He suffered a stress fracture in August. Was injured until November. By this time he was deemed ok to play. He played some games. He then comes to us for medical. We do an assessment as with any transfer, it's the buying clubs decision based on the tests that they carry out (us). We carry out tests, note that the stress fracture is not fully healed and is going to cause more time out. We still decided to sign him. I can not spell it out any clearer. It's our fault. We have history of this do with Samed and Abdullahi, both signed injured. Now Danns. That's 3 players in one season signed injured. Samaed missed half a season, Abdullahi is yet to play a senior minute and not Danns is unlikely to be seen on the pitch for us too. It's just absolutely rank decision making.
So Liverpool played him, after his injury, but failed to check to see if the stress fracture had healed?
Yes they did. As he wasn't showing symptoms of a stress fracture. As with the other thread, they are funny to deal with but really lengthy. Full assessment and scans will show it being an issue. It did. We signed him anyway. No I am not a doctor but I know my physiology to level 7 standard.
That doesnt relate to a back injury? There are 2 people on here blaming the club for this, you being one of them, We gave him a medical, it failed, so why would you blame the club?
I'm not sure you do tbh, you're certainly taking the meaning to it's outer limits. 'Asymptomatic vertebral fractures' are those previously unknown which are discovered during x-rays and other procedures. That isn't the case here at all. The player had a known fracture, received medical treatment, was checked and declared fit to play. You'd assume Liverpool did a simple x-ray and didn't just take a flyer.
Seriously .... The stress fracture is his bloody back man. Why would I blame the club? After we gave him a medical, it failed....... But they ignored it and signed him anyway. Why would I blame the club for doing that, is that your question?
Here's my 2 penneth on the Danns situation. We had been in touch with Liverpool and registered an interest in taking the player on loan. Liverpool say ok but he just come back from injury and we want to monitor things before we make a decision. Our efforts to sign another striker have not made any progress so we approach Liverpool at the 11th hour. Liverpool, by this stage, have given games to Danns, ncluding a CL match and say ok we are happy to loan you the player. We then do the medical, including scan, which indicates that there may still be a problem. However the initial thoughts are that after a further period of rest the player should be available. At this stage the window is about to close and we have no other imminent signings. There are 2 options 1 Thanks but no thanks leaving us without another striker 2. Agree that the loan goes ahead and have the chance of signing a striker, all be it that he may not be available for a period of time if at all. In those circumstances to not sign him and leave us without the prospect of any striker would seem to be less than optimal. In my book given the above circumstances the decision taken was the least worst option. Please note All the above is a complete work of fiction with absolutely no basis if fact but as everyone else seems to working on that basis...
No, my question is why you want to slag the club off? You think he will never play for us, based on your qualifications that have **** all to do with his injury
If we keep signing injured players I don't believe it's in the best interest of the club and I will say so. Not just go round in circles to avoid them of any blame.
Not doing this again. That is exactly why you do a medical. If it fails, you generally don't go head with the deal due to the risk involved. We did.
Look on the bright side. We have Mundle back and Watson soon. We were a better side with them in than we have been with Le Fee. I am more disappointed about Ballard tbh. He was looking excellent and back to he best. Danns? Lets see eh. Last week we heard he was visiting here to get integrated. Now he is our for the season. No offence to the fanzine or whatever it is, but I will wait for Liverpool or SAFC to announce that one.
Mundle and Watson are massive go our run in like. Would have loved to have ELF in the middle and Mundle outside. Maybe that's the play offs dream..
Maybe. I cant get too het up about Le Fee personally. He might have been brilliant in the middle, or he may have been poor. We cant be sure. He looked a player that found the physical side of the game a challenge to me, and on Saturday was easily dealt with in my opinion.
I'll give you the other two but Danns was an exceptional case from the way I've understood it? Parent club had no idea of the injury and it looks like as ot was so late in the window We have went ahead with registering him. Probably costs nowt if he doesn't come and play. But he might have got over it in couple weeks and come and made a bit impact so they thought worth the risk. Not like they knew he was injured while chasing him and have signed him to the detriment of making other signings!
As we are playing a game of listening to rumours https://www.empireofthekop.com/2025/02/24/danns-doak-injury-latest-liverpool-news/
