Bradford City closing in on top target Aaron Mclean

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Aaron McLean in action for Hull Aaron McLean in action for Hull

City are very close to landing Hull striker Aaron Mclean, the Telegraph & Argus understands.

It is thought that terms have been agreed between all parties for 30-year-old Mclean to replace Nahki Wells.

But there is still some number-crunching to be done today because of the significant costs involved for the club.

City are considering whether it is worth taking a calculated gamble on a player who will command high wages coming from a Premier League club.

Another factor is his age as, unlike with a younger striker, they would not be expecting to generate any sell-on fee in the future. But the Bantams would be getting an established player who has performed in all four divisions.

Mclean scored in Hull’s FA Cup win at Middlesbrough last week but is surplus to requirements at the KC Stadium. It is believed he recently turned down interest from two Championship clubs.

The Hammersmith-born hitman had an impressive goals ratio in the lower divisions with Peterborough. He won the League Two golden boot with 29 in their 2007-08 promotion campaign and scored another 18 in 39 appearances when they went up from the third tier.

There were attempts to push through a deal in time for him to feature in Saturday’s 1-1 draw with Bristol City but City will now sit down again today to decide whether to make it happen.

Wigan’s Nuoha Dicko was also thought to be on City’s hit list but the young Frenchman was last night finalising a move to Wolves. He was a guest at Molineux for their weekend win over Preston.

Joint-chairman Mark Lawn also revealed City had been looking at a third target, although Mclean has always been Phil Parkinson’s first choice.

Lawn said: “Aaron’s good at a higher level and this level. We’ve been talking to another lad and his agent who has done it at this level and is still doing it.

“We’ve also been talking to a younger one who we believe can not only do it now but be one for the future.

“All three we’ve been talking to, there have been six or seven clubs chasing them.

“We’ve got to put ourselves out there first and hopefully persuade one of them to come here.

“We want someone in as soon as we can but it’s important we don’t rush it. We need to make sure they want to come to us.

“We’ve got a great team spirit within the squad. Phil has built that and I believe it’s worth at least 20 points, so we need to get the right one in.”

Parkinson was reluctant to discuss Mclean but confirmed: “We need a proven striker in the building. We’re at a situation where we’ve lost our top scorer and to get a proven one will be expensive.”

James Hanson ended an 11-game scoring drought with a first-minute strike on Saturday but City have still not won at home since September 28.

Hanson said: “I’m a bit gutted to see Nahki go but the gaffer has told the lads there will be new players coming in. That obviously sets the bar again.

“Hopefully I can form a good partnership with another strike partner and we can both chip in with goals and get the club where it needs to be.”

Meanwhile, Wells came off the bench to score the winner on his Huddersfield debut against Millwall – a goal that will earn City money as part of the many add-ons to his transfer fee.

Comments (122)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:48am Mon 13 Jan 14

Johsay says...

Presumably McLean should say his heart is set on a move to City, nowhere else and Hull will accept peanuts.
Presumably McLean should say his heart is set on a move to City, nowhere else and Hull will accept peanuts. Johsay
  • Score: 36

7:56am Mon 13 Jan 14

Bull4eva says...

Great start for nahki.
Great start for nahki. Bull4eva
  • Score: -42

8:19am Mon 13 Jan 14

macca1969 says...

Great strike rate 6 years ago. But onĺy 10 goals since he left posh in over 90 games. As the club say is it worth the gamble? I hope so if we sign him but must say I am a little worried
Great strike rate 6 years ago. But onĺy 10 goals since he left posh in over 90 games. As the club say is it worth the gamble? I hope so if we sign him but must say I am a little worried macca1969
  • Score: 17

8:24am Mon 13 Jan 14

Danger Mouse Bantam says...

Lee Gregory from Halifax and Jay Emmanuel Thomas are the other two names in the frame!
Lee Gregory from Halifax and Jay Emmanuel Thomas are the other two names in the frame! Danger Mouse Bantam
  • Score: 4

8:28am Mon 13 Jan 14

macca1969 says...

Bull4eva wrote:
Great start for nahki.
Nobius headius
[quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: Great start for nahki.[/p][/quote]Nobius headius macca1969
  • Score: 19

8:33am Mon 13 Jan 14

Bull4eva says...

macca1969 wrote:
Bull4eva wrote:
Great start for nahki.
Nobius headius
Why?
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: Great start for nahki.[/p][/quote]Nobius headius[/p][/quote]Why? Bull4eva
  • Score: -11

8:38am Mon 13 Jan 14

rinkydink says...

JET would be a good signing for us. thnk Gregory would be too much of a gamble.
JET would be a good signing for us. thnk Gregory would be too much of a gamble. rinkydink
  • Score: 5

8:42am Mon 13 Jan 14

macca1969 says...

Bull4eva wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
Bull4eva wrote:
Great start for nahki.
Nobius headius
Why?
Because your a wum. Wouldn't mind if your egg chasers actually had anythingto shout about.
[quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: Great start for nahki.[/p][/quote]Nobius headius[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]Because your a wum. Wouldn't mind if your egg chasers actually had anythingto shout about. macca1969
  • Score: 10

8:44am Mon 13 Jan 14

claret or green ? says...

I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure) claret or green ?
  • Score: 4

8:45am Mon 13 Jan 14

djmoulson says...

Bull4eva wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
Bull4eva wrote:
Great start for nahki.
Nobius headius
Why?
'Red rag to a Bull' so to speak, grow up and concentrate on the debacle that is going on at Odsal Bull4eva, don't make enemies as the Bulls need all the help they can get right now!! CTID
[quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: Great start for nahki.[/p][/quote]Nobius headius[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]'Red rag to a Bull' so to speak, grow up and concentrate on the debacle that is going on at Odsal Bull4eva, don't make enemies as the Bulls need all the help they can get right now!! CTID djmoulson
  • Score: 9

9:00am Mon 13 Jan 14

BD16 says...

claret or green ? wrote:
I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.
[quote][p][bold]claret or green ?[/bold] wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)[/p][/quote]Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us. BD16
  • Score: 5

9:03am Mon 13 Jan 14

claret or green ? says...

yes, great start for Nahki and I believe some money coming City's way if the suggested add on's are correct. I haven't forgotten the Gordon Watson/Kevin Gray business or the fact that Huddersfield generally get the better of City. But Town are only trying to achieve what City did a decade or so ago and it's a win win situation for City, especially compared to poor Carlisle United who let him slip through their fingers. I understand Nahki is settled in the area but hey, what's that got to do with it, perhap's he should have let so called City fan's decide exactly where and where not he is allowed to transfer to !
yes, great start for Nahki and I believe some money coming City's way if the suggested add on's are correct. I haven't forgotten the Gordon Watson/Kevin Gray business or the fact that Huddersfield generally get the better of City. But Town are only trying to achieve what City did a decade or so ago and it's a win win situation for City, especially compared to poor Carlisle United who let him slip through their fingers. I understand Nahki is settled in the area but hey, what's that got to do with it, perhap's he should have let so called City fan's decide exactly where and where not he is allowed to transfer to ! claret or green ?
  • Score: 4

9:06am Mon 13 Jan 14

macca1969 says...

BD16 wrote:
claret or green ? wrote:
I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.
Jihn mcginley
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]claret or green ?[/bold] wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)[/p][/quote]Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.[/p][/quote]Jihn mcginley macca1969
  • Score: 5

9:08am Mon 13 Jan 14

Bull4eva says...

djmoulson wrote:
Bull4eva wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
Bull4eva wrote:
Great start for nahki.
Nobius headius
Why?
'Red rag to a Bull' so to speak, grow up and concentrate on the debacle that is going on at Odsal Bull4eva, don't make enemies as the Bulls need all the help they can get right now!! CTID
So by simply stating that one of your former players had a great start in his new pathway is wrong?
[quote][p][bold]djmoulson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: Great start for nahki.[/p][/quote]Nobius headius[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]'Red rag to a Bull' so to speak, grow up and concentrate on the debacle that is going on at Odsal Bull4eva, don't make enemies as the Bulls need all the help they can get right now!! CTID[/p][/quote]So by simply stating that one of your former players had a great start in his new pathway is wrong? Bull4eva
  • Score: -4

9:09am Mon 13 Jan 14

dannbradfc says...

I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages.

Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray.....

Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc

Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....
I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages. Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray..... Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom..... dannbradfc
  • Score: 3

9:11am Mon 13 Jan 14

gordon ramsay says...

Bull4eva wrote:
Great start for nahki.
I'm a City AND Bulls season ticket holder. You're an attention seeking immature little boy with low IQ. If you do have a job I can only imagine it doesn't challenge you too much.

Bradford sports teams have enough on the hands without people like you starting schoolyard arguments. Grow up.

Onwards and upwards for all Bradford sports teams.

Jog on idiot. I think I can hear your mum calling to tell you she's warmed your milk up for you. Just how you like it. Zzzzzzzzzz
[quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: Great start for nahki.[/p][/quote]I'm a City AND Bulls season ticket holder. You're an attention seeking immature little boy with low IQ. If you do have a job I can only imagine it doesn't challenge you too much. Bradford sports teams have enough on the hands without people like you starting schoolyard arguments. Grow up. Onwards and upwards for all Bradford sports teams. Jog on idiot. I think I can hear your mum calling to tell you she's warmed your milk up for you. Just how you like it. Zzzzzzzzzz gordon ramsay
  • Score: 30

9:23am Mon 13 Jan 14

TBS says...

Gregory would be a pointless move. He has not proved himself at other levels. I think some people are missing the point we need a "proven" goalscorer at "this level." Hannah used to score for fun for Matlock - but look where he has ended up!
Gregory would be a pointless move. He has not proved himself at other levels. I think some people are missing the point we need a "proven" goalscorer at "this level." Hannah used to score for fun for Matlock - but look where he has ended up! TBS
  • Score: 3

9:28am Mon 13 Jan 14

Bull4eva says...

gordon ramsay wrote:
Bull4eva wrote:
Great start for nahki.
I'm a City AND Bulls season ticket holder. You're an attention seeking immature little boy with low IQ. If you do have a job I can only imagine it doesn't challenge you too much.

Bradford sports teams have enough on the hands without people like you starting schoolyard arguments. Grow up.

Onwards and upwards for all Bradford sports teams.

Jog on idiot. I think I can hear your mum calling to tell you she's warmed your milk up for you. Just how you like it. Zzzzzzzzzz
Why the nastiness??
[quote][p][bold]gordon ramsay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bull4eva[/bold] wrote: Great start for nahki.[/p][/quote]I'm a City AND Bulls season ticket holder. You're an attention seeking immature little boy with low IQ. If you do have a job I can only imagine it doesn't challenge you too much. Bradford sports teams have enough on the hands without people like you starting schoolyard arguments. Grow up. Onwards and upwards for all Bradford sports teams. Jog on idiot. I think I can hear your mum calling to tell you she's warmed your milk up for you. Just how you like it. Zzzzzzzzzz[/p][/quote]Why the nastiness?? Bull4eva
  • Score: 0

9:37am Mon 13 Jan 14

BD16 says...

macca1969 wrote:
BD16 wrote:
claret or green ? wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.
Jihn mcginley
That's the one. Thanks.

