It looks like Darren Randolph will be returning to The Valley soon unless another loan berth can be found for him:
Keeper
Of course, we only have Hereford's side of the story. Alan Pardew has now made his own views known through the club's E mail bulletin:
'Alan Pardew has reacted angrily to a statement issued by Hereford United criticising Addicks goalkeeper Darren Randolph. Pardew said: "There are other factors here as well, and I am disappointed with Graham Turner's statement. We never instigated Darren's loan, and Hereford were beside themselves when it was agreed. What's even more disappointing is that we agreed to supplement Darren's wages."'
One wonders if there are other cases where we are supplementing the wages of players loaned out, although the experience is usually beneficial to the player and hopefully for the club.
9 comments:
Hereford are lumbered with him until January under the terms of the loan but he will certainly be back then.
I would have thought his refusal to play will not have impressed Pards either.Will anyone else take him on?
I wouldn't have thought so. We only have one side of the story, but on the face of it it doesn't reflect well on him.
As we all like to defend our own (family; friends; footballers) I am desperate to find a reason to back Darren, but it doesn't look good.
The only defence I can think of is that the club have made a statement that fails to explain the true sequence of events, or exaggerates a conversation that ended up in a decision for him not to play.
I am looking forward to hearing what the player has to say. On the basis that Weave is on big money I can’t see him still being here next season and we may well need Darren in and around the first team.
Clearly I meant Weaver, not Weave!
Sorry Wyn.
I imagine he thought he was surplus to requirements at Edgar Street & wanted to avoid being cup-tied.
Given that he was allowed out on a lengthy loan last season & a season long one this time around it would appear that Pards is not a big fan.He will probably be allowed to leave when his contract expires.Have to say that I have never really been impressed by him albeit that I was not at Anfield when he had a blinder.
Refusing to play is as cardinal a sin as can be committed in football.Some hard thinking to be done by both the club & the player.
he should ahve at least discussed this with the Club (Charlton) beforer making his decision. I cannot believe that we would have condoned his decision. He probably worked on the basis that Weaver would be rested for the cup game for us and that he or elliot would be in the frame. Hopefully, the club will now have another keeper on the bench if Weaver is rested and Elliot plays.
whatever extenuating excuses Randolph makes there is none that can forgive any player refusing to play a game so near to kick off time. (or at any time really Notwithstanding the cost to Charlton we should not in any way condone his behaviour; even if it means we lose him for the future.
Is it that uncommon for the parent club to supplement the wage? I thought I read somewhere that Fulham where doing the same thing for Bouazza.
It's not unusual, I agree. Just how common it is I don't know or what the proportions are - they presumably vary. No doubt we are meeting the entire wages of the two young players we send to Northwich Victoria.
Post a Comment