Could Brian McBride be set to make a return to Fulham? According to Sky Sports, the Chicago Fire striker could be ready to head back to Craven Cottage on loan, a move that would make him the third high-profile MLS player to go on a short loan to Europe this winter (Landon Donovan and David Beckham being the others).
Fulham is looking for reinforcements after selling Jimmy Bullard to Hull and McBride might be the ideal addition, having been a fan favorite at Fulham for years. The 36-year-old former U.S. national team standout left Fulham last summer before playing in the Olympics and joining the Fire.
Does a loan make sense for McBride? It certainly wouldn't for the Fire, which is into its pre-season now and the regular season less than two months away.
We should find out on Monday if McBride will actually make the move, or if there was ever any truth to the move. For now, what do you think about a McBride loan to Fulham? Like the idea? Hate it? Think it's just another fictitious transfer deadline story?
Share your thoughts below.
At TR:
You can’t blame Columbus fans for not understanding how to be respectable sports fans…they never had any pro ones until recently.
Trent is just following the trail of morons that forget how legendary McBride was for the club. It’s like me (as a bulls fan) hating Jordan…just dumb. He also did fairly well against the Crew…you know, like scoring twice in the first match…
I like how TFC fans still believe so strongly in Barrett…all you see is he scored a few goals…you don’t realize how many he SHOULD have by now…if McBride is around for one more year, it’s turned out a good deal for the Fire…
@Matt,
I agree that Kljestan would be a good fit for Fulham, but I think he’s very likely headed to Celtic. He would make better sense as a long term solution for Fulham versus an aging McBride. Fulham would also get a “good deal” on him from a transfer fee standpoint.
Wouldn’t a permanent move for Sascha Klestjan make more sense for Fulhamerica? With Bullard gone, they’re in more need of an attacking midfielder than a striker? As a fan, though, I love the idea of seeing McBride back in a Fulham kit.
As some others have said, he probably should have finished out his career at Fulham, but probably wanted to return to the U.S. and play in the the MLS for family reasons.
This loan would only make sense if he stayed until the end of Fulham’s season, and returned to the Fire in June. To go on loan for only a month and a half, risking injury, to try to get back before MLS starts doesn’t seem like a good move for anybody.
Fulham to buy Brian Ching*
B***SH**!
Because the MLS regular season really matters…
Just because Fulham wants him doesn’t mean he’ll go. He’ll stay for the reason he came to Chicago.
Trent, I wouldn’t call McBride a backstabber for wanting to play his last years home. He gave some of his best years to Columbus, a team that drafted him. I doubt Fulham fans are calling him that for going home.
They need Kenny Cooper.
Buy Kenny Cooper.
Get Sacha for the new mid.
Buy Saha.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! He’s too old.
TheDeuce- that comment was a joke
I wish Brian McBackstabber would just go away. It was a lot of fun though watching him walk off the Crew’s field in the Eastern conference championship with that dissapointed look on his face when Marshall dominated him the whole game. I guess I could look forward to more of that next year.
anyone think EJ will make the bench for the mexico game?
John C is crazy as hell for that comment.
Stuart, did you see Nevland come off the bench for a brace yesterday?
Sky Sports News just reported that this loan deal is now unlikely to go through and has broken down because the deal cannot be completed before the deadline on monday. Out of time. Too bad, so sad.
Lets be honest- the answer to Fullham’s Striker Problems is sitting on the bench of Cardiff (RIGHT).
There has to be little to this seeing that training camp starts for Chicago. Also, Hodgson isn’t one to use his subs. Did anyone else see that Todd Dunivant is off to the Galaxy??
http://my.thescore.com/footyblog/archive/2009/02/01/7740.aspx