Tuesday night saw Tim Krul make his debut for Brighton, playing the full 120 minutes of a League Cup extra time defeat to Bournemouth.

Wednesday afternoon and both Newcastle and Brighton announce that the year long loan deal has been made permanent.

Up until Wednesday afternoon Tim Krul couldn’t play against Newcastle, as he was a player out on loan from NUFC, now he can play…

Many Newcastle fans have wondered about the strange timing of this permanent deal but surely only one thing makes sense as an explanation.

When the loan deal was struck, it must surely have included a clause that a permanent deal would be instantly triggered by Tim Krul making his first appearance for Brighton.

Otherwise, it just doesn’t make sense.

Why would Newcastle agree to help Brighton when the two clubs are set to meet each other on Sunday?

So Chris Hughton/Brighton making decision to play Krul in the cup so he was available this weekend.

Mathew Ryan was brought in as number one in the summer but some Brighton fans have already got their doubts about him, whilst Niki Maenpaa has been undisputed number two at the Seagulls since arriving in summer 2015 and had played every cup match (nine in total) until Tim Krul instead got the nod last night, plus Maenpaa has been on the bench for all five Premier League matches this season.

Even if you think Tim Krul isn’t a great goalkeeper, you do have to ask yourself why would NUFC volunteer to make an extra player available for their next opponents?

The initial deal was confusing anyway, as Krul only had one year left on his Newcastle deal, so surely a one year loan contract amounted to a permanent deal anyway, apart from not being able to play against Newcastle.

The conversion of a loan to permanent deal must surely have had some financial benefit to Newcastle, whether an extra fee now to be paid, or at the very least not having to pay some of Krul’s wages.

If Tim Krul does end up playing some part on Sunday, even on the bench, it will add an extra something to the occasion.

Brighton’s official statement:

‘Brighton & Hove Albion have converted goalkeeper Tim Krul’s loan from Newcastle United to a permanent one-year deal.

The Dutch international initially arrived on a season-long loan last month, but has now signed a one-year contract.

The deal means Krul ends a 12-year association with Newcastle, after arriving from Dutch side ADO Den Haag in the summer of 2005.

He has also played seven times for the Netherlands and won the Under-21 European Championships in 2007.

Albion are limited to a maximum of two loan signings from fellow Premier League clubs; they currently have Izzy Brown on a season-long loan from Chelsea.’

Newcastle United official statement:

‘Tim Krul’s season-long loan at Brighton & Hove Albion has been made permanent.

The Dutch international goalkeeper has penned a one-year permanent deal at the Amex Stadium, bringing his 12-year association with the Magpies to an end.

Krul, who joined Newcastle from ADO Den Haag in 2005, made his debut for United in a UEFA Cup tie at Palermo in November 2006, and went on to make a total of 185 appearances in all competitions for the club.

During his time at St. James’ Park, the 29-year-old also spent time out on loan at Falkirk, Carlisle United, Ajax and AZ Alkmaar, and earned eight caps for Holland.

Krul – who made his debut for Chris Hughton’s Seagulls in their Carabao Cup defeat to Bournemouth on Tuesday, having initially joined on loan last month – could now feature for his new club when they take on United in Sunday’s Premier League clash.

Everyone at Newcastle United would like to thank Tim for his long service to the club, and wish him and his family well for the future.’



  • mentalman

    the two clubs have come to an agreement over the transfer, this probably includes him not being involved on sunday

    • Soldier

      Lee Charnley isn`t that bright

    • Clarko

      That’s not how transfers work. You can’t sell a player and then decide which games they can or can’t play in for their new club, that is ridiculous.

      On a side note it seems he won’t feature anyways, Keith Downie via twitter:

      “Spoke to Tim Krul earlier, who says he’s enjoying life at Brighton but insists he’ll always be a Geordie. Unlikely he’ll play on Sunday.”

      • steve

        In other words, it is how transfers work?

        • Clarko

          No.

          • Danimal

            The rules might have changed recently but there have been transfers in the recent past where there has been agreement for the player not to face his old team in the first meeting. It might have required a gentleman’s agreement however, in which case we would obviously be excluded, due to the personality traits of our delightful benefactor.

          • Danimal

            By the way, I’m both wrong and a moron. Just to save you the trouble Clarko.

          • Kneebotherm8

            Get the forst one in,totally disarms them 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

          • Clarko

            He didn’t play, but that is irrelevant to the discussion, his eligibility is relevant to the discussion. Was Howard eligible to play?

            The answer is yes, just to save you the trouble.

          • Danimal

            You’re priceless. Enjoy your “discussion”. Goodnight.

          • Clarko

            The standard “I’m wrong and can’t admit it” comment.

          • Clarko

            Give me an example of a transfer where this has happened. A “gentleman’s agreement” doesn’t count, it’s not contractual, it’s not factual, it cannot be proven.

          • Danimal

            Jermaine Defoe (West Ham to Portsmouth), Tim Howard (Manure to Everton). Better still, in Defoe’s case it was a new FA rule that a player can’t face his old team if he leaves on loan then signs permanently. That was 2008 so unless it’s changed we’re ok.

          • Danimal

            By the way again, a gentleman’s agreement is contractual in my world, maybe not in yours or Mike’s. Each to his own.

          • Clarko

            The Howard deal was a “gentleman’s agreement” and not contractual meaning Howard was free to play.

            The Defoe case as you say is a “FA rule”, an old rule which, judging by the overall belief that Krul is available (Sky Sports and the Chronicle), has since been overturned.

            Portsmouth spokesman (2008):
            “We have tried to get the ruling overturned and have lots of support from the other Premier League clubs but nothing can be done until the next shareholders’ meeting in April.”

          • Danimal

            Google’s great, isn’t it. Did Howard play?

          • Clarko

            He was eligible.

          • Danimal

            Why not just say ‘no’? It’s one of your favourite words after all.

  • Kneebotherm8

    I remember his debut against Palermo,he had a blinder for us and kept a clean sheet as an 18 year old kid. He’s been a great servant for NUFC and best of luck to him for the future.

  • Paul Patterson

    For the sake of five days, potential embarrassment could be avoided. The Managing Director is an idiot for agreeing to this, remember Lua Lua..

    • Andy Mac

      “The Managing Director is an idiot” Let’s just leave it at that ?

  • MichaelMaximusMoose

    kept us in the premiership 2 seasons in a row, top man and a credit to the club

  • Kev-82

    I’m not sure how they can finalise this deal outside the transfer window. Even if there was a permanent clause after 1 game they can’t usually complete till the next window. If Krul is in the matchday squad on Sunday I’d be interested to see the Premier Leagues take on it as he can’t be in squad as a loan player.

  • gallowgate26

    If it means we stop paying 25% or 50% of his wages then shrewd business. I get that people are nostalgic but he’s barely played for us in about 3 years and has not been the same after various injuries. One very good season, some decent seasons but never lived up to the early potential. Elliot is so under-rated, he kept us in the Stoke game but got virtually zero credit, the most praise he got was from the Stoke manager and fans! Darlow would have his chant being sung for the same performance, Elliot gets nowt as usual.

    • Marveauxless

      Pretty sure the fans voted Elliot as player of the season in 2016 like