|
|
Post by A-teen_six_T3 on Mar 3, 2004 16:49:25 GMT
last night i herd that crossleys comming here because he is fed up wiv travelling from nottingham 2 london and playing in the reserves. and with ed traveeling from West london, hs going the other way
possibly with a 200,000 fee aswell
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 3, 2004 16:54:42 GMT
And who did you hear this from middo? Was it someone who works at the club or was it from rumour control? ;D
Its the sort of thing every Stokie would like to hear - but that's why I don't believe it.
Hope I am wrong - but I won't hold my breath!
[Edit] - you do realise that Fulham would not be allowed to sign Ed before the summer transfer window?
|
|
|
|
Post by A-teen_six_T3 on Mar 3, 2004 17:05:55 GMT
it was just a rumor, once at my seat and once in the pie cue
from 2 different people, they didnt tell me directly, i just overherd a conversation (s)
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Mar 3, 2004 17:08:27 GMT
Someone posted the other day but doesn't really make sense as Ed can't play for Fulham.
Would make sense at the end of the season perhaps but Fulham were desperate for cover previously so letting Crossley go would be of no benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2004 17:36:29 GMT
you do realise that Fulham would not be allowed to sign Ed before the summer transfer window? that's the thing (see the rumours article in last nights Oatie for more examples) Crossley for de Goey has some good co-oincidences going for it, the travelling aspect and all that, but it's one of the more clumsy rumours. Are Fulham are really going to let a player go for another one who they wouldn't have available to them until the summer? Why would they want to get rid of Crossley now considering the only other keeper on their books would be Dave Beasant? (while they're letting Maik Taylor go out to Birmingham in attempt to win a full time move) The only other two keepers they have are Martin Herrera who's also out on loan and has no experience in the Premiership, and Ross Flitney on loan at Brighton who you couldn't see them throwing into the deep end anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by lurcherthelurker on Mar 3, 2004 18:28:30 GMT
Forgive me for being cynical. as I knows its unusual for me to look at it from another angle, but both Fornside and Gareth have both said that Fulham can't sign Ed.
Any reason for these wild statements?
Please take note that if you say it is because of the transfer embargo, then I assume that Chelski paying 12m for a dutch player just yesterday is a complete load of bollox ;D
Perhaps we have signed a pre-contract agreement with Fulham as Chelski did with that Dutch player.
And in the meantime Fulham have agreed to loan Crossers out to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by wardrobe monster on Mar 3, 2004 18:42:47 GMT
Rex - you're missing the point of what fornside and gareth are saying. What is the benefit to Fulham of doing what youve suggested? They lose their back up goalie(crossley) for a goalie(de goey) who wouldnt be able to play until next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurcherthelurker on Mar 3, 2004 18:49:15 GMT
One way round it is to call one of their loan keepers back and stick Ed out on loan to a club closer to London ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2004 19:08:39 GMT
Rex, If I were Fulham I'd rather have Crossley as backup to Van Der Saar ahead of a goalkeeping coach (Dave Beasant) who's registered only for emergencies. They're only three points outside the top six and are on course for their best season in a long time.
If they want to risk loaning Crossley out to us then great, although I'd have thought if they did it would be with a 24 hour recall like Boro had with Mark during his first spell with us last season. Stretching things I'd think a loan would be possible, but as for a transfer right now, including £200,000 / £150,000 etc (these several versions of the rumour going round at the Wigan game too) it doesn't sound plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubes on Mar 3, 2004 19:26:05 GMT
No keeper will want to come to Stoke while EDG is here.
Ed has a clause in his contract that says he MUST play when fit.
But then again, thats not too often with him often picking up convenient strains before big games (anyone want to place money on him being injured for the next important game?)
|
|
|
|
Post by lurcherthelurker on Mar 3, 2004 19:45:55 GMT
No keeper will want to come to Stoke while EDG is here. Ed has a clause in his contract that says he MUST play when fit. So how come you know the finer details of Ed's contract? Was Ed not a sub a few weeks ago when Cuts was in goal? if that is the case then if he's fit enough to be sub then he's fit enough to play Rex |
|
|
|
Post by tubes on Mar 3, 2004 20:23:02 GMT
I can't say who told me
you can take it or leave it, it doesn't bother me, I was merely informing people what I'd been told by (in my personal opinion) an extremely reliable source.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Mar 3, 2004 20:46:07 GMT
Yes! ;D ;D
He wont be joining Chelsea until the summer and can't play until next season.
By getting in quickly presumably Chelsea hoped to avoid the Ronaldhino/Man Ure fiasco last summer and they also caught Man Ure on the hop again! ;D
I don't see Stoke parting with the readies before they have to, and with all the potential for injury etc. during the rest of the season it does seem a high risk strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 3, 2004 21:01:12 GMT
That's interesting about what you have heard about EDG's contract. Tubes. I have heard the same story twice from different people - not that it proves anything of course.
I presume he could have been on the bench when he declared himself not 100% fit but felt he would be able to play a part if it was really needed - a virus perhaps?
Don't suppose we'll ever know the truth but it is not surprising if a former top flight goalie insists on a clause like this. Bet Crossley wishes he had one - how someone of his calibre spends all his time on the bench given some of the dodgy keepers we see every week, defeats me. ???
|
|
stubbo
Academy Starlet
Posts: 193
|
Post by stubbo on Mar 3, 2004 22:19:08 GMT
I heard the switch was on for the summer. Hope it's true simply because with Gerry and Crossley we would never concede again! Well not till Gerry is 64 and Crossleys eyesight starts failing him.  |
|
stubbo
Academy Starlet
Posts: 193
|
Post by stubbo on Mar 3, 2004 22:20:34 GMT
Sorry.
Forgot to mention my soure was the window cleaner at work.
Would love to believe him but don't really think I can argue he's a cast iron source.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 3, 2004 22:37:58 GMT
It would certainly make sense in the summer and £200k would be about right for Crossley with a swap. I can't see us affording it unless we did manage to make the Prem via the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by RWChris on Mar 4, 2004 13:00:35 GMT
Tubes, I've heard the same story too about Ed's contract...it is from a source that would be reliable too. I don't think that idea is bull5hit...as this person was also the person who brought it to my attention a few months ago about Ed training with Chelsea. And I'm NOT one to spread rumours  Chris |
|
|
|
Post by dude on Mar 4, 2004 13:03:55 GMT
Don't think anyone really denying it's got any truth in it, it's no secret we tried to sign Crossley before the season started.
Would make perfect sense all round but very unlikely it would happen until the summer.
I like Ed but Crossley was immense for us as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 4, 2004 13:32:21 GMT
The think that makes me thing it may not happen, Dude, is that it didn't happen in the transfer window. Perhaps we were not far enough into our "run" of form for either Crossley to be interested or for our Board to risk the £200k - if that is the figure.
|
|
youthster
Academy Starlet
You gotta stay positive
Posts: 135
|
Post by youthster on Mar 4, 2004 13:43:38 GMT
you do get the feeling that this will happen though, don't you? i think of the gerry situation - comes here, great loan spell, seems to like it and the fans like him, goes back, wait a while, then bingo!...TP & Rudgey seem to have the ability and patience to land this calibre of player now
|
|
