic in the future.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Just to clarify.

The rules state that you cannot have a release clause of this kind when you loan a player.

[Nick]

Whilst it is true that Hart may have wanted to come back, the fans mood towards him is NOT based on speculation. It is based on the various press conferences he has given this year, which did not put city in a positive light and he seems bitter, even now.

Hughes has gone FFS, its nothing to do with US (the fans who chanted your name at brum!) or mancini. Your 22/23 and ''one of the best keepers in the world'' came in to challenge you. Stop being a baby and rise to the challenge.

[Grob]

Regarding Cook, We don't know who agreed to what when the contract was made to loan Hart out to Brum. We don't know what conditions were put into that contract and we don't know who actually took the decision. Maybe Cook, maybe on orders from higher.
From what I am led to believe, the decision to loan out Hart and the conditions of that loan would have been a group decision.

It was probably Hughes

[john68]

Regarding Cook, We don't know who agreed to what when the contract was made to loan Hart out to Brum. We don't know what conditions were put into that contract and we don't know who actually took the decision. Maybe Cook, maybe on orders from higher.
From what I am led to believe, the decision to loan out Hart and the conditions of that loan would have been a group decision.

It was probably Hughes

Hahaha...you could well be right Mate.

[Socrates]

Just to clarify.

The rules state that you cannot have a release clause of this kind when you loan a player.

I thought that too, until you said it, then I thought perhaps I'm wrong so I looked it up.

Only thing in the Premier League handbook to this regard is the following;

152/153
RULES: SECTION M
Temporary Transfers

5. A “Temporary Transfer” shall mean the transfer of a contract registration effected in
accordance with Rules M.6 to M.10.
6. Subject to the conditions set out below, a Temporary Transfer shall be permitted:
6.1 between Clubs; and
6.2 between a Club and a club in membership of the Football League, the Football
Conference, the Northern Premier League, the Isthmian League and the Southern
League.
7. The conditions referred to in Rule M.6 are:
7.1 a Temporary Transfer to a Club may not take place in the TransferWindow in which the
Transferor Club acquired the Player’s registration;
7.2 during the period of the Temporary Transfer of his contract registration a Player shall not
play against the Transferor Club;

7.3 if during the period of a Temporary Transfer the Player’s registration is transferred
permanently from the Transferor Club to the Transferee Club, the two Clubs may agree
in writing (to be copied to the League) that the Player shall not play against the
Transferor Club for the remainder of the Season;
7.4 subject to any conditions imposed by the Board in the exercise of its discretion under
Rule M.4.2, the minimum period of a Temporary Transfer shall be the period between 2
consecutive Transfer Windows and the period of a Temporary Transfer shall not extend
beyond 30th June next after it was entered into;
7.5 the maximum number of Temporary Transfers to any one Club registrable in the same
Season shall be 4 and in no circumstances shall more than 1 be from the same Transferor
Club save there shall be excluded from these numbers any Temporary Transfer of the
kind described in Rule M.7.6.1 or M.7.6.2;
7.6 not more than 2 Temporary Transfers shall be registered by a Club at the same time
except that there shall be excluded from that number:
7.6.1 any Temporary Transfer which become permanent; and
7.6.2 the Temporary Transfer of a goalkeeper which in its absolute discretion the Board
may allow in circumstances it considers to be exceptional;
7.7 a Club may transfer the registration of no more than one of its goalkeepers by way of
temporary Transfer to another Club each Season, subject to any further Temporary
Transfer of one of its goalkeepers pursuant to Rule M.7.6.2;
7.8 any other conditions agreed between the Transferor Club and the Transferee Club or, in
the exercise of its discretion, imposed by the Board.
8. The Loan Fee payable on a Temporary Transfer shall be such sum (if any) as shall have been
agreed between the Transferee Club and the Transferor Club and set out in Football Association
Form H.2 or H.3 (as appropriate) or in a supplementary agreement.
9. Any Loan Fee (including any instalments thereof) shall be paid on or before the date or dates
agreed between the parties, the latest of which must be no later than 30 June immediately
following the conclusion of the Season in which the Temporary Transfer expired.
10. ATemporaryTransfer shall be effected by submitting to the Secretary Football Association Form
H.2 or Form H.3 duly completed and signed on behalf of the Club by an Authorised Signatory.

Seems that right of recall is up to the terms of the contract. The football league has a rule which says you can only recall players in the transfer window but even that doesn't apply to goalkeepers.

That said, you can imagine that, if they were paying a fee, Brum will have insisted on it as a dealbreaker.