Kit_robin wrote: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.
i don't think that's afair statement, Dan has done extremely well this season considering his age, inexperience and the mess the club has found itself in for 90% of this season. He can hold his head up high at a job very well done.
I too would prefer Moore to remain at the moment because he and the team is doing well but to suddenly dismiss Dan isn't right.
Surely we can't extend it, as he was an emergency loan due to injury. If the situation has changed (we have the injured player back), surely we can't keep him with us?
Lavercombe technically isn't ours either though so his fitness is irrelevant I'd assume. I think if we wanted to keep Moore we probably could it's whether we want to or not.
royalgull wrote:Lavercombe technically isn't ours either though so his fitness is irrelevant I'd assume. I think if we wanted to keep Moore we probably could it's whether we want to or not.
....and whether HE wants to or not.... I'd be pleased if he did!
Nicholson must be thinking he wished he had the money to keep both keepers till the end of the season as this time is very critical and we cannot afford to mess up.
There is nothing wrong with Lavercombe but Moore has the edge over him with strength and distribution and it's something I'd like Dan to pick up on. Dan has about 3 years to catch up on Moore and I think he can. This is a learning curve for both keepers.
Moore has had a few dodgy moments and got over them which is a good sign he can mature into a fine keeper.
Would either consider a season long loan next year? Or do Wigan think Dan will be anywhere near the first team and do Fleetwood regard Brendan likely to succeed with them? Surely this will determine who stays and who goes from Plainmoor? Is Dan costing us anything, if the parent company are meeting his wages, I'd try and keep both!
Bloggy wrote:Would either consider a season long loan next year? Or do Wigan think Dan will be anywhere near the first team and do Fleetwood regard Brendan likely to succeed with them? Surely this will determine who stays and who goes from Plainmoor? Is Dan costing us anything, if the parent company are meeting his wages, I'd try and keep both!
I think I read somewhere that Moore's contract is up in the summer.
Bloggy wrote:Me too Jerry but having followed his progress with us, they might be reconsidering?
I don't think so. He looks to have good potential but his kicking isn't great and he does make the odd error that, to be honest, I wouldn't expect a football league keeper to make. They might keep him as second choice with a view to loaning him out, because I think he DOES have the potential to be a good football league goalkeeper - but he himself may prefer to get first team football somewhere.
I would be quite pleased if we signed him for next year, if that was doable. With his potential we could end up with a saleable asset as well as a good conference goalkeeper.
