match thread (image) [FT] Rangers 3 - 1 Hearts (Kent 3, Morelos 13, Arfield 32)

[cooponthewing 1,139]

13 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Katic looks a more solid defender than Worrell.  In my opinion, he's the best central defender we have.

You think there is something in the loan agreement that we have to play Worrell if he is fit?

[buster. 4,808]

21 minutes ago, cooponthewing said:

You think there is something in the loan agreement that we have to play Worrell if he is fit?

Given the deal seemed to be touch and go, it might have needed something extra to get it over the line.

 

The simple one would have been more cash but if the priority was the players development then you'd look for him to get games.

It might not even be a clause in the contract, Gerrard might have given a personal assurance that unless he were to bomb, that he'd get a certain amount of gametime.

 

What is without doubt is that Gerrard likes the player and believes he'll do a job when called on.

 

[Bill 13,717]

Just been watching Sunday's goals again. Alfie's goal just gets better every time you see it.

[forlanssister 3,050]

 

[Big Jaws 570]

11 hours ago, cooponthewing said:

You think there is something in the loan agreement that we have to play Worrell if he is fit?

No besides thats a ridiculous notion for a loan player. Katic has been called off from the U21 international match which goes a long way to explaining why he hasn't been picked recently. As I was saying to the lads on the Pod I thought he was carrying an injury turns out he was.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

1 hour ago, Big Jaws said:

No besides thats a ridiculous notion for a loan player. Katic has been called off from the U21 international match which goes a long way to explaining why he hasn't been picked recently. As I was saying to the lads on the Pod I thought he was carrying an injury turns out he was.

Why is it ridiculous? Has a manager never said to a player that “if you are fit I will play you”. I’m sure there are many loan players who would rather go to a club where they are assured of a starting place.

Edited October 10, 2018 by cooponthewing

[Big Jaws 570]

11 hours ago, cooponthewing said:

Why is it ridiculous? Has a manager never said to a player that “if you are fit I will play you”. I’m sure there are many loan players who would rather go to a club where they are assured of a starting place.

I've seen comments across forums such as 'is there a clause in the loan agreement that says ........ ........ has to play' fill in the name as you see fit. The reason it seems to be being floated as a possibility is because there is speculation around one club complaining that their loan player wasn't being treated properly by the surrogate club. I can understand why a club loaning a player would like to see their investment in their player pay off and might request that if fit and available for selection that the player be considered. Worral as we can see from your comment. its not the only comment of its ilk that I've seen so you are not alone, is such a player where this speculation has cropped up. Don't get me wrong I can understand why his selection may raise a few eyebrows when we have IMO a far superior player of our own missing/sitting out.

 

Quote

Has a manager never said to a player that “if you are fit I will play you”.

I don't know if managers have said that to players or not. I can give anecdotal evidence which is actually straight from Archie Knox who would often tell Gascoigne that Walter wouldn't play him saying stuff like... 'Nah he'll no play you, you've got no chance'. There are many ways to man manage certain players of course there are but I'm not convinced that the 'poor treatment' of a particular loan player centred solely around lack of game time. I think there must have been far more to that story.

 

For me it would be absolutely ridiculous to buy a player with a particular job in mind then go into the loan market in search of cover for that position whose contract stated that he must play if fit and from then onwards only play the loaned cover player. The reason being what was the point of spending all that money buying the guy in the first place only to replace him with a loan signing especially when they player who is a Rangers player is IMO the best CB we've got at the club and has been excellent for us. However it would be reasonable to assume that the player under contract would be a) injured, b) not playing well or c) not settling cultural differences.

 

My initial reaction was why isnt Katic playing? Then a couple of weeks ago Stevie G in one press conference mentioned that Katic had complained of back problems after playing on plastic pitches. At that time he had played at least a couple of games on them including Kilmarnock. Although the comment was only in passing it got me thinking that Katic was carrying an injury and we haven't seen him play since. 

[DMAA 3,603]

It's actually very common for the loaning club to insert game time clauses these days. Gerrard also didn't say that Worrall was a cover player. He say Katic was a baby and strongly suggested he'd be a rotation player when he first signed him. I think he's earned a starting place but I think Worrall is a coup and we should rotate them.

[Big Jaws 570]

4 hours ago, DMAA said:

It's actually very common for the loaning club to insert game time clauses these days. Gerrard also didn't say that Worrall was a cover player. He say Katic was a baby and strongly suggested he'd be a rotation player when he first signed him. I think he's earned a starting place but I think Worrall is a coup and we should rotate them.

I've seen people in forums talking about such things but I've never seen anything like that in print anywhere.

 

The main point was that Katic is carrying an injury and apparently so is Barisic. 

[DMAA 3,603]

On 10/10/2018 at 19:49, Big Jaws said:

I've seen people in forums talking about such things but I've never seen anything like that in print anywhere.

 

The main point was that Katic is carrying an injury and apparently so is Barisic. 

Bristol City were basically fined 500k by Liverpool for not playing Ryan Kent. Liverpool had a clause in the contract.