Should RIC go back to Chelsea?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Should RIC go back to Chelsea?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

sxp55 South Norwood 22 Jan 18 11.05am
Surprised by the comments about RLC. Think he's a class act and if you looked at him when playing you could spot him out of the crowd as one that was on loan from a bigger club. Was brilliant for England in centre mid, but shunted out wide when playing for Palace. Still don't understand that. However, if he's injured, then send him back. @sxp55555
Alert a moderator to this post

sxp55

South Norwood 22 Jan 18 11.05am

Surprised by the comments about RLC. Think he's a class act and if you looked at him when playing you could spot him out of the crowd as one that was on loan from a bigger club. Was brilliant for England in centre mid, but shunted out wide when playing for Palace. Still don't understand that.

However, if he's injured, then send him back.

@sxp55555

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops CR3 22 Jan 18 12.18pm
This is an easy answer, if he is injured with little prospect of playing again this season then of course he has to go back. We desperately need that loan spot for a prem player.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 22 Jan 18 12.18pm

This is an easy answer, if he is injured with little prospect of playing again this season then of course he has to go back. We desperately need that loan spot for a prem player.

Alert a moderator to this post

MonsterMunch Cambridge 22 Jan 18 12.45pm
Originally posted by Eaglecoops This is an easy answer, if he is injured with little prospect of playing again this season then of course he has to go back. We desperately need that loan spot for a prem player. Yes it is. I can't believe Roy truly believes hanging onto him in case he can recover in time for the last few games. We need someone for the many not the few surely? How can we afford to carry someone and take up a valuable loan space in our condition? I'm not sure if Ruben has been fully assessed yet. Maybe Roy is holding on to make a decision? The other factor being none of us know if we can even send him back.
Alert a moderator to this post

MonsterMunch

Cambridge 22 Jan 18 12.45pm

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

This is an easy answer, if he is injured with little prospect of playing again this season then of course he has to go back. We desperately need that loan spot for a prem player.

Yes it is. I can't believe Roy truly believes hanging onto him in case he can recover in time for the last few games. We need someone for the many not the few surely? How can we afford to carry someone and take up a valuable loan space in our condition? I'm not sure if Ruben has been fully assessed yet. Maybe Roy is holding on to make a decision? The other factor being none of us know if we can even send him back.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 22 Jan 18 12.50pm
Originally posted by MonsterMunch Yes it is. I can't believe Roy truly believes hanging onto him in case he can recover in time for the last few games. We need someone for the many not the few surely? How can we afford to carry someone and take up a valuable loan space in our condition? I'm not sure if Ruben has been fully assessed yet. Maybe Roy is holding on to make a decision? The other factor being none of us know if we can even send him back. Good point. Another thought suppose we want to sign him at the end of the season and privately Chelsea say it is possible. Wouldn't it make sense to wait a few days before returning him so that he feels the love. Not sure I would join a club that kicks me out 5 mins after I got injured especially if the extent of the injury is unclear. So manage his return to Chelsea so he knows we want him. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 22 Jan 18 12.50pm

Originally posted by MonsterMunch

Yes it is. I can't believe Roy truly believes hanging onto him in case he can recover in time for the last few games. We need someone for the many not the few surely? How can we afford to carry someone and take up a valuable loan space in our condition? I'm not sure if Ruben has been fully assessed yet. Maybe Roy is holding on to make a decision? The other factor being none of us know if we can even send him back.

Good point. Another thought suppose we want to sign him at the end of the season and privately Chelsea say it is possible. Wouldn't it make sense to wait a few days before returning him so that he feels the love. Not sure I would join a club that kicks me out 5 mins after I got injured especially if the extent of the injury is unclear. So manage his return to Chelsea so he knows we want him.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

boo909 Figeac 22 Jan 18 3.08pm
I had an odd dream last night that we just threw him in the back of a transit van and drove him back. [Link] Bangell - If Camus wrote The Myth of Sisyphus today, it would be about Jason Puncheon eternally trying and failing to pass with his right foot.
Alert a moderator to this post

boo909

Figeac 22 Jan 18 3.08pm

I had an odd dream last night that we just threw him in the back of a transit van and drove him back.

