TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

portugull wrote:I suspect, but do not know for sure, that there are special rules which apply to "emergency loans" and is there a particular rule which only applies to goalkeepers?

Does anyone know?

Ask Cambridge, as they seemed to be able to being in an emergency keeper for the play off final against us.

Rule 54 deals with Emergency Loans relating to Goalkeepers and makes it clear that Rule 52 loan limits do NOT apply in the case of Goalkeepers.

Who would have guessed it most of our supporters are behind Dan in goal now, well done Dan for proving a lot of them wrong.

He hasn't proved any of his critics wrong just yet. None of us doubted his potential, just how it was being utilised. Fortunately for him he managed to get a transfer to a club with a full-time goalkeeping coach, that makes a hell of a difference to a young keeper as I'm sure you know

He's also had no recent competition for a starting place either.

Southampton Gull wrote:He hasn't proved any of his critics wrong just yet. None of us doubted his potential, just how it was being utilised. Fortunately for him he managed to get a transfer to a club with a full-time goalkeeping coach, that makes a hell of a difference to a young keeper as I'm sure you know

He's also had no recent competition for a starting place either.

I knew this would spark something off but I'm a firm believer in natural talent and he has it. I also think the chance that Hargreaves gave him last season was the making of him and has enabled him to improve steadily. There are a lot of keepers that make saves as you know but how many can put a game together.
You must admit his form has been more consistent and sometimes when your learning the thought of no competition takes a bit of pressure off.

Actually if you judge him over the course of the season he's been inconsistent but that's what you get with young inexperienced keepers. Nobody that I can remember has said he isn't any good, we were just concerned that he could have been ruined playing behind a less than decent defence. Luckily for him and us the defence has improved greatly.

Agree with the above. Does Lavercombe inspire 100 % confidence in his performances, not for me, no he doesn't, but he's a young keeper, as said above you will get inconsistencies with young players, particularly keepers.

Earlier in the season I got slammed some what for daring to be honest, but I was only ever truly concerned Lavercombe was being played for all the right reasons, and I'm 95 % certain at the start this really wasn't the case, as Levi Ives before him who was thrust into the limelight to provoke a sale, and ruined the young lads (Ives) career as he clearly wasn't ready.

Natural talent is obvious really no player makes it with out natural talent, a young player needs so, so much more than that to make it in the game, they need a strong mentality, good attitude, hunger and desire, luck, support of the family, and good coaching both mentally on physically.

The reason why Dan Lavercombe has done so well, is down to mentality and attitude, he clearly has both in abundance and can't congratulate him enough on that score, also his move to Wigan has exposed him to good coaching and we can all see his game improving, but he has a lot hard work to do yet.

I agree with nearly all what your saying but what I have said all along is that Lavercombe needs to play to progress I've trained keepers and all I am saying is Lavercombe has the natural talent which you can build on Speise if thats his name had to many flaws.
Very few keepers are coached to stardom without natural talent!
Clubs need to find this talent early and this is why Wigan and a few other clubs were after Dan.

Don't want to set the cats amongst the pigeons. But does the club extend moores loan deal( if fleetwood agree) even if lavercombe is fit to play. Personally I think we should, and keep him playing.

I agree with Ms. lucy six.

Yes, I would like to see the club try and extend Moore's loan, nothing to lose, everything to gain.

lucy6lucy wrote:Don't want to set the cats amongst the pigeons. But does the club extend moores loan deal( if fleetwood agree) even if lavercombe is fit to play. Personally I think we should, and keep him playing.

Most definitely. It may just be coincidence, it probably is just coincidence, but our form has improved A LOT since he arrived. I sure is hell don't want to tempt fate at this stage...
Hopefully a deal can be put in place in the summer to make the deal permanent.

Can someone tell me if its even possible to extend the loan deal? The loan Windows now closed, and I was under the impression that loan extensions were just a term in popular parlance, but in reality the length of loan is always set when taking the loan (I.e. We had him for a month) and any "extension" is another loan of the same player? If so it would suggest we wouldn't be able to do it anyway.

I'm pretty sure that loans can be extended once they have begun irrespective of when that happens. The deadline is for the registration of new players for your club, not extensions of existing ones.

I may well be wrong though so don't take that as gospel.

However I do would hope that Moore can stay to see this out. A much more "complete" keeper at this stage than Lavercombe

Well, that was the point I was making. Does an "extension" actually exist? I was under the impression it was a new loan agreement for a different period of time, as all loans have to stipulate the number of days when they are made. This would suggest we can't as, as you say, registrations have ended.

Of course, if the facility to just change the length of the loan exists, then I think we should. Not because Moore is better ( to be honest overal he isn't that much better than lavercombe - Moore drops the ball quite often, misses crosses quite often and his kicking is not as good, but Dan doesn't come for crosses at all so it's swings and roundabouts) - no, I would keep him because we need to keep a settled defence. The defenders know him and are used to his style now, I think it would be less than good to disrupt that.