He can only be recalled if he is sold
How can they recall him? Did West Ham not pay a loan fee?
And he can only be sold to us. As he has already played for 2 clubs this season, fifa rules.
Oh.. that's good. thank you.
He can only recall him, to transfer him. As we have an option, that won't and cannot happen.
This rule covers season long loans and excludes goalkeepers.
Carroll is here until the end of the season.
FIFA rules limit a player to 3 clubs a season, so Carrol could be recalled in Jan and sold by Liverpool to another team.
Reports suggest that we would still have first refusal, but I'm not sure how that would work.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4517493/Brendan-Rodgers-admits-Andy-Carroll-loan-mistake.html
"The Merseysiders actually have an option to recall Carroll in January but it would be a humiliating climbdown if they have to do so."
Of course it's from Sun though.
The thick plottens.
From FIFA regulations:
Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs.
I was sure I read in the PL regulations yesterday that a year long loanee could not play again for the holding club, but I'm banjoed if I can find it now.
You are right whu606. It's not possible for any player apart from a goal keepers.
So, is it a season loan or until January?
And when is his scan to see what the damage is?
We are not sure. If it's a season long then it's not possible. If it's a 2 term loan then it might be. Any way Rodger's confirmed he wasn't in his plans.
Daily mail confirmed it's around 3-4 weeks.
We have to assume the Liverpool manager knows what he's talking about when he says Carroll may be recalled in January (assuming he actually said that) . He has enough to worry about without making bold statements which later turn out to be inaccurate!
Typical West Ham luck that Carroll gets injured on debut!!!
Daily mail confirmed it's around 3-4 weeks.
================
Typical Daily Mail, confirming something that isn't even known yet. His scan is today, so how can the DM report the outcome of it already?
That ..is at the Daily Mail, by the way?
You can blame Liverpool for Carroll's injury as he had somewhere around 10 mins playtime in two matches.
Maf,
Didnt West Ham give him a medical to test his fitness?
If he wasn't fit enough, then Big Sam shouldnt have played him from the off.
The buck lies with West Ham on this one i'm afraid.
I am not sure what they test when a club sign a player. Fitness or medical test?
He could have been injured when playing for england then that would be catastrophic.
Maf,
The medical should include tests on hamstrings, knees, ankles, along with any other recognised football injury. I dont think they just ask them to jog in a straight line, to the nearest wall & back.
They do check blood pressure and heart problems. Can they prognosis a player will get a hamstring injury in near future, such as, after three games, five games or 6 games? I am not a medical expert, if you are then enlighten me.
Maf,
The tests should show if a hamstring is weak. I agree the tests wont cover everything but if Sam has chucked in a player with no fitness behind them & they pull up injured for fitness reasons, then the blame is on him - not the player's previous / parent club.
Had he played continuously probably he won't get an hamstring injury. Ask any medical expert on this one. Hence I said, blame Liverpool.
Had he played continuously probably he won't get an hamstring injury
===================
You know this & i know this - why didnt Big Sam know it?
Hence, he planned to play him for only 60 mins as Fulham are not a bad team and a win against them before international break would be a perfect start.
Hence, he planned to play him for only 60 mins
=============
He should have stuck to it then, and not let him carry on playing for another 8 minutes.
It's not Liverpool's fault he got injured, if he wasn't match fit he shouldn't have started or at least played as long as he did.
Sign in if you want to comment
Can they cancel AC's loan spell?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 2/9/12
He can only be recalled if he is sold
posted on 2/9/12
How can they recall him? Did West Ham not pay a loan fee?
posted on 2/9/12
And he can only be sold to us. As he has already played for 2 clubs this season, fifa rules.
posted on 2/9/12
Oh.. that's good. thank you.
posted on 2/9/12
He can only recall him, to transfer him. As we have an option, that won't and cannot happen.
This rule covers season long loans and excludes goalkeepers.
Carroll is here until the end of the season.
posted on 2/9/12
FIFA rules limit a player to 3 clubs a season, so Carrol could be recalled in Jan and sold by Liverpool to another team.
Reports suggest that we would still have first refusal, but I'm not sure how that would work.
posted on 2/9/12
Thank you whu606.
posted on 3/9/12
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4517493/Brendan-Rodgers-admits-Andy-Carroll-loan-mistake.html
"The Merseysiders actually have an option to recall Carroll in January but it would be a humiliating climbdown if they have to do so."
Of course it's from Sun though.
posted on 3/9/12
The thick plottens.
From FIFA regulations:
Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs.
I was sure I read in the PL regulations yesterday that a year long loanee could not play again for the holding club, but I'm banjoed if I can find it now.
posted on 3/9/12
You are right whu606. It's not possible for any player apart from a goal keepers.
posted on 3/9/12
So, is it a season loan or until January?
And when is his scan to see what the damage is?
posted on 3/9/12
We are not sure. If it's a season long then it's not possible. If it's a 2 term loan then it might be. Any way Rodger's confirmed he wasn't in his plans.
Daily mail confirmed it's around 3-4 weeks.
posted on 3/9/12
We have to assume the Liverpool manager knows what he's talking about when he says Carroll may be recalled in January (assuming he actually said that) . He has enough to worry about without making bold statements which later turn out to be inaccurate!
Typical West Ham luck that Carroll gets injured on debut!!!
posted on 3/9/12
Daily mail confirmed it's around 3-4 weeks.
================
Typical Daily Mail, confirming something that isn't even known yet. His scan is today, so how can the DM report the outcome of it already?
That ..is at the Daily Mail, by the way?
posted on 3/9/12
You can blame Liverpool for Carroll's injury as he had somewhere around 10 mins playtime in two matches.
posted on 3/9/12
Maf,
Didnt West Ham give him a medical to test his fitness?
If he wasn't fit enough, then Big Sam shouldnt have played him from the off.
The buck lies with West Ham on this one i'm afraid.
posted on 3/9/12
I am not sure what they test when a club sign a player. Fitness or medical test?
He could have been injured when playing for england then that would be catastrophic.
posted on 3/9/12
Maf,
The medical should include tests on hamstrings, knees, ankles, along with any other recognised football injury. I dont think they just ask them to jog in a straight line, to the nearest wall & back.
posted on 3/9/12
They do check blood pressure and heart problems. Can they prognosis a player will get a hamstring injury in near future, such as, after three games, five games or 6 games? I am not a medical expert, if you are then enlighten me.
posted on 3/9/12
Maf,
The tests should show if a hamstring is weak. I agree the tests wont cover everything but if Sam has chucked in a player with no fitness behind them & they pull up injured for fitness reasons, then the blame is on him - not the player's previous / parent club.
posted on 3/9/12
Had he played continuously probably he won't get an hamstring injury. Ask any medical expert on this one. Hence I said, blame Liverpool.
posted on 3/9/12
Had he played continuously probably he won't get an hamstring injury
===================
You know this & i know this - why didnt Big Sam know it?
posted on 3/9/12
Hence, he planned to play him for only 60 mins as Fulham are not a bad team and a win against them before international break would be a perfect start.
posted on 3/9/12
Hence, he planned to play him for only 60 mins
=============
He should have stuck to it then, and not let him carry on playing for another 8 minutes.
posted on 3/9/12
It's not Liverpool's fault he got injured, if he wasn't match fit he shouldn't have started or at least played as long as he did.
Page 1 of 2