[Link]

Bangell - If Camus wrote The Myth of Sisyphus today, it would be about Jason Puncheon eternally trying and failing to pass with his right foot.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 22 Jan 18 3.16pm
Originally posted by MonsterMunch Yes it is. I can't believe Roy truly believes hanging onto him in case he can recover in time for the last few games. We need someone for the many not the few surely? How can we afford to carry someone and take up a valuable loan space in our condition? I'm not sure if Ruben has been fully assessed yet. Maybe Roy is holding on to make a decision? The other factor being none of us know if we can even send him back. Yes and further to that, were the boot on the other foot and we had loaned someone a player, only for him to pick up a long term injury, how happy would we be if the other club was saying "take this injured player back and give us another one"? Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 22 Jan 18 3.16pm

Originally posted by MonsterMunch

Yes and further to that, were the boot on the other foot and we had loaned someone a player, only for him to pick up a long term injury, how happy would we be if the other club was saying "take this injured player back and give us another one"?

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

cpj Kent 22 Jan 18 3.20pm
Originally posted by sxp55 Surprised by the comments about RLC. Think he's a class act and if you looked at him when playing you could spot him out of the crowd as one that was on loan from a bigger club. Was brilliant for England in centre mid, but shunted out wide when playing for Palace. Still don't understand that. However, if he's injured, then send him back. This ^^
Alert a moderator to this post

cpj

Kent 22 Jan 18 3.20pm

Originally posted by sxp55

Surprised by the comments about RLC. Think he's a class act and if you looked at him when playing you could spot him out of the crowd as one that was on loan from a bigger club. Was brilliant for England in centre mid, but shunted out wide when playing for Palace. Still don't understand that.

However, if he's injured, then send him back.

This ^^

Alert a moderator to this post

Littlebogreek 22 Jan 18 3.23pm
Originally posted by BelfastEagle The guy has shown very little playing for us. He seems to have built a reputation based on one England game....even then he was injured for the second England game. At least he is consistently injured. Huge warning signs that somebody so relatively young is plagued by so many injuries. Send him back if possible and move on. Any thoughts of buying him would be utter folly....we have enough sick notes already. There's been a few posts like this. I'm surprised that people feel this way - he was quality when we played him in the middle, switched him wide and he didn't have the same effect (unsurprisingly as this clearly isn't his position) but still chipped in with a couple of assists. He is a class footballer and if people can't see that I'm surprised - not sure the last player I saw at Palace that so rarely loses the ball or gives it away cheaply. The injuries thing is a concern though, especially given his age. I agree he should go back if he isn't going to be fit any time soon, makes little sense - unless of course we don't believe we are likely to loan anyone that will help us out anyway so may as well keep him since I can't imagine we will get any of our loan fee back - which also makes me wonder re fines etc. Read on the weekend (can't remember the player) that if the club that have loaned him don't play him enough, they have to pay an extra fee. Unlikely but possible we face a fine if we send him back as he won't hit a game qouta - one that has a caveat if he is injured. Or I could be talking nonsense. think it's probably nonsense.
Alert a moderator to this post

Littlebogreek

22 Jan 18 3.23pm

Originally posted by BelfastEagle

The guy has shown very little playing for us. He seems to have built a reputation based on one England game....even then he was injured for the second England game. At least he is consistently injured.

Huge warning signs that somebody so relatively young is plagued by so many injuries.

Send him back if possible and move on. Any thoughts of buying him would be utter folly....we have enough sick notes already.

There's been a few posts like this. I'm surprised that people feel this way - he was quality when we played him in the middle, switched him wide and he didn't have the same effect (unsurprisingly as this clearly isn't his position) but still chipped in with a couple of assists. He is a class footballer and if people can't see that I'm surprised - not sure the last player I saw at Palace that so rarely loses the ball or gives it away cheaply.

The injuries thing is a concern though, especially given his age.

I agree he should go back if he isn't going to be fit any time soon, makes little sense - unless of course we don't believe we are likely to loan anyone that will help us out anyway so may as well keep him since I can't imagine we will get any of our loan fee back - which also makes me wonder re fines etc. Read on the weekend (can't remember the player) that if the club that have loaned him don't play him enough, they have to pay an extra fee. Unlikely but possible we face a fine if we send him back as he won't hit a game qouta - one that has a caveat if he is injured. Or I could be talking nonsense. think it's probably nonsense.