Didn't we pay a Kings ransom for him?
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]claret or green ?[/bold] wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)[/p][/quote]Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.[/p][/quote]Jihn mcginley[/p][/quote]That's the one. Thanks. Didn't we pay a Kings ransom for him? BD16
  • Score: 3

9:45am Mon 13 Jan 14

Aussie Bantam says...

give younger lads a go because if they turn out to be " the goods" we can get good money for them as we have for Well's. It is never good to see quality go but when not much money in the Kitty what else can be done . I would like to see some young blood in the midfield also, that's what I think other clubs such as Rochdale are doing and it is sure to pay off in the long run.
give younger lads a go because if they turn out to be " the goods" we can get good money for them as we have for Well's. It is never good to see quality go but when not much money in the Kitty what else can be done . I would like to see some young blood in the midfield also, that's what I think other clubs such as Rochdale are doing and it is sure to pay off in the long run. Aussie Bantam
  • Score: 5

9:47am Mon 13 Jan 14

macca1969 says...

BD16 wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
BD16 wrote:
claret or green ? wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.
Jihn mcginley
That's the one. Thanks.

Didn't we pay a Kings ransom for him?
At the time yes it was a lot of money. It didn't work out and we found him hard yo move on because of his large wages. I don't have a problem with McLean but hope that the club cover our back sides should it not work out. We cannot afford an expensive failure after the board failed to get decent money up front gor Wells
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]claret or green ?[/bold] wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)[/p][/quote]Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.[/p][/quote]Jihn mcginley[/p][/quote]That's the one. Thanks. Didn't we pay a Kings ransom for him?[/p][/quote]At the time yes it was a lot of money. It didn't work out and we found him hard yo move on because of his large wages. I don't have a problem with McLean but hope that the club cover our back sides should it not work out. We cannot afford an expensive failure after the board failed to get decent money up front gor Wells macca1969
  • Score: 5

9:59am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peeksville says...

McLeans record at this level is great.
Parkinson said after the game on sat that we need someone to come straight in and score goals.
We have 2 young strikers in McBurnie and Clarkson.
Im gonna trust the man that got us promoted for the 1st time in 12 years and to a cup final for the 1st time in 100 years.
McLeans record at this level is great. Parkinson said after the game on sat that we need someone to come straight in and score goals. We have 2 young strikers in McBurnie and Clarkson. Im gonna trust the man that got us promoted for the 1st time in 12 years and to a cup final for the 1st time in 100 years. Peeksville
  • Score: 36

10:00am Mon 13 Jan 14

DisplacedNortherner says...

I do find it strange that a lad from Bermuda who played for Carlisle and then Bradford for 2 1/2 years can fall in love with a place in such a short time, so much so that he refuses to sign for anyone else. Surely the wages agreed a 6 months back with Huddersfield may be a reason why he refuses to consider any other deal rather than wanting not to move from somewhere he has lived for less than 10% of his life.?
I do find it strange that a lad from Bermuda who played for Carlisle and then Bradford for 2 1/2 years can fall in love with a place in such a short time, so much so that he refuses to sign for anyone else. Surely the wages agreed a 6 months back with Huddersfield may be a reason why he refuses to consider any other deal rather than wanting not to move from somewhere he has lived for less than 10% of his life.? DisplacedNortherner
  • Score: 8

10:01am Mon 13 Jan 14

bantam10 says...

Think we should be careful about signing McClean as he is bound to be on the decline now. Would rather see a few younger lads coming in.
Ps don't reply to the bulls idiot. Obviously bored and not got a job and claiming social at our expence.
Think we should be careful about signing McClean as he is bound to be on the decline now. Would rather see a few younger lads coming in. Ps don't reply to the bulls idiot. Obviously bored and not got a job and claiming social at our expence. bantam10
  • Score: 5

10:02am Mon 13 Jan 14

Cityman23 says...

My opinion and others will no doubt disagree . To be honest I know nothing about Aaron McLean but I do wonder about the wisdom of going for a 30 yr old striker to replace a player who was in his early twenties. I'd prefer bringing in players between 22-28 yrs of age unless there's some special mitigating reason(s).

We are obviously 'building' for next season now (assuming that relegation is out of the question which it should certainly be) and it would be good to think in terms of building a side which could stay together for a few years.
My opinion and others will no doubt disagree . To be honest I know nothing about Aaron McLean but I do wonder about the wisdom of going for a 30 yr old striker to replace a player who was in his early twenties. I'd prefer bringing in players between 22-28 yrs of age unless there's some special mitigating reason(s). We are obviously 'building' for next season now (assuming that relegation is out of the question which it should certainly be) and it would be good to think in terms of building a side which could stay together for a few years. Cityman23
  • Score: 3

10:05am Mon 13 Jan 14

Plastic Bantam says...

Danger Mouse Bantam wrote:
Lee Gregory from Halifax and Jay Emmanuel Thomas are the other two names in the frame!
Not a chance we'll get Thomas.. Apparently he's on nearly £17,000 a week
[quote][p][bold]Danger Mouse Bantam[/bold] wrote: Lee Gregory from Halifax and Jay Emmanuel Thomas are the other two names in the frame![/p][/quote]Not a chance we'll get Thomas.. Apparently he's on nearly £17,000 a week Plastic Bantam
  • Score: 3

10:07am Mon 13 Jan 14

tyker7745 says...

bantam10 wrote:
Think we should be careful about signing McClean as he is bound to be on the decline now. Would rather see a few younger lads coming in.
Ps don't reply to the bulls idiot. Obviously bored and not got a job and claiming social at our expence.
agree: too many miles on the clock and will break City's already stretched budget: go for youh
[quote][p][bold]bantam10[/bold] wrote: Think we should be careful about signing McClean as he is bound to be on the decline now. Would rather see a few younger lads coming in. Ps don't reply to the bulls idiot. Obviously bored and not got a job and claiming social at our expence.[/p][/quote]agree: too many miles on the clock and will break City's already stretched budget: go for youh tyker7745
  • Score: 1

10:12am Mon 13 Jan 14

Cityman23 says...

Just 'googled' 'Aaron McLean and a 'Daily Mirror' headline came up.

quote :"Hull keen to offload three underperforming players...(incl.) McLean...for a knockdown £450,000."

That kind of money might be small change in the premiership but it isn't to us surely? Okay, he might do better at our level than two levels above but I think it's worth checking out 'other' options first!!
Just 'googled' 'Aaron McLean and a 'Daily Mirror' headline came up. quote :"Hull keen to offload three underperforming players...(incl.) McLean...for a knockdown £450,000." That kind of money might be small change in the premiership but it isn't to us surely? Okay, he might do better at our level than two levels above but I think it's worth checking out 'other' options first!! Cityman23
  • Score: 5

10:13am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

macca1969 wrote:
Great strike rate 6 years ago. But onĺy 10 goals since he left posh in over 90 games. As the club say is it worth the gamble? I hope so if we sign him but must say I am a little worried
But you are always worried. You don't have a good track record on this score.
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: Great strike rate 6 years ago. But onĺy 10 goals since he left posh in over 90 games. As the club say is it worth the gamble? I hope so if we sign him but must say I am a little worried[/p][/quote]But you are always worried. You don't have a good track record on this score. Peter300
  • Score: 2

10:14am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

Danger Mouse Bantam wrote:
Lee Gregory from Halifax and Jay Emmanuel Thomas are the other two names in the frame!
Halifax Bantam? Wells and Hanson to Boro. Darby to Brighton?
[quote][p][bold]Danger Mouse Bantam[/bold] wrote: Lee Gregory from Halifax and Jay Emmanuel Thomas are the other two names in the frame![/p][/quote]Halifax Bantam? Wells and Hanson to Boro. Darby to Brighton? Peter300
  • Score: -5

10:16am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

claret or green ? wrote:
I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
Yeah, like Nahki Wells, Stephen Darby etc. etc.
[quote][p][bold]claret or green ?[/bold] wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)[/p][/quote]Yeah, like Nahki Wells, Stephen Darby etc. etc. Peter300
  • Score: -3

10:18am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

macca1969 wrote:
BD16 wrote:
claret or green ? wrote:
I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.
Jihn mcginley
John McGinlay
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]claret or green ?[/bold] wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)[/p][/quote]Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.[/p][/quote]Jihn mcginley[/p][/quote]John McGinlay Peter300
  • Score: -5

10:21am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

dannbradfc wrote:
I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages.

Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray.....

Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc

Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....
Ha, ha, ha, you're the one panicking. Andy Gray could not get in the side due to the form of James Hanson. Yet you complain about this. I don't think you are right about injuries either.
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages. Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray..... Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....[/p][/quote]Ha, ha, ha, you're the one panicking. Andy Gray could not get in the side due to the form of James Hanson. Yet you complain about this. I don't think you are right about injuries either. Peter300
  • Score: -6

10:22am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

BD16 wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
BD16 wrote:
claret or green ? wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.
Jihn mcginley
That's the one. Thanks.

Didn't we pay a Kings ransom for him?
John McGinlay.
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]claret or green ?[/bold] wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)[/p][/quote]Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.[/p][/quote]Jihn mcginley[/p][/quote]That's the one. Thanks. Didn't we pay a Kings ransom for him?[/p][/quote]John McGinlay. Peter300
  • Score: -7

10:24am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

Aussie Bantam wrote:
give younger lads a go because if they turn out to be " the goods" we can get good money for them as we have for Well's. It is never good to see quality go but when not much money in the Kitty what else can be done . I would like to see some young blood in the midfield also, that's what I think other clubs such as Rochdale are doing and it is sure to pay off in the long run.
Yes, they will sell their best players too. You say give younger players a go, but don't like it when there is no experience in the side. You need a balance.
[quote][p][bold]Aussie Bantam[/bold] wrote: give younger lads a go because if they turn out to be " the goods" we can get good money for them as we have for Well's. It is never good to see quality go but when not much money in the Kitty what else can be done . I would like to see some young blood in the midfield also, that's what I think other clubs such as Rochdale are doing and it is sure to pay off in the long run.[/p][/quote]Yes, they will sell their best players too. You say give younger players a go, but don't like it when there is no experience in the side. You need a balance. Peter300
  • Score: -4

10:27am Mon 13 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

rinkydink wrote:
JET would be a good signing for us. thnk Gregory would be too much of a gamble.
Jet from Gladiators? Are you Alan Partridge?
[quote][p][bold]rinkydink[/bold] wrote: JET would be a good signing for us. thnk Gregory would be too much of a gamble.[/p][/quote]Jet from Gladiators? Are you Alan Partridge? Farsley Bantam
  • Score: -3

10:28am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

bantam10 wrote:
Think we should be careful about signing McClean as he is bound to be on the decline now. Would rather see a few younger lads coming in.
Ps don't reply to the bulls idiot. Obviously bored and not got a job and claiming social at our expence.
And there's you! You mean decline like Gary Jones when we signed him?
[quote][p][bold]bantam10[/bold] wrote: Think we should be careful about signing McClean as he is bound to be on the decline now. Would rather see a few younger lads coming in. Ps don't reply to the bulls idiot. Obviously bored and not got a job and claiming social at our expence.[/p][/quote]And there's you! You mean decline like Gary Jones when we signed him? Peter300
  • Score: 0

10:28am Mon 13 Jan 14

Wakefield Bantam says...

macca1969 wrote:
BD16 wrote:
macca1969 wrote:
BD16 wrote:
claret or green ? wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)
Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.
Jihn mcginley
That's the one. Thanks.

