Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheGunnShow

Could David Marshall be an option...?

Recommended Posts

I can't see Marshall wanting to come here unless we give him a deal he can't refuse or he it is said he can seriously challenge krul for number one. Neither of which seem likely 

He has also started playing regular for Scotland so doubt he will wish to give that up, which is what he would be doing if he came here and sat on the bench 

 

Personally I'm still flying the remi Matthews flag but I doubt this will happen. Someone said Rudd, but does anyone know if he is available? 

 

I'd assume the criteria is very cheap or on a free and reasonable wages. Someone who is good enough for cup and possibly 10-15 championship games, but on the whole is happy to be number 2. Makes it very hard to pick doesn't it?

I'm only going on that as I'd assume they wouldn't see the number 2 goalkeeper as a position to really put money into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, meant to add home grown to that lists of needs for a number two 

 

Also would say Jamal Blackman as a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

And preferably a free transfer. 

I'd certainly hope we didn't spend significantly outlay on a championship number 2 goalkeeper

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hogesar said:

I'd certainly hope we didn't spend significantly outlay on a championship number 2 goalkeeper

 

That's the reality, even the Premier League champions have a backup keeper that was free yet somehow City are being cheap if they do the same. The only way I could see City paying a decent fee for a number 2 would be if it was for a young goalkeeper they feel would become first choice in a few years. That depends on how highly they rate our own youth players in that position. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seanthecanary said:

That's the reality, even the Premier League champions have a backup keeper that was free yet somehow City are being cheap if they do the same. The only way I could see City paying a decent fee for a number 2 would be if it was for a young goalkeeper they feel would become first choice in a few years. That depends on how highly they rate our own youth players in that position. 

I don't know the stats, but aren't these (free) guys, either 3rd choice or very experienced/much older ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think Adrian is about 33 and was very much second choice at Liverpool. The point remains though that even top clubs don't spend huge amounts on reserve keepers so why is a championship club expected to do anything different? It's just not the same as having say another good striker on the bench. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Going even further, three of this season's top four had a free transfer goalkeeper as their number two (Adrian, Romero, Caballero). 

TBF, free transfer doesn't necessarily equal cheap. There's a signing-on fee and wages would be high.

 

Cheaper, I would agree.

 

And last season, I imagine Fahrmann's loan cost us a fair bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

TBF, free transfer doesn't necessarily equal cheap. There's a signing-on fee and wages would be high.

 

Cheaper, I would agree.

 

And last season, I imagine Fahrmann's loan cost us a fair bit.

That's what I was getting at. We won't attract those sort of keepers (Adrian/Romero etc) very experienced (older) and played at the top level for the majority of their careers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

That's what I was getting at. We won't attract those sort of keepers (Adrian/Romero etc) very experienced (older) and played at the top level for the majority of their careers.

Is a player with a decade of top level experience and the ability to still play at a good level realistic for any championship club? Those clubs would be looking at older keepers with Championship experience I would have thought. The point is, most clubs don't see backup keeper as the area of their squad they are prepared to prioritise transfer fees for. Therefore I think the criticism laid earlier in the thread that City would be looking for a free player as backup is unfair because it seems to be they way a lot of clubs do it. 

Edited by seanthecanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

TBF, free transfer doesn't necessarily equal cheap. There's a signing-on fee and wages would be high.

 

Cheaper, I would agree.

 

And last season, I imagine Fahrmann's loan cost us a fair bit.

Agreed on both counts. But a free agent is obviously going to be far cheaper, and it would be interesting to know if Liverpool, Chelsea or Man Utd fans kicked off about a lack of ambition over getting someone who is unlikely to play much on a free transfer.

Fährmann allegedly cost a loan fee of €3m plus wages.

 

7 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

That's what I was getting at. We won't attract those sort of keepers (Adrian/Romero etc) very experienced (older) and played at the top level for the majority of their careers.

It's all relative. A top level club would get an older, experienced keeper who had played at the top level for most of their career, so a good Championship club should look at someone who played at that level for most of their career.

So someone like Marshall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

It's all relative. A top level club would get an older, experienced keeper who had played at the top level for most of their career, so a good Championship club should look at someone who played at that level for most of their career.

So someone like Marshall.

Absolutely, but my thoughts stemmed from a comment about spending millions on another keeper, and displacing Krul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Absolutely, but my thoughts stemmed from a comment about spending millions on another keeper, and displacing Krul

I agree. Personally, I don't get the problem with McGovern, unless he's too old? He's shown he can be a good shot stopper, which is far and away the number one quality you need in a keeper, plus he's experienced, which is important with our back 4. The other things, like the ability to play out from the back, are nice to have, but only that.

 

There are other positions we should be investing in first.

Edited by Nuff Said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be an option - if he is OK to be second to Krul or push him for No1

Wages need to be under control

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I agree. Personally, I don't get the problem with McGovern, unless he's too old? He's shown he can be a good shot stopper, which is far and away the number one quality you need in a keeper, plus he's experienced, which is important with our back 4. The other things, like the ability to play out from the back, are nice to have, but only that.

 

There are other positions we should be investing in first.

Personally I don't think he's a good shot stopped.

But also the way we build from the back needs a keeper who is comfortable with the ball at their feet- McGovern just isn't that player. I'd be OK with him in for a game or two here and there but the worry is if Krul blows out his knee in October can we trust McGovern for an extended period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marshall was not the first and will not be the last to want to jump ship when a sides fortunes change for the worse. I think we need to be pragmatic. He is a good keeper and has done well at the clubs he has been at. If he came here he would know that initially he would be second fiddle to Krul, but it does not hurt to have decent competition and  cover for injuries. I would have no problem if a satisfactory deal could be done, it is a key position and having two good players to fight for the spot make sense, his wages would be a fraction of what we paid Farhmann

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Yorkshire Canary said:

Marshall was not the first and will not be the last to want to jump ship when a sides fortunes change for the worse. I think we need to be pragmatic. He is a good keeper and has done well at the clubs he has been at. If he came here he would know that initially he would be second fiddle to Krul, but it does not hurt to have decent competition and  cover for injuries. I would have no problem if a satisfactory deal could be done, it is a key position and having two good players to fight for the spot make sense, his wages would be a fraction of what we paid Farhmann

I honestly don't blame anyone who wanted to leave when we got relegated from The Championship. Something really went badly wrong that season. I don't know whether it was Roeder driving it, Doncaster or both but the heart and soul was ripped out of the team. The over reliance on loan players to even put a side out was a huge factor in that. I won't hold a grugde against any player who looked at that situation and wanted out. 

Edited by seanthecanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...