Alert a moderator to this post

Palace in the Blood 22 Jan 18 3.26pm
Originally posted by Littlebogreek There's been a few posts like this. I'm surprised that people feel this way - he was quality when we played him in the middle, switched him wide and he didn't have the same effect (unsurprisingly as this clearly isn't his position) but still chipped in with a couple of assists. He is a class footballer and if people can't see that I'm surprised - not sure the last player I saw at Palace that so rarely loses the ball or gives it away cheaply. The injuries thing is a concern though, especially given his age. I agree he should go back if he isn't going to be fit any time soon, makes little sense - unless of course we don't believe we are likely to loan anyone that will help us out anyway so may as well keep him since I can't imagine we will get any of our loan fee back - which also makes me wonder re fines etc. Read on the weekend (can't remember the player) that if the club that have loaned him don't play him enough, they have to pay an extra fee. Unlikely but possible we face a fine if we send him back as he won't hit a game qouta - one that has a caveat if he is injured. Or I could be talking nonsense. think it's probably nonsense. Us TFM if we cancel the loan there was an extra £1 million fee
Alert a moderator to this post

Palace in the Blood

22 Jan 18 3.26pm

Send a Private Message to Palace in the Blood

Originally posted by Littlebogreek

The injuries thing is a concern though, especially given his age.

I agree he should go back if he isn't going to be fit any time soon, makes little sense - unless of course we don't believe we are likely to loan anyone that will help us out anyway so may as well keep him since I can't imagine we will get any of our loan fee back - which also makes me wonder re fines etc. Read on the weekend (can't remember the player) that if the club that have loaned him don't play him enough, they have to pay an extra fee. Unlikely but possible we face a fine if we send him back as he won't hit a game qouta - one that has a caveat if he is injured. Or I could be talking nonsense. think it's probably nonsense.

Us TFM if we cancel the loan there was an extra £1 million fee

Alert a moderator to this post

Direwolf Lincoln 22 Jan 18 3.33pm
As it is now confirmed that we have Rakip on loan from Benfica does this mean that RLC has in fact gone back to Chelsea? edit: Just checked and the loan restrictions apply to loans from 'Premiership and English clubs' so this presumably is fine. Edited by Direwolf (22 Jan 2018 3.41pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Direwolf

Lincoln 22 Jan 18 3.33pm

As it is now confirmed that we have Rakip on loan from Benfica does this mean that RLC has in fact gone back to Chelsea?

edit: Just checked and the loan restrictions apply to loans from 'Premiership and English clubs' so this presumably is fine.

Edited by Direwolf (22 Jan 2018 3.41pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Tipp_Eagle Tipperary 22 Jan 18 8.31pm
This subject was me panicking guys sorry. Looks like the ullua loan from Leicester city is off and RLC won't be going back to Chelsea. Roy just said in an interview he is out for 3 weeks so I doubt we will be cancelling the loan contract. Unless it's all game news of course. You know what they say believe none of what you read and half of what you see . oh yeah ,fcuk off brighton.
Alert a moderator to this post

Tipp_Eagle

Tipperary 22 Jan 18 8.31pm

This subject was me panicking guys sorry. Looks like the ullua loan from Leicester city is off and RLC won't be going back to Chelsea. Roy just said in an interview he is out for 3 weeks so I doubt we will be cancelling the loan contract. Unless it's all game news of course. You know what they say believe none of what you read and half of what you see .

oh yeah ,fcuk off brighton.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 23 Jan 18 7.42pm
Originally posted by TheExpatEagle Remy went back to Chelsea for treatment, the loan wasn't cancelled. Usually with long term injuries the parent club treats them as the player is their asset and wants to make sure they are treated correctly. We should have cancelled Remy's loan as soon as he was injured. Chelsea have stitched us up with loan the last 3 seasons. Players are insured against injury, so their wages and treatment should be covered. Bit of a cvntish situation, though I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly