Tek I believe the stumbling block to the original deal was Ciftci not wanting to play in Div 1. Courier claiming a deal was agreed with Septic but mad nad not interested 

Tek wrote:

Beharder wrote:

Tek I believe the stumbling block to the original deal was Ciftci not wanting to play in Div 1. Courier claiming a deal was agreed with Septic but mad nad not interested 

Maybe he will reconsider now he hasn't got himself sorted elsewhere mate.

Surely he wouldn't want to sit out an entire campaign (isn't even playing for their Devs)?

I believe Celtic want 1k of his wages to be covered (weekly).
 

But surely there would be a huge problem with the support if he hasn't been playing recently.  All I've heard about Mickelson and this lad we signed yesterday is that they haven't been playing regularly for ages, surely the same would apply to Ciftci?  No?

I'd hold off.

Emergency Loans run from 28 days to 93. Why get a guy in now only to lose him for the run-in/playoffs?

If we make the play offs......when did we last win  game?

SGMilne wrote:

I'd hold off.

Emergency Loans run from 28 days to 93. Why get a guy in now only to lose him for the run-in/playoffs?

Good point actually.
 

Just read Hibs are back in for Commons....on ANOTHER EMERGENCY LOAN DEAL!!

If you're allowed more than one emergency deal with the same player go out and get Nadir ASAP.

This would go someway to placate the support (which are starting to get very angry again).

If Thompson and McKinnon have any desire to get out of this league they'll try everything in their power to persuade him to come and get us promoted.

If there is any way that we can bring in any player of ciftcis ability to help get us up then we should try it.  Not holding my breath tho.

SGMilne wrote:

There's nothing 'emergency' about an emergency loan. A lot of people seem to think there's a criteria involving players being out injured.

The only criteria is that the team must be in the Championship, League One or Two and that they get the player from another SPFL club for between 28-93 days.

It's a system Hibs have abused in terms of fair play, but there's technically nothing wrong with what they've done. In fact, it was a smart move.

We could do the same but have chosen not to. So far.

It was a smart move.A very smart move infact.

As i said above it's a 'loophole' in the rules and whether or not i personally agree with the rule or not i would hope Utd wouldetry to exploit it.

Hibs have and (will again).

Hypothetically then, whither it's Shifty, or Kommons, or any other chunt, does that mean ye can get an emergency loan for 93 days, then efter the loan period is over, simply get the player again for another 93 days?

Beharder wrote:

bowers wrote:

It wont happen lads let it go

Far too many are clinging onto this.

in agreement with Bowers

remember Ciftci turned down the loan move on Tuesday. Time to look elsewhere.

Olive branch post
 

Get a room you two 

Canadian Arab wrote:

SGMilne wrote:

There's nothing 'emergency' about an emergency loan. A lot of people seem to think there's a criteria involving players being out injured.

The only criteria is that the team must be in the Championship, League One or Two and that they get the player from another SPFL club for between 28-93 days.

It's a system Hibs have abused in terms of fair play, but there's technically nothing wrong with what they've done. In fact, it was a smart move.

We could do the same but have chosen not to. So far.

Thanks for clarifying. If that's the case I'd rather they came up with a different name than "emergency loan".

And aye, if the rule / loophole is there to be exploited, absolutely we should exploit it. Cutting off our nose to spite our face if we don't.
 

Losing on Saturday might allow us to apply for an emergency XI?