Didn't we pay a Kings ransom for him?
At the time yes it was a lot of money. It didn't work out and we found him hard yo move on because of his large wages. I don't have a problem with McLean but hope that the club cover our back sides should it not work out. We cannot afford an expensive failure after the board failed to get decent money up front gor Wells
£650.000 cost Kamara his job?
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]claret or green ?[/bold] wrote: I would agree with m1969.... City have form for signing players going downhill after their best years and it not going well. Lee Gregory on the other hand may be worth a punt and will not command a massive salary compared to McLean...... perhaps even take him on loan until the end of or give him a contract with emphasis on win bonuses (encouraging him to assist and score in equal measure)[/p][/quote]Who was the aged Scottish striker Chri Kamara signed from Bolton? He'd scored a hatfull of goals for them over the years but was useless by the time got too us.[/p][/quote]Jihn mcginley[/p][/quote]That's the one. Thanks. Didn't we pay a Kings ransom for him?[/p][/quote]At the time yes it was a lot of money. It didn't work out and we found him hard yo move on because of his large wages. I don't have a problem with McLean but hope that the club cover our back sides should it not work out. We cannot afford an expensive failure after the board failed to get decent money up front gor Wells[/p][/quote]£650.000 cost Kamara his job? Wakefield Bantam
  • Score: 6

10:31am Mon 13 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

Cityman23 wrote:
My opinion and others will no doubt disagree . To be honest I know nothing about Aaron McLean but I do wonder about the wisdom of going for a 30 yr old striker to replace a player who was in his early twenties. I'd prefer bringing in players between 22-28 yrs of age unless there's some special mitigating reason(s).

We are obviously 'building' for next season now (assuming that relegation is out of the question which it should certainly be) and it would be good to think in terms of building a side which could stay together for a few years.
Doesn't really happen though does it? So you would say 'no' to Gary Jones? Shame that, because I think he's been a good signing for City. Still, you cannot please everyone.
[quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: My opinion and others will no doubt disagree . To be honest I know nothing about Aaron McLean but I do wonder about the wisdom of going for a 30 yr old striker to replace a player who was in his early twenties. I'd prefer bringing in players between 22-28 yrs of age unless there's some special mitigating reason(s). We are obviously 'building' for next season now (assuming that relegation is out of the question which it should certainly be) and it would be good to think in terms of building a side which could stay together for a few years.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really happen though does it? So you would say 'no' to Gary Jones? Shame that, because I think he's been a good signing for City. Still, you cannot please everyone. Peter300
  • Score: 1

10:38am Mon 13 Jan 14

cordo2179 says...

Mark Lawn needs to keep his nose out and let parkinson get on with his job and lets get the players we need in... IPWT
Mark Lawn needs to keep his nose out and let parkinson get on with his job and lets get the players we need in... IPWT cordo2179
  • Score: -10

10:44am Mon 13 Jan 14

Plastic Bantam says...

You lot are unbelievable... Just cause he's 30 he belongs on the scrap heap!! He could be the fittest player in the squad.. Look at Ryan Giggs!!! If we were gonna take a punt on a youth player you'd all be moaning!!! At least wait till we sign him and he plays a couple games before you start judging the guy... I hope he doesn't read this (doubt he will) he definitely won't sign if he does
You lot are unbelievable... Just cause he's 30 he belongs on the scrap heap!! He could be the fittest player in the squad.. Look at Ryan Giggs!!! If we were gonna take a punt on a youth player you'd all be moaning!!! At least wait till we sign him and he plays a couple games before you start judging the guy... I hope he doesn't read this (doubt he will) he definitely won't sign if he does Plastic Bantam
  • Score: 22

11:20am Mon 13 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

We have two young strikers chomping at the bit, McLean will offer experience to them whilst also bringing goals at this lower level. At 30 he is only just out of his prime as a striker and I'm sure he can do a job in L1. McBurnie and Clarkson can learn from him, possibly Hanson too and Gregory if signed is yet more youth for us to build with.

That is three young strikers with less than 5 league appearances between them, that's enough youth in that position.
We have two young strikers chomping at the bit, McLean will offer experience to them whilst also bringing goals at this lower level. At 30 he is only just out of his prime as a striker and I'm sure he can do a job in L1. McBurnie and Clarkson can learn from him, possibly Hanson too and Gregory if signed is yet more youth for us to build with. That is three young strikers with less than 5 league appearances between them, that's enough youth in that position. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 19

11:32am Mon 13 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness.

The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.
McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club. bcfc1903
  • Score: 1

11:45am Mon 13 Jan 14

bigang02 says...

why carnt we just let connell have a start with hanson and fetch mcburnie on as sub.its what the fans are wanting to see.
why carnt we just let connell have a start with hanson and fetch mcburnie on as sub.its what the fans are wanting to see. bigang02
  • Score: -2

11:46am Mon 13 Jan 14

spleen ventor says...

I find it highly amusing when all the "experts" on here condemn a potential target before he's even signed, let alone kicked a ball for us.
As Parky says...and I respect his opinion more than the "experts" on here...we need someone to come into the team straight away who is going to score goals, McLean fits the bill perfectly for this level and I have no doubt he'd do a job for us.
Like Peeksville said...trust the man who achieved our first promotion in 14 years and got us to a cup final.
I find it highly amusing when all the "experts" on here condemn a potential target before he's even signed, let alone kicked a ball for us. As Parky says...and I respect his opinion more than the "experts" on here...we need someone to come into the team straight away who is going to score goals, McLean fits the bill perfectly for this level and I have no doubt he'd do a job for us. Like Peeksville said...trust the man who achieved our first promotion in 14 years and got us to a cup final. spleen ventor
  • Score: 14

11:55am Mon 13 Jan 14

Plastic Bantam says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness.

The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.
The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request.

anything else you want to moan at?!
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.[/p][/quote]The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?! Plastic Bantam
  • Score: 4

12:01pm Mon 13 Jan 14

shaun from richmond says...

YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W
ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!.
YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!. shaun from richmond
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Mon 13 Jan 14

theoutsider says...

The obvious answer is to sign McLean on loan until the end of the season, with a option to sign full time. He is 30 but could still be very useful at level and is more physical than Well. Aaron McLean could lead the line on his own whereas Nahki tended to disappear when given that job spec.
The obvious answer is to sign McLean on loan until the end of the season, with a option to sign full time. He is 30 but could still be very useful at level and is more physical than Well. Aaron McLean could lead the line on his own whereas Nahki tended to disappear when given that job spec. theoutsider
  • Score: 5

12:21pm Mon 13 Jan 14

spleen ventor says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W

ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!.
YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from.
His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on.
John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?) spleen ventor
  • Score: 14

12:22pm Mon 13 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Plastic Bantam wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness.

The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.
The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request.

anything else you want to moan at?!
No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.
[quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.[/p][/quote]The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?![/p][/quote]No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous. bcfc1903
  • Score: 3

12:41pm Mon 13 Jan 14

doneBD4 says...

maybe we'll play the ball on the floor..... with this new guy coming in.
maybe we'll play the ball on the floor..... with this new guy coming in. doneBD4
  • Score: 1

12:56pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Olivermac says...

I am really surprised at Parky getting involved with an overaged player again after the bad experience with the likes of Gray having said that Jones has done city proud so it may well work out, would have liked to have tried for an attacking midfield player like Pritchard on loan at Swindon .
I am really surprised at Parky getting involved with an overaged player again after the bad experience with the likes of Gray having said that Jones has done city proud so it may well work out, would have liked to have tried for an attacking midfield player like Pritchard on loan at Swindon . Olivermac
  • Score: 2

12:57pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.
The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?!
No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.
Last season, away fans were allocated the two sections on Midland Road. I do not know what the number of seats in the area; 1,200 perhaps?

So what happens when the opposition has a large travelling support; say 3,000? What is your solution?
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.[/p][/quote]The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?![/p][/quote]No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.[/p][/quote]Last season, away fans were allocated the two sections on Midland Road. I do not know what the number of seats in the area; 1,200 perhaps? So what happens when the opposition has a large travelling support; say 3,000? What is your solution? Michael Clayton
  • Score: -1

1:01pm Mon 13 Jan 14

bantam10 says...

I would rather us sign somebody in their mid 20's on the up than somebody 30+ on the way down. Could we not see if somebody like Billy Paynter is available to sign.
I would rather us sign somebody in their mid 20's on the up than somebody 30+ on the way down. Could we not see if somebody like Billy Paynter is available to sign. bantam10
  • Score: -4

1:02pm Mon 13 Jan 14

shaun from richmond says...

spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W


ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!.
YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from.
His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on.
John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells basic...£1.5k a week, before his move........So you think a Premier league (striker) squad member is NOT on £4.5k a week??.
FOR GOODNESS SAKE....We are paying the "Phantom" Andy Gray over £2k a week........which was one of the reasons Wells left!!
[quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells basic...£1.5k a week, before his move........So you think a Premier league (striker) squad member is NOT on £4.5k a week??. FOR GOODNESS SAKE....We are paying the "Phantom" Andy Gray over £2k a week........which was one of the reasons Wells left!! shaun from richmond
  • Score: -1

1:03pm Mon 13 Jan 14

whisky1 says...

spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W


ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!.
YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from.
His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on.
John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
You have to remember Shaun is intellectually challenged. What NW was on is irrelevant ...what the TBs will be paying now is far beyond our reach. Whatever City do Shaun of the Dead will stick the boot in. Its perverse but he obviously gets off on it.
[quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]You have to remember Shaun is intellectually challenged. What NW was on is irrelevant ...what the TBs will be paying now is far beyond our reach. Whatever City do Shaun of the Dead will stick the boot in. Its perverse but he obviously gets off on it. whisky1
  • Score: 1

1:08pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Stevie-C says...

Peeksville wrote:
McLeans record at this level is great.
Parkinson said after the game on sat that we need someone to come straight in and score goals.
We have 2 young strikers in McBurnie and Clarkson.
Im gonna trust the man that got us promoted for the 1st time in 12 years and to a cup final for the 1st time in 100 years.
Well said Peaksville, 100% agree
[quote][p][bold]Peeksville[/bold] wrote: McLeans record at this level is great. Parkinson said after the game on sat that we need someone to come straight in and score goals. We have 2 young strikers in McBurnie and Clarkson. Im gonna trust the man that got us promoted for the 1st time in 12 years and to a cup final for the 1st time in 100 years.[/p][/quote]Well said Peaksville, 100% agree Stevie-C
  • Score: 6

1:17pm Mon 13 Jan 14

jamiejoe says...

spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that.

When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!!

Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ...

We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
[quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest. jamiejoe
  • Score: 3

1:22pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Tecnotronic says...

Leon Clarke has told Coventry he wants to leave.I know he is 28 put a great player an goal scorer.
Leon Clarke has told Coventry he wants to leave.I know he is 28 put a great player an goal scorer. Tecnotronic
  • Score: 1

1:26pm Mon 13 Jan 14

BradfordSportsFan says...

jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Very much agree with this!

Lawn's interview on Saturday was pathetic. "Wells wanted to go, and only to Hudds - what could we do??".

Errrrrmm....well ask Alan Pardew how they rejected Arsenal's bids for Cabaye which were lower than what they wanted. Or Ferguson why they rejected Heinze's move to Liverpool because Man U dont sell to their closest rivals!

Our chairmen bottled it unfortunately - haven't been as gutted as I was on Saturday for a long time. Think we're shafted either way here, so we either spend too much money on someone for a few years or take a cheap punt on someone we HOPE will score goals straight away.
[quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Very much agree with this! Lawn's interview on Saturday was pathetic. "Wells wanted to go, and only to Hudds - what could we do??". Errrrrmm....well ask Alan Pardew how they rejected Arsenal's bids for Cabaye which were lower than what they wanted. Or Ferguson why they rejected Heinze's move to Liverpool because Man U dont sell to their closest rivals! Our chairmen bottled it unfortunately - haven't been as gutted as I was on Saturday for a long time. Think we're shafted either way here, so we either spend too much money on someone for a few years or take a cheap punt on someone we HOPE will score goals straight away. BradfordSportsFan
  • Score: 2

1:28pm Mon 13 Jan 14

BradfordSportsFan says...

Tecnotronic wrote:
Leon Clarke has told Coventry he wants to leave.I know he is 28 put a great player an goal scorer.
Cov will demand a decent fee and will be on high wages.
From sounds of it their chairmen will probably hold out for for a fee that they are happy with, and not settle early for a massive discount like we did.
[quote][p][bold]Tecnotronic[/bold] wrote: Leon Clarke has told Coventry he wants to leave.I know he is 28 put a great player an goal scorer.[/p][/quote]Cov will demand a decent fee and will be on high wages. From sounds of it their chairmen will probably hold out for for a fee that they are happy with, and not settle early for a massive discount like we did. BradfordSportsFan
  • Score: 2

1:34pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Babbsy says...

McLean won't have the sell on value that Nahki had, but it's pretty much guaranteed that he'll score goals at this level, and plenty. If he does, and we do get to the Championship, his ability in that league won't be of as much importance as we'll have an £8M windfall from bein there anyway, so reinforcements shouldn't be as much of an issue. To be fair I wouldn't worry too much about his form from the past couple of seasons as he's not had much of a sniff at Hull - If you are checking wikipedia for his record, it won't tell you that the vast majority of those appearances for them were from the bench.

Huddersfield have just bouight themselves guaranteed goals. We need to do the same, and I'm confident McLean would be that man. Now is not the time for taking on unproven players who may sink or swim - We need a man who can appear for us in an Olympic Final!
McLean won't have the sell on value that Nahki had, but it's pretty much guaranteed that he'll score goals at this level, and plenty. If he does, and we do get to the Championship, his ability in that league won't be of as much importance as we'll have an £8M windfall from bein there anyway, so reinforcements shouldn't be as much of an issue. To be fair I wouldn't worry too much about his form from the past couple of seasons as he's not had much of a sniff at Hull - If you are checking wikipedia for his record, it won't tell you that the vast majority of those appearances for them were from the bench. Huddersfield have just bouight themselves guaranteed goals. We need to do the same, and I'm confident McLean would be that man. Now is not the time for taking on unproven players who may sink or swim - We need a man who can appear for us in an Olympic Final! Babbsy
  • Score: 10

1:42pm Mon 13 Jan 14

jamiejoe says...

whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that?

i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ...

It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ... jamiejoe
  • Score: 0

2:08pm Mon 13 Jan 14

macca1969 says...

BradfordSportsFan wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Very much agree with this!

Lawn's interview on Saturday was pathetic. "Wells wanted to go, and only to Hudds - what could we do??".

Errrrrmm....well ask Alan Pardew how they rejected Arsenal's bids for Cabaye which were lower than what they wanted. Or Ferguson why they rejected Heinze's move to Liverpool because Man U dont sell to their closest rivals!

Our chairmen bottled it unfortunately - haven't been as gutted as I was on Saturday for a long time. Think we're shafted either way here, so we either spend too much money on someone for a few years or take a cheap punt on someone we HOPE will score goals straight away.
That is exactly how I feel. Mark lawn should have played hard ball end of. All players like those you mention and a certain suarez will always try hoodwink the club. Difference is their boards stood strong and looked after their interest whilst ours bottled it and sold to the lowest bidder
[quote][p][bold]BradfordSportsFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Very much agree with this! Lawn's interview on Saturday was pathetic. "Wells wanted to go, and only to Hudds - what could we do??". Errrrrmm....well ask Alan Pardew how they rejected Arsenal's bids for Cabaye which were lower than what they wanted. Or Ferguson why they rejected Heinze's move to Liverpool because Man U dont sell to their closest rivals! Our chairmen bottled it unfortunately - haven't been as gutted as I was on Saturday for a long time. Think we're shafted either way here, so we either spend too much money on someone for a few years or take a cheap punt on someone we HOPE will score goals straight away.[/p][/quote]That is exactly how I feel. Mark lawn should have played hard ball end of. All players like those you mention and a certain suarez will always try hoodwink the club. Difference is their boards stood strong and looked after their interest whilst ours bottled it and sold to the lowest bidder macca1969
  • Score: 1

2:31pm Mon 13 Jan 14

whisky1 says...

jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that?

i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ...

It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
[quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe. whisky1
  • Score: 13

2:31pm Mon 13 Jan 14

lawsonio123 says...

A Lot of comment i still say go for SAM WINNAL. BUT Mr PARKINSON knows what he is doing i hope he is given a free hand with the money he is given Do not judge him until you see what he does. He is a good Manager who up to now has only been able to sign Free Transfers so it is a little unfair to blame him if some of them did not work out. i have defended you Mr Parkinson Please buy Sam Winnal
A Lot of comment i still say go for SAM WINNAL. BUT Mr PARKINSON knows what he is doing i hope he is given a free hand with the money he is given Do not judge him until you see what he does. He is a good Manager who up to now has only been able to sign Free Transfers so it is a little unfair to blame him if some of them did not work out. i have defended you Mr Parkinson Please buy Sam Winnal lawsonio123
  • Score: 1

2:41pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Plastic Bantam says...

Tecnotronic wrote:
Leon Clarke has told Coventry he wants to leave.I know he is 28 put a great player an goal scorer.
Trouble maker who moves about more than my bowels after one of Bradfords finest... Stay well away
[quote][p][bold]Tecnotronic[/bold] wrote: Leon Clarke has told Coventry he wants to leave.I know he is 28 put a great player an goal scorer.[/p][/quote]Trouble maker who moves about more than my bowels after one of Bradfords finest... Stay well away Plastic Bantam
  • Score: 5

2:53pm Mon 13 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that?

i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ...

It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn?
he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront!
some businessman!
we only have his word that wells refused to join another club.
if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!! tinytoonster
  • Score: -12

3:01pm Mon 13 Jan 14

tyker7745 says...

we are supposed to be interested in signing a young irish under 21 player from Dagenham and Redbridge; he has scored 12 goals this season. This I the sort of payer we should be going for: young, potential and possible add on value
we are supposed to be interested in signing a young irish under 21 player from Dagenham and Redbridge; he has scored 12 goals this season. This I the sort of payer we should be going for: young, potential and possible add on value tyker7745
  • Score: 7

3:08pm Mon 13 Jan 14

jamiejoe says...

tinytoonster wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ...

I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so.

Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer.

I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!![/p][/quote]... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch. jamiejoe
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Mon 13 Jan 14

jackez20591 says...

Aaron Mclean and Rhys Murphy. That would be a fantastic january.
Aaron Mclean and Rhys Murphy. That would be a fantastic january. jackez20591
  • Score: 5

3:59pm Mon 13 Jan 14

whisky1 says...

jamiejoe wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ...

I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so.

Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer.

I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.
Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight
[quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!![/p][/quote]... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.[/p][/quote]Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight whisky1
  • Score: 6

4:02pm Mon 13 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.
The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?!
No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.
Last season, away fans were allocated the two sections on Midland Road. I do not know what the number of seats in the area; 1,200 perhaps?

So what happens when the opposition has a large travelling support; say 3,000? What is your solution?
Same thing that happened when we played Arsenal and Aston Villa and a few other teams, you allocate the whole Midland Road stand to the away fans, it worked well for many years. We had the most successful season for years and BCFC change the dynamic of the ground, incredibly stupid as was not keeping the hoops, as was berating the football league(even in jest) for not asking BCFC for a reference in regards to Shaun Harvey's job in that institution. Three incredibly stupid decisions coming from the club, the latter being the worst of all, as the quip had arrogance written all over it.
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.[/p][/quote]The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?![/p][/quote]No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.[/p][/quote]Last season, away fans were allocated the two sections on Midland Road. I do not know what the number of seats in the area; 1,200 perhaps? So what happens when the opposition has a large travelling support; say 3,000? What is your solution?[/p][/quote]Same thing that happened when we played Arsenal and Aston Villa and a few other teams, you allocate the whole Midland Road stand to the away fans, it worked well for many years. We had the most successful season for years and BCFC change the dynamic of the ground, incredibly stupid as was not keeping the hoops, as was berating the football league(even in jest) for not asking BCFC for a reference in regards to Shaun Harvey's job in that institution. Three incredibly stupid decisions coming from the club, the latter being the worst of all, as the quip had arrogance written all over it. bcfc1903
  • Score: -4

4:09pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Bradford Lad BD9 says...

Great Stuff
Great Stuff Bradford Lad BD9
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Mon 13 Jan 14

shaun from richmond says...

whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ...

I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so.

Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer.

I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.
Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight
BALDWIN??
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!![/p][/quote]... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.[/p][/quote]Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight[/p][/quote]BALDWIN?? shaun from richmond
  • Score: -2

4:23pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Pablo says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W



ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!.
YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from.
His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on.
John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells basic...£1.5k a week, before his move........So you think a Premier league (striker) squad member is NOT on £4.5k a week??.
FOR GOODNESS SAKE....We are paying the "Phantom" Andy Gray over £2k a week........which was one of the reasons Wells left!!
It has consistently been reported that Wells joined the club on £15,000 per annum and his contract at date of leaving was £65,000. I would imagine McLean will be earning at least EIGHT times that figure a Hull. Is he eight times the player?
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells basic...£1.5k a week, before his move........So you think a Premier league (striker) squad member is NOT on £4.5k a week??. FOR GOODNESS SAKE....We are paying the "Phantom" Andy Gray over £2k a week........which was one of the reasons Wells left!![/p][/quote]It has consistently been reported that Wells joined the club on £15,000 per annum and his contract at date of leaving was £65,000. I would imagine McLean will be earning at least EIGHT times that figure a Hull. Is he eight times the player? Pablo
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.
The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?!
No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.
Last season, away fans were allocated the two sections on Midland Road. I do not know what the number of seats in the area; 1,200 perhaps? So what happens when the opposition has a large travelling support; say 3,000? What is your solution?
Same thing that happened when we played Arsenal and Aston Villa and a few other teams, you allocate the whole Midland Road stand to the away fans, it worked well for many years. We had the most successful season for years and BCFC change the dynamic of the ground, incredibly stupid as was not keeping the hoops, as was berating the football league(even in jest) for not asking BCFC for a reference in regards to Shaun Harvey's job in that institution. Three incredibly stupid decisions coming from the club, the latter being the worst of all, as the quip had arrogance written all over it.
The people most affected by your proposal would be the season ticket holders sat on Midland Road.

However, and all things considered, I think it would be a lot less complicated if all away followers were housed in one stand (i.e. Midland Road) rather than the hotchpotch that currently exists.

Those displaced could be given the option of sitting in the top half of the main stand.

As for the kit, I read somewhere that it is Nike who are responsible for the design and production and that the club has limited powers in this respect.
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.[/p][/quote]The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?![/p][/quote]No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.[/p][/quote]Last season, away fans were allocated the two sections on Midland Road. I do not know what the number of seats in the area; 1,200 perhaps? So what happens when the opposition has a large travelling support; say 3,000? What is your solution?[/p][/quote]Same thing that happened when we played Arsenal and Aston Villa and a few other teams, you allocate the whole Midland Road stand to the away fans, it worked well for many years. We had the most successful season for years and BCFC change the dynamic of the ground, incredibly stupid as was not keeping the hoops, as was berating the football league(even in jest) for not asking BCFC for a reference in regards to Shaun Harvey's job in that institution. Three incredibly stupid decisions coming from the club, the latter being the worst of all, as the quip had arrogance written all over it.[/p][/quote]The people most affected by your proposal would be the season ticket holders sat on Midland Road. However, and all things considered, I think it would be a lot less complicated if all away followers were housed in one stand (i.e. Midland Road) rather than the hotchpotch that currently exists. Those displaced could be given the option of sitting in the top half of the main stand. As for the kit, I read somewhere that it is Nike who are responsible for the design and production and that the club has limited powers in this respect. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 1

4:34pm Mon 13 Jan 14

whisky1 says...

Wells is on his way up...Mcclean with the greatest respect does not have the same bargaining power at his stage of career. Wells will be on a significantly better contract (reported as 7.5 k plus bonuses)
Wells is on his way up...Mcclean with the greatest respect does not have the same bargaining power at his stage of career. Wells will be on a significantly better contract (reported as 7.5 k plus bonuses) whisky1
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.
Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight
BALDWIN??
Yes Shaun. He made a fortune out of casual wear.
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!![/p][/quote]... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.[/p][/quote]Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight[/p][/quote]BALDWIN??[/p][/quote]Yes Shaun. He made a fortune out of casual wear. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 2

4:37pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

Pablo wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells basic...£1.5k a week, before his move........So you think a Premier league (striker) squad member is NOT on £4.5k a week??. FOR GOODNESS SAKE....We are paying the "Phantom" Andy Gray over £2k a week........which was one of the reasons Wells left!!
It has consistently been reported that Wells joined the club on £15,000 per annum and his contract at date of leaving was £65,000. I would imagine McLean will be earning at least EIGHT times that figure a Hull. Is he eight times the player?
Where are these figures reported?
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells basic...£1.5k a week, before his move........So you think a Premier league (striker) squad member is NOT on £4.5k a week??. FOR GOODNESS SAKE....We are paying the "Phantom" Andy Gray over £2k a week........which was one of the reasons Wells left!![/p][/quote]It has consistently been reported that Wells joined the club on £15,000 per annum and his contract at date of leaving was £65,000. I would imagine McLean will be earning at least EIGHT times that figure a Hull. Is he eight times the player?[/p][/quote]Where are these figures reported? Michael Clayton
  • Score: 1

4:38pm Mon 13 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Would not be rushing into any deal, it has to be right for BCFC, if McLean is asking for too much then move on to someone else. BCFC are in a reasonable position in the league, keep cool and get the right acquisition to the squad. We don't need a Carbone type transfer which upsets the dynamic of the squad, obviously whoever comes wont be on £40,000 a week lol but whoever does sign , he needs to fit in with the BCFC wage structure..
Would not be rushing into any deal, it has to be right for BCFC, if McLean is asking for too much then move on to someone else. BCFC are in a reasonable position in the league, keep cool and get the right acquisition to the squad. We don't need a Carbone type transfer which upsets the dynamic of the squad, obviously whoever comes wont be on £40,000 a week lol but whoever does sign , he needs to fit in with the BCFC wage structure.. bcfc1903
  • Score: 4

4:51pm Mon 13 Jan 14

mrmuzzy says...

I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season.
True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition.
Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend.
really can't see it happening though.
all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight. mrmuzzy
  • Score: -1

5:05pm Mon 13 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Plastic Bantam wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.
The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?!
No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.
Last season, away fans were allocated the two sections on Midland Road. I do not know what the number of seats in the area; 1,200 perhaps? So what happens when the opposition has a large travelling support; say 3,000? What is your solution?
Same thing that happened when we played Arsenal and Aston Villa and a few other teams, you allocate the whole Midland Road stand to the away fans, it worked well for many years. We had the most successful season for years and BCFC change the dynamic of the ground, incredibly stupid as was not keeping the hoops, as was berating the football league(even in jest) for not asking BCFC for a reference in regards to Shaun Harvey's job in that institution. Three incredibly stupid decisions coming from the club, the latter being the worst of all, as the quip had arrogance written all over it.
The people most affected by your proposal would be the season ticket holders sat on Midland Road.

However, and all things considered, I think it would be a lot less complicated if all away followers were housed in one stand (i.e. Midland Road) rather than the hotchpotch that currently exists.

Those displaced could be given the option of sitting in the top half of the main stand.

As for the kit, I read somewhere that it is Nike who are responsible for the design and production and that the club has limited powers in this respect.
Surely Nike must do an hooped kit, if this is the case then BCFC could have had a Claret and Amber hooped kit. I'd be absolutely staggered if it was proved otherwise.

Regarding the Midland Road Stand, surely a nice sweetener for those displaced as you suggest is not beyond the wit of those running the club. The dynamic in the ground has totally changed and so has the atmosphere recently. Valley Parade is big enough to have BCFC fans behind both goals, why give away teams any advantage, a poor poor decision by those running the club, Lawn should have stuck to his idea for the Bradford End instead of rolling over which is becoming the norm at the club, another example was the Wells transfer. A lot more clear thinking and backbone needs to be shown by those running our football club than what is on display at the minute.
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: McLean may be a good signing if it comes off, what the club doesn't need to do is let Wells who is young go at a cut price and pay McLean over the odds, that would be economic madness. The fantastic hoops should return next season, BCFC fans should return to the Bradford End, absolute lunacy to have changed the layout of the ground after such a fantastic season, if it isn't broke don't fix it, a goal-den own goal scored by the club. Also, whoever chelped about Shaun Harvey's new job at the football league and the lack of the FL asking for a reference from Bradford, a brain dead comment, and of course LUFC would have made that comment known to the football league, using it as a cooler as we were flying at the time that comment came into the public domain. Absolute arrogant stupidity from someone at Bradford City Football Club.[/p][/quote]The club was very clear in it's point of putting away fans in Bradford End.. It was at the police's request. anything else you want to moan at?![/p][/quote]No it wasn't a police request, it was a decision made by the club, one that needs to be reversed. The idea that it's 'safer' having two stands to police instead of one when a big following is in Valley Parade is clearly ludicrous.[/p][/quote]Last season, away fans were allocated the two sections on Midland Road. I do not know what the number of seats in the area; 1,200 perhaps? So what happens when the opposition has a large travelling support; say 3,000? What is your solution?[/p][/quote]Same thing that happened when we played Arsenal and Aston Villa and a few other teams, you allocate the whole Midland Road stand to the away fans, it worked well for many years. We had the most successful season for years and BCFC change the dynamic of the ground, incredibly stupid as was not keeping the hoops, as was berating the football league(even in jest) for not asking BCFC for a reference in regards to Shaun Harvey's job in that institution. Three incredibly stupid decisions coming from the club, the latter being the worst of all, as the quip had arrogance written all over it.[/p][/quote]The people most affected by your proposal would be the season ticket holders sat on Midland Road. However, and all things considered, I think it would be a lot less complicated if all away followers were housed in one stand (i.e. Midland Road) rather than the hotchpotch that currently exists. Those displaced could be given the option of sitting in the top half of the main stand. As for the kit, I read somewhere that it is Nike who are responsible for the design and production and that the club has limited powers in this respect.[/p][/quote]Surely Nike must do an hooped kit, if this is the case then BCFC could have had a Claret and Amber hooped kit. I'd be absolutely staggered if it was proved otherwise. Regarding the Midland Road Stand, surely a nice sweetener for those displaced as you suggest is not beyond the wit of those running the club. The dynamic in the ground has totally changed and so has the atmosphere recently. Valley Parade is big enough to have BCFC fans behind both goals, why give away teams any advantage, a poor poor decision by those running the club, Lawn should have stuck to his idea for the Bradford End instead of rolling over which is becoming the norm at the club, another example was the Wells transfer. A lot more clear thinking and backbone needs to be shown by those running our football club than what is on display at the minute. bcfc1903
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Pablo says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season.
True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition.
Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend.
really can't see it happening though.
all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power! Pablo
  • Score: 1

5:10pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Tecnotronic says...

Yorkshire Post.
Bradford City are understood to be monitoring Dagenham & Redbridge forward Rhys Murphy.

Murphy, 23, has scored 12 goals in 25 appearances for Dagenham after joining them at the start of the season from Dutch club Telstar.
Yorkshire Post. Bradford City are understood to be monitoring Dagenham & Redbridge forward Rhys Murphy. Murphy, 23, has scored 12 goals in 25 appearances for Dagenham after joining them at the start of the season from Dutch club Telstar. Tecnotronic
  • Score: 2

5:24pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Cityman23 says...

Peter300 wrote:
Cityman23 wrote:
My opinion and others will no doubt disagree . To be honest I know nothing about Aaron McLean but I do wonder about the wisdom of going for a 30 yr old striker to replace a player who was in his early twenties. I'd prefer bringing in players between 22-28 yrs of age unless there's some special mitigating reason(s).

We are obviously 'building' for next season now (assuming that relegation is out of the question which it should certainly be) and it would be good to think in terms of building a side which could stay together for a few years.
Doesn't really happen though does it? So you would say 'no' to Gary Jones? Shame that, because I think he's been a good signing for City. Still, you cannot please everyone.
When it comes to 'striker' I think age is important. Midfielders/Defender
s, it's a bit different and a wise 'old head' can of course be a great boon.(as Jones is). Jones and Thompson have both been worthwhile signings but 'up front' it definitely gets a lot harder, moving into the 30s.

I recall, the player commented about above, John McGinley, arriving at City, with much fanfare. At Bolton he'd been a prolific striker and even appeared a few times for Scotland. However, with us he just started slowly and never got going. He was on big wages for that time too. He goes down as a 'mistake.' Yet, we all thought at the time he was a terrific 'capture.' Of course every case is different, but I for one would NOT like to be spending a lot of the 'Nahki Wells money' on such a player. If McLean is available for little financial outlay, that might be more desirable but of course Hull know we've got cash just waiting to be spent and they'll be wanting some of it.

If I was disappointed with anything on Saturday, it was that Clarkson was brought on a sub. It was the perfect game for him to make 'an entrance.'We need to know what/if anything is offered by Connell, Clarkson, and Gray BEFORE spending money on a new striker. We do know what Hanson/McBurnie give us.
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: My opinion and others will no doubt disagree . To be honest I know nothing about Aaron McLean but I do wonder about the wisdom of going for a 30 yr old striker to replace a player who was in his early twenties. I'd prefer bringing in players between 22-28 yrs of age unless there's some special mitigating reason(s). We are obviously 'building' for next season now (assuming that relegation is out of the question which it should certainly be) and it would be good to think in terms of building a side which could stay together for a few years.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really happen though does it? So you would say 'no' to Gary Jones? Shame that, because I think he's been a good signing for City. Still, you cannot please everyone.[/p][/quote]When it comes to 'striker' I think age is important. Midfielders/Defender s, it's a bit different and a wise 'old head' can of course be a great boon.(as Jones is). Jones and Thompson have both been worthwhile signings but 'up front' it definitely gets a lot harder, moving into the 30s. I recall, the player commented about above, John McGinley, arriving at City, with much fanfare. At Bolton he'd been a prolific striker and even appeared a few times for Scotland. However, with us he just started slowly and never got going. He was on big wages for that time too. He goes down as a 'mistake.' Yet, we all thought at the time he was a terrific 'capture.' Of course every case is different, but I for one would NOT like to be spending a lot of the 'Nahki Wells money' on such a player. If McLean is available for little financial outlay, that might be more desirable but of course Hull know we've got cash just waiting to be spent and they'll be wanting some of it. If I was disappointed with anything on Saturday, it was that Clarkson was brought on a sub. It was the perfect game for him to make 'an entrance.'We need to know what/if anything is offered by Connell, Clarkson, and Gray BEFORE spending money on a new striker. We do know what Hanson/McBurnie give us. Cityman23
  • Score: -1

5:27pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Cityman23 says...

Correction: " ..disappointed...Cla
rkson WASN'T brought on as a sub."
Correction: " ..disappointed...Cla rkson WASN'T brought on as a sub." Cityman23
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Mon 13 Jan 14

markthemenace says...

Can we please put the Well's transfer to bed once & for all!

He was tapped up by the dog botherers long before the January transfer window, after the cup game at their place. He wasn't bothered how much city were going to make out of him because he had been promised 7k a week + bonuses for 4 1/2 years. City were going to offer another 1 year extension to his 18 month contract on 5k a week. Do the sums......no brainer really.

If you were offered a pay rise at work of £100,000 a year, what would you do?

Not so much him wanting to go play for the DB's but the big teams he will be playing against & grounds he will be visiting in the championship. Scoring goals in this league at big grounds will put him in the shop window for a bigger move. Forget the 4 1/2 year contract if he bangs goals in rest of the season he could be gone before next season!
Don't get me wrong if he dosn't get the goals it could be a disaster & he might end up back in league 2.
Can we please put the Well's transfer to bed once & for all! He was tapped up by the dog botherers long before the January transfer window, after the cup game at their place. He wasn't bothered how much city were going to make out of him because he had been promised 7k a week + bonuses for 4 1/2 years. City were going to offer another 1 year extension to his 18 month contract on 5k a week. Do the sums......no brainer really. If you were offered a pay rise at work of £100,000 a year, what would you do? Not so much him wanting to go play for the DB's but the big teams he will be playing against & grounds he will be visiting in the championship. Scoring goals in this league at big grounds will put him in the shop window for a bigger move. Forget the 4 1/2 year contract if he bangs goals in rest of the season he could be gone before next season! Don't get me wrong if he dosn't get the goals it could be a disaster & he might end up back in league 2. markthemenace
  • Score: 5

5:34pm Mon 13 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season.
True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition.
Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend.
really can't see it happening though.
all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
twaddle.
he was not sulking, just upset that he's banging in the goals for less than £1500 a week while gray gets over £2000 for nothing!
how would you feel about that if that was the case in your job?
maybe the rest of the lads feel the same and that could be why form is poor?
no home win since sept so technically most of the season?!
just a thought instead of berating someone who probably cannot respond.
no doubt lawn made him sign a confidentiality contract like jacko.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]twaddle. he was not sulking, just upset that he's banging in the goals for less than £1500 a week while gray gets over £2000 for nothing! how would you feel about that if that was the case in your job? maybe the rest of the lads feel the same and that could be why form is poor? no home win since sept so technically most of the season?! just a thought instead of berating someone who probably cannot respond. no doubt lawn made him sign a confidentiality contract like jacko. tinytoonster
  • Score: -4

5:37pm Mon 13 Jan 14

dannbradfc says...

Peter300 wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages.

Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray.....

Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc

Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....
Ha, ha, ha, you're the one panicking. Andy Gray could not get in the side due to the form of James Hanson. Yet you complain about this. I don't think you are right about injuries either.
Its your mind thats injured i feel........i can spot a mentalist from a mile away
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages. Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray..... Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....[/p][/quote]Ha, ha, ha, you're the one panicking. Andy Gray could not get in the side due to the form of James Hanson. Yet you complain about this. I don't think you are right about injuries either.[/p][/quote]Its your mind thats injured i feel........i can spot a mentalist from a mile away dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Mon 13 Jan 14

dannbradfc says...

spleen ventor wrote:
I find it highly amusing when all the "experts" on here condemn a potential target before he's even signed, let alone kicked a ball for us.
As Parky says...and I respect his opinion more than the "experts" on here...we need someone to come into the team straight away who is going to score goals, McLean fits the bill perfectly for this level and I have no doubt he'd do a job for us.
Like Peeksville said...trust the man who achieved our first promotion in 14 years and got us to a cup final.
No ones condemning anyone. They are rightly questioning the signing of someone over thirty. Jones has been a great successs but Gray for instance hasn't. Thus theres risk involved. Parky has had what can be considered some recent unsuccesful signings. gray been a prime example.

With our limitations on finances every penny counts and signings must work out rather than not. Maclean should be great at this level but the point is for how long? In our position the ability to potentially sell on etc becomes a consideration. When i suggested young players higher up i wasn't asking for youth players just perhaps getting someone in their early twenties. perhaps someone in a premiership reserves etc whose way is blocked. If Connell leaves we have room for both in time. McBurnie is showing great composure and his future looks bright. He doesn;t have pace thus needs to fill out a bit to play to his strengths i feel.

Get a right winger in whose our own eventually and perhaps an attacking midfielder to come of the bench and we will have used the money wisely.

We will hopefully get at least 2 n half good seasons out of Maclean and i for one am looking forward to seeing him. His record recently isnt brilliant if you look but at a lower level he will hopefully get back to his goal feats of earlier.......
[quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: I find it highly amusing when all the "experts" on here condemn a potential target before he's even signed, let alone kicked a ball for us. As Parky says...and I respect his opinion more than the "experts" on here...we need someone to come into the team straight away who is going to score goals, McLean fits the bill perfectly for this level and I have no doubt he'd do a job for us. Like Peeksville said...trust the man who achieved our first promotion in 14 years and got us to a cup final.[/p][/quote]No ones condemning anyone. They are rightly questioning the signing of someone over thirty. Jones has been a great successs but Gray for instance hasn't. Thus theres risk involved. Parky has had what can be considered some recent unsuccesful signings. gray been a prime example. With our limitations on finances every penny counts and signings must work out rather than not. Maclean should be great at this level but the point is for how long? In our position the ability to potentially sell on etc becomes a consideration. When i suggested young players higher up i wasn't asking for youth players just perhaps getting someone in their early twenties. perhaps someone in a premiership reserves etc whose way is blocked. If Connell leaves we have room for both in time. McBurnie is showing great composure and his future looks bright. He doesn;t have pace thus needs to fill out a bit to play to his strengths i feel. Get a right winger in whose our own eventually and perhaps an attacking midfielder to come of the bench and we will have used the money wisely. We will hopefully get at least 2 n half good seasons out of Maclean and i for one am looking forward to seeing him. His record recently isnt brilliant if you look but at a lower level he will hopefully get back to his goal feats of earlier....... dannbradfc
  • Score: -1

5:55pm Mon 13 Jan 14

shaun from richmond says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.
Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight
BALDWIN??
Yes Shaun. He made a fortune out of casual wear.
REALLY!....When you say a fortune?
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!![/p][/quote]... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.[/p][/quote]Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight[/p][/quote]BALDWIN??[/p][/quote]Yes Shaun. He made a fortune out of casual wear.[/p][/quote]REALLY!....When you say a fortune? shaun from richmond
  • Score: -3

5:56pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Pablo says...

tinytoonster wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season.
True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition.
Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend.
really can't see it happening though.
all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
twaddle.
he was not sulking, just upset that he's banging in the goals for less than £1500 a week while gray gets over £2000 for nothing!
how would you feel about that if that was the case in your job?
maybe the rest of the lads feel the same and that could be why form is poor?
no home win since sept so technically most of the season?!
just a thought instead of berating someone who probably cannot respond.
no doubt lawn made him sign a confidentiality contract like jacko.
So you're agreeing with PP that he was sulking, but you think it was because Andy Gray got paid more than him!
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]twaddle. he was not sulking, just upset that he's banging in the goals for less than £1500 a week while gray gets over £2000 for nothing! how would you feel about that if that was the case in your job? maybe the rest of the lads feel the same and that could be why form is poor? no home win since sept so technically most of the season?! just a thought instead of berating someone who probably cannot respond. no doubt lawn made him sign a confidentiality contract like jacko.[/p][/quote]So you're agreeing with PP that he was sulking, but you think it was because Andy Gray got paid more than him! Pablo
  • Score: 4

6:10pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents.

Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows?

But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player.

Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker.

This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October.

This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key.

Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad.

However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season.

As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game.

Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 3

6:13pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.
Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight
BALDWIN??
Yes Shaun. He made a fortune out of casual wear.
REALLY!....When you say a fortune?
Yes Shaun. He used to be on TV every Monday and Wednesday.
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!![/p][/quote]... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.[/p][/quote]Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight[/p][/quote]BALDWIN??[/p][/quote]Yes Shaun. He made a fortune out of casual wear.[/p][/quote]REALLY!....When you say a fortune?[/p][/quote]Yes Shaun. He used to be on TV every Monday and Wednesday. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 2

6:13pm Mon 13 Jan 14

lawsonio123 says...

Tecnotronic wrote:
Yorkshire Post.
Bradford City are understood to be monitoring Dagenham & Redbridge forward Rhys Murphy.

Murphy, 23, has scored 12 goals in 25 appearances for Dagenham after joining them at the start of the season from Dutch club Telstar.
We are talking of a young player here with a Div 2 club hope we are not seeing something on the cheap for he has little or no record as such. Hope we are not returning to sell but no investment again if so Parky will be sick if his hands are tied maybe it is just a some paper talk
[quote][p][bold]Tecnotronic[/bold] wrote: Yorkshire Post. Bradford City are understood to be monitoring Dagenham & Redbridge forward Rhys Murphy. Murphy, 23, has scored 12 goals in 25 appearances for Dagenham after joining them at the start of the season from Dutch club Telstar.[/p][/quote]We are talking of a young player here with a Div 2 club hope we are not seeing something on the cheap for he has little or no record as such. Hope we are not returning to sell but no investment again if so Parky will be sick if his hands are tied maybe it is just a some paper talk lawsonio123
  • Score: -3

6:16pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Pablo says...

dannbradfc wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
I find it highly amusing when all the "experts" on here condemn a potential target before he's even signed, let alone kicked a ball for us.
As Parky says...and I respect his opinion more than the "experts" on here...we need someone to come into the team straight away who is going to score goals, McLean fits the bill perfectly for this level and I have no doubt he'd do a job for us.
Like Peeksville said...trust the man who achieved our first promotion in 14 years and got us to a cup final.
No ones condemning anyone. They are rightly questioning the signing of someone over thirty. Jones has been a great successs but Gray for instance hasn't. Thus theres risk involved. Parky has had what can be considered some recent unsuccesful signings. gray been a prime example.

With our limitations on finances every penny counts and signings must work out rather than not. Maclean should be great at this level but the point is for how long? In our position the ability to potentially sell on etc becomes a consideration. When i suggested young players higher up i wasn't asking for youth players just perhaps getting someone in their early twenties. perhaps someone in a premiership reserves etc whose way is blocked. If Connell leaves we have room for both in time. McBurnie is showing great composure and his future looks bright. He doesn;t have pace thus needs to fill out a bit to play to his strengths i feel.

Get a right winger in whose our own eventually and perhaps an attacking midfielder to come of the bench and we will have used the money wisely.

We will hopefully get at least 2 n half good seasons out of Maclean and i for one am looking forward to seeing him. His record recently isnt brilliant if you look but at a lower level he will hopefully get back to his goal feats of earlier.......
I don't envy PP with the Wells replacement. There's no guarantee with any signing, regardless of pedigree. If the newcomer doesn't possess the lightning pace and reactions of Nahki, we'll need to change our style of play.
From those options stated, I agree that McLean sounds like the safest alternative, but a potentially costly one!
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: I find it highly amusing when all the "experts" on here condemn a potential target before he's even signed, let alone kicked a ball for us. As Parky says...and I respect his opinion more than the "experts" on here...we need someone to come into the team straight away who is going to score goals, McLean fits the bill perfectly for this level and I have no doubt he'd do a job for us. Like Peeksville said...trust the man who achieved our first promotion in 14 years and got us to a cup final.[/p][/quote]No ones condemning anyone. They are rightly questioning the signing of someone over thirty. Jones has been a great successs but Gray for instance hasn't. Thus theres risk involved. Parky has had what can be considered some recent unsuccesful signings. gray been a prime example. With our limitations on finances every penny counts and signings must work out rather than not. Maclean should be great at this level but the point is for how long? In our position the ability to potentially sell on etc becomes a consideration. When i suggested young players higher up i wasn't asking for youth players just perhaps getting someone in their early twenties. perhaps someone in a premiership reserves etc whose way is blocked. If Connell leaves we have room for both in time. McBurnie is showing great composure and his future looks bright. He doesn;t have pace thus needs to fill out a bit to play to his strengths i feel. Get a right winger in whose our own eventually and perhaps an attacking midfielder to come of the bench and we will have used the money wisely. We will hopefully get at least 2 n half good seasons out of Maclean and i for one am looking forward to seeing him. His record recently isnt brilliant if you look but at a lower level he will hopefully get back to his goal feats of earlier.......[/p][/quote]I don't envy PP with the Wells replacement. There's no guarantee with any signing, regardless of pedigree. If the newcomer doesn't possess the lightning pace and reactions of Nahki, we'll need to change our style of play. From those options stated, I agree that McLean sounds like the safest alternative, but a potentially costly one! Pablo
  • Score: 1

6:21pm Mon 13 Jan 14

nowt fresh says...

Danger Mouse Bantam wrote:
Lee Gregory from Halifax and Jay Emmanuel Thomas are the other two names in the frame!
Jay Emmanuel Thomas who ever gave you that info wants to start taking more water in his whiskey, anyone who saw him on Saturday run the show for Bristol City must realise we could not afford his transfer fee never mind his wages !!.
[quote][p][bold]Danger Mouse Bantam[/bold] wrote: Lee Gregory from Halifax and Jay Emmanuel Thomas are the other two names in the frame![/p][/quote]Jay Emmanuel Thomas who ever gave you that info wants to start taking more water in his whiskey, anyone who saw him on Saturday run the show for Bristol City must realise we could not afford his transfer fee never mind his wages !!. nowt fresh
  • Score: 3

6:22pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

dannbradfc wrote:
Peter300 wrote:
dannbradfc wrote: I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages. Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray..... Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....
Ha, ha, ha, you're the one panicking. Andy Gray could not get in the side due to the form of James Hanson. Yet you complain about this. I don't think you are right about injuries either.
Its your mind thats injured i feel........i can spot a mentalist from a mile away
Judging by some of the contestants on here, you should be able to spot a mentalist. After all, you are sat amongst 8,000 of them (mentalists that is) on a regular match day.
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages. Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray..... Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....[/p][/quote]Ha, ha, ha, you're the one panicking. Andy Gray could not get in the side due to the form of James Hanson. Yet you complain about this. I don't think you are right about injuries either.[/p][/quote]Its your mind thats injured i feel........i can spot a mentalist from a mile away[/p][/quote]Judging by some of the contestants on here, you should be able to spot a mentalist. After all, you are sat amongst 8,000 of them (mentalists that is) on a regular match day. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Mon 13 Jan 14

lookonthebrightside says...

It is very rare that I comment on articles on here, but I feel the need to as some of the things I have read today are beyond belief.

Some of the peopel on this 'forum' astound me with their lack of common sense, reality, optimism, judgement and sometimes 5. Not to mention the attention seekers who say stuff like "iknow this or i know that2 but then fail to offer any real form of proof as to how theu know these things.

So in the interest of washing away my disbelief, here goes:

1) I am actually an aqauintice of McLean, like I am of Folan, so from a personal point of view I would like to see him come to 'my' club and do well for us, because as a fan I want us to continue our climb.

(Fans head on) It is however a risk/gamble to sign a 30 Year old, but so is signing a young striker with no history. What has to be taken into consideration when discussing McLean though, are external factors that potentially havnt been his fault over the last 2 seasons. Injuries, not being in the managers plans etc (lets not forget Wells was deemed not good enough by Carlise before we got him).

You can also consider players like Thorne. Was he not a gamble?? Look how that turned out. Did Chelski see Torres as a gamble? Prob not and that hasnt exactly gome great in terms of goals has it?

Gary Jones is 35(ish) and although I dont think he is making the same waves as last season (my own opinion), he was instrumental in his performances, so who is to say McLean will be any less fit? or make less of an impact???

You dont stop knowing where the goal is at 30!!! *well done to AM for confirming this with his latest goal*

2) Some people need to stop comparing his potential wages to that of Wells and Gray etc. When we were after another striker in the form of Clayton Donaldson (an actual friend of mine) we offered him approx 5k a week and we were in league two. We paid Wells what he was willing to accept and this time round, money wasnt the issue to keep him. Do you not think that if Nahki would have signed for 5k a week we wouldnt have offered him a long contract??? HE WANTED TO MOVE. HE DID NOT WANT TO STAY. Nothing to with wages (i accept he has got more at ^*%&$^£)

3)Trust in Parky. yes we are in a slump, so may even say our latest run is that of relegation form, but stick with him. Ill agree some signings havnt worked but some have. Thats life. Ill even agree that sometimes he chooses the wrong tactics, or should i say tatics that i dont agree with. But at the end of the day hes proven very succesful.

There are lots of things wrong with our club but there a lots of good things too. The same with most clubs.

And if we are going to judge, lets do it after players have signed and proven themselves (or not) first.
It is very rare that I comment on articles on here, but I feel the need to as some of the things I have read today are beyond belief. Some of the peopel on this 'forum' astound me with their lack of common sense, reality, optimism, judgement and sometimes 5. Not to mention the attention seekers who say stuff like "iknow this or i know that2 but then fail to offer any real form of proof as to how theu know these things. So in the interest of washing away my disbelief, here goes: 1) I am actually an aqauintice of McLean, like I am of Folan, so from a personal point of view I would like to see him come to 'my' club and do well for us, because as a fan I want us to continue our climb. (Fans head on) It is however a risk/gamble to sign a 30 Year old, but so is signing a young striker with no history. What has to be taken into consideration when discussing McLean though, are external factors that potentially havnt been his fault over the last 2 seasons. Injuries, not being in the managers plans etc (lets not forget Wells was deemed not good enough by Carlise before we got him). You can also consider players like Thorne. Was he not a gamble?? Look how that turned out. Did Chelski see Torres as a gamble? Prob not and that hasnt exactly gome great in terms of goals has it? Gary Jones is 35(ish) and although I dont think he is making the same waves as last season (my own opinion), he was instrumental in his performances, so who is to say McLean will be any less fit? or make less of an impact??? You dont stop knowing where the goal is at 30!!! *well done to AM for confirming this with his latest goal* 2) Some people need to stop comparing his potential wages to that of Wells and Gray etc. When we were after another striker in the form of Clayton Donaldson (an actual friend of mine) we offered him approx 5k a week and we were in league two. We paid Wells what he was willing to accept and this time round, money wasnt the issue to keep him. Do you not think that if Nahki would have signed for 5k a week we wouldnt have offered him a long contract??? HE WANTED TO MOVE. HE DID NOT WANT TO STAY. Nothing to with wages (i accept he has got more at ^*%&$^£) 3)Trust in Parky. yes we are in a slump, so may even say our latest run is that of relegation form, but stick with him. Ill agree some signings havnt worked but some have. Thats life. Ill even agree that sometimes he chooses the wrong tactics, or should i say tatics that i dont agree with. But at the end of the day hes proven very succesful. There are lots of things wrong with our club but there a lots of good things too. The same with most clubs. And if we are going to judge, lets do it after players have signed and proven themselves (or not) first. lookonthebrightside
  • Score: 5

6:26pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Pablo says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents.

Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows?

But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player.

Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker.

This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October.

This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key.

Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad.

However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season.

As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game.

Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back! Pablo
  • Score: -1

6:35pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

lookonthebrightside wrote:
It is very rare that I comment on articles on here, but I feel the need to as some of the things I have read today are beyond belief. Some of the peopel on this 'forum' astound me with their lack of common sense, reality, optimism, judgement and sometimes 5. Not to mention the attention seekers who say stuff like "iknow this or i know that2 but then fail to offer any real form of proof as to how theu know these things. So in the interest of washing away my disbelief, here goes: 1) I am actually an aqauintice of McLean, like I am of Folan, so from a personal point of view I would like to see him come to 'my' club and do well for us, because as a fan I want us to continue our climb. (Fans head on) It is however a risk/gamble to sign a 30 Year old, but so is signing a young striker with no history. What has to be taken into consideration when discussing McLean though, are external factors that potentially havnt been his fault over the last 2 seasons. Injuries, not being in the managers plans etc (lets not forget Wells was deemed not good enough by Carlise before we got him). You can also consider players like Thorne. Was he not a gamble?? Look how that turned out. Did Chelski see Torres as a gamble? Prob not and that hasnt exactly gome great in terms of goals has it? Gary Jones is 35(ish) and although I dont think he is making the same waves as last season (my own opinion), he was instrumental in his performances, so who is to say McLean will be any less fit? or make less of an impact??? You dont stop knowing where the goal is at 30!!! *well done to AM for confirming this with his latest goal* 2) Some people need to stop comparing his potential wages to that of Wells and Gray etc. When we were after another striker in the form of Clayton Donaldson (an actual friend of mine) we offered him approx 5k a week and we were in league two. We paid Wells what he was willing to accept and this time round, money wasnt the issue to keep him. Do you not think that if Nahki would have signed for 5k a week we wouldnt have offered him a long contract??? HE WANTED TO MOVE. HE DID NOT WANT TO STAY. Nothing to with wages (i accept he has got more at ^*%&$^£) 3)Trust in Parky. yes we are in a slump, so may even say our latest run is that of relegation form, but stick with him. Ill agree some signings havnt worked but some have. Thats life. Ill even agree that sometimes he chooses the wrong tactics, or should i say tatics that i dont agree with. But at the end of the day hes proven very succesful. There are lots of things wrong with our club but there a lots of good things too. The same with most clubs. And if we are going to judge, lets do it after players have signed and proven themselves (or not) first.
What I like is your ability to promote sensible discussion points based on what you know. You have not attempted to bandy figures around as if to suggest you have the inside track. Something that others are inclined to do.

I assume that you get free tickets (based on your contacts)? If so, please consider all my grovelling praise when dishing them out!
[quote][p][bold]lookonthebrightside[/bold] wrote: It is very rare that I comment on articles on here, but I feel the need to as some of the things I have read today are beyond belief. Some of the peopel on this 'forum' astound me with their lack of common sense, reality, optimism, judgement and sometimes 5. Not to mention the attention seekers who say stuff like "iknow this or i know that2 but then fail to offer any real form of proof as to how theu know these things. So in the interest of washing away my disbelief, here goes: 1) I am actually an aqauintice of McLean, like I am of Folan, so from a personal point of view I would like to see him come to 'my' club and do well for us, because as a fan I want us to continue our climb. (Fans head on) It is however a risk/gamble to sign a 30 Year old, but so is signing a young striker with no history. What has to be taken into consideration when discussing McLean though, are external factors that potentially havnt been his fault over the last 2 seasons. Injuries, not being in the managers plans etc (lets not forget Wells was deemed not good enough by Carlise before we got him). You can also consider players like Thorne. Was he not a gamble?? Look how that turned out. Did Chelski see Torres as a gamble? Prob not and that hasnt exactly gome great in terms of goals has it? Gary Jones is 35(ish) and although I dont think he is making the same waves as last season (my own opinion), he was instrumental in his performances, so who is to say McLean will be any less fit? or make less of an impact??? You dont stop knowing where the goal is at 30!!! *well done to AM for confirming this with his latest goal* 2) Some people need to stop comparing his potential wages to that of Wells and Gray etc. When we were after another striker in the form of Clayton Donaldson (an actual friend of mine) we offered him approx 5k a week and we were in league two. We paid Wells what he was willing to accept and this time round, money wasnt the issue to keep him. Do you not think that if Nahki would have signed for 5k a week we wouldnt have offered him a long contract??? HE WANTED TO MOVE. HE DID NOT WANT TO STAY. Nothing to with wages (i accept he has got more at ^*%&$^£) 3)Trust in Parky. yes we are in a slump, so may even say our latest run is that of relegation form, but stick with him. Ill agree some signings havnt worked but some have. Thats life. Ill even agree that sometimes he chooses the wrong tactics, or should i say tatics that i dont agree with. But at the end of the day hes proven very succesful. There are lots of things wrong with our club but there a lots of good things too. The same with most clubs. And if we are going to judge, lets do it after players have signed and proven themselves (or not) first.[/p][/quote]What I like is your ability to promote sensible discussion points based on what you know. You have not attempted to bandy figures around as if to suggest you have the inside track. Something that others are inclined to do. I assume that you get free tickets (based on your contacts)? If so, please consider all my grovelling praise when dishing them out! Michael Clayton
  • Score: 2

6:40pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
I'm afraid he isn't; which is a pity when you consider all the dullards that (dis)grace this forum.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]I'm afraid he isn't; which is a pity when you consider all the dullards that (dis)grace this forum. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 3

7:28pm Mon 13 Jan 14

jamiejoe says...

whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.
Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight
you don't know what i have achieved in my life.

and i don't play the x-box - perhaps you do?

either way - both points are besides the point.

the question is - do you think the club got the best deal possible and are you happy he has gone to Town?
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!![/p][/quote]... according to the insights of whisky drinker you can only pass comment if you are one of the chairmen ... I am sure that many fans would love to offer the club the time and support if they had the resources to do so. Perhaps Whisky man has got great insights - shame he did not advise the board earlier as the Huddersfield chairman seems to drive a better bargain and their manager recognises that they would have paid more if we had waited longer. I was not one to think we would be getting over £2.5 million, to get closer to £1.5 million in various instalments over the next year or so and more later if Wells moves on to another club and presumably bags a hatful of goals - rather than on a weekly basis as implied by some - is not quite the 'silly bid' we led to believe was required. Esp. not when you 'net off' the costs of the replacement in financial terms - lets hope they are close to the mark in footballing terms and do the business on the pitch.[/p][/quote]Many Football transfers involve staged payments as with any business there is nothing unusual about it...Town are still being paid for the substantive fee for Rhodes. You may have bought NW for squillions in your Xbox but the rest of us live in the real world. Keep knocking the club if that is what turns you on. When you have achieved 1% of what ML....Rhodes ..Baldwin ..Parky et al have your criticism may carry a little more some weight[/p][/quote]you don't know what i have achieved in my life. and i don't play the x-box - perhaps you do? either way - both points are besides the point. the question is - do you think the club got the best deal possible and are you happy he has gone to Town? jamiejoe
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Mon 13 Jan 14

moanmoanwhingewhinge says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season.
True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition.
Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend.
really can't see it happening though.
all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
But Wells WANTED TO LEAVE!!! You'd have kept him around sulking, not trying and pretending to be injured and then let him leave for nothing? You can't see Lawn backing Parky and giving him money to spend? What do you think this article is actually about??
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]But Wells WANTED TO LEAVE!!! You'd have kept him around sulking, not trying and pretending to be injured and then let him leave for nothing? You can't see Lawn backing Parky and giving him money to spend? What do you think this article is actually about?? moanmoanwhingewhinge
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Mon 13 Jan 14

shaun from richmond says...

Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents.

Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows?

But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player.

Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker.

This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October.

This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key.

Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad.

However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season.

As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game.

Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!.
I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!! shaun from richmond
  • Score: 1

7:34pm Mon 13 Jan 14

moanmoanwhingewhinge says...

tinytoonster wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
whisky1 wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
spleen ventor wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.
I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)
Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.
Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game!
if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that?

i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ...

It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...
...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.
are you related to mark lawn?
he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront!
some businessman!
we only have his word that wells refused to join another club.
if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!!
You're so detemined to moan and belittle everything the club do you make SHAUN look like a happy-go-lucky, prozac-chomping, optimist
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spleen ventor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING??????.......W ells out McLean in !!. So most of the money will be gone AND we will have to pay TRIPLE the wages of Wells at least!!. AND....hes over 30 ....AND he hasn't done any good in years!!. YOU...cant make this stuff up!!.[/p][/quote]I don't usually respond to the ramblings of the loons on here...but just shut the flaps of which orifice you happen to be spouting from. His wages won't be triple of whatever Wells was on. John Hawley, Dean Windass, Peter Thorne.....they were all past it weren't they(?)[/p][/quote]Wells was likely on less than £2 k a week - any player with premiership wages even taking a step down is likely to be on triple that. When you take any fee into account it does look like pretty poor business. Worse than a 'snip' - a real hair cut that we have taken!! Arguably we would have been better playing Wells for another season and a half and reaping the benefits of him on the pitch, then letting him go for free, unless we get a player who can score at least half the goals Wells was scoring for us - consistently ... We were too hasty - the player may have some power in the balance of things, however, we as a club need to apply some reasonable control over the process too for our interest.[/p][/quote]Utter bolox...1.5 million plus add ons and 20% sell on is ok bearing in mind NW had made up his mind he was going to the TBs and not sell to the highest bidder and we wanted to get it sorted early in the window. Dwight Gayle moved on for £1m plus sell which provides a decent comparison. Its not an X box game![/p][/quote]if we pay a third in transfer costs (up to £500k) for a player whose wages are over twice what we are paying and he score less than half the goals then where is the **** in that? i hope we get a decent player - the fact is that Nakhi is a proven goal scorer and what's the point in letting him go if we don't do anything decent with the cash ... It was Mark Robbins who said it was a snip - this is not a video game - it is what those involved have said and set out as the facts ...[/p][/quote]...what do you expect Robins to say ..he has paid too much and NW was not value for money?. Get real. ML has all his chairs at home they may have got a bit more had they waited but anyone who is talking telephone numbers is in la la land. He had to go.. what is the point of keeping a player who no longer wants to play for the club? Strange how he wasn't fit to play for us but made a miraculous recovery to play for the TBs. City offered him 5k a week and did there best to keep him. Town can offer him more with Hoyles backing. Its easy to knock ..ML has put his cash ..his time and health on the line. Put the same effort in and you might have the credibility to gripe.[/p][/quote]are you related to mark lawn? he did not even get the 1.5m snip upfront! some businessman! we only have his word that wells refused to join another club. if lawn said it was sunny i would take an umbrella!![/p][/quote]You're so detemined to moan and belittle everything