We don't know what actually went on or how it played out. FACT.Signing a keeper at that time wasn't the problem. We only had Pandur then. The strange thing was signing one who, as it turns out, we don't rate highly enough to actually play. We then went and signed a third keeper because we weren't happy with the two we had, one of which being Racioppi. Whoever's decision it was, we shouldn't be signing a player on a three year contract and then realising we don't rate him.
I remember hearing I think it was our chief scout on 1904 podcast talking about how we came to sign Carvahlo. It wasn't planned, but an opportunity arose, they got excited and agreed it was an opportunity they couldn't turn down. It might well have been the same with Rushworth. Supposedly proven as the best keeper at this level (I'm not so sure) and maybe they saw him, in spite of his young age, as not only a very good keeper to strengthen us but also as someone who would improve our own young, unproven in England, keepers for the long term? I'm not for one minute saying I agree with all that nor the decision. Just that once again we pretend to know what actually happened and why, when the FACT is we don't.
