Monday, 20 September 2010

Given's future

Shay Given looks likely to leave MCFC on loan in January. Roberto Mancini confirmed after the Wigan game that he would be allowed to leave should he wish:

“I have a lot of respect for Shay,” the Italian said. “I told him before the transfer market finished that he could choose, that I hoped he would stay but that if he wanted to leave, then he could.

“He decided to stay here and now he must stay until January.
And it seems increasingly clear that Given's future plans lie away from Eastlands. He said in an interview this weekend:

“If I’m flying around like Clark Kent in goals, I still won’t play on Saturday. That can be demoralising. We’ll see what happens come January and hopefully, if the situation is the same, I can go on loan and get some games in.

“I’ve never said I want to leave City. I believe it’s a big club that in the next couple of years is going to do big things. I want to be part of that, but I also want to be playing football.

“I wouldn’t mind where a loan was I and wouldn’t rule out abroad if it was a good club and a good team.”
This has been the inevitable outcome since the summer, when we had two 'keepers too ripe and too good to be back-ups. Whoever was benched was likely to leave, and it happens to be Given. I was surprised he didn't join Fulham on loan, and I suppose that's still a plausible outcome.


SymphonyinBlue said...

No point in letting Given go on loan. Better to sell him at his age and move on. Letting him go on loan would only make sense if the intention was for him to return to replace Joe Hart. Clearly thats not going to happen.

Anonymous said...

Shay joined City to win some silverware before he retired. This still applies. I'm sure he would like whichever club he decides to go to have a strong liklihood of winning a trophy.
It's a pity he looks to be going I think he has the best attitude in the club.

trinder said...

A loan seems far and away the most sensible option. It would give us a superb and match-fit keeper as cover. What if Hart were to get badly injured in February? We'd have to see out the most important phase of the season with a second-rate goalie, because there won't be any superstars arriving in January if they think they'll start as number 2.

Anonymous said...

I wonder prefer a loan with a "return clause" but the press is quoting Mancini as saying the club that gets him will have to pay a "lot of money." Now this could be covering his wages on a loan basis, as opposed to "skint" Newcastle who were rumoured to want him, but it may mean we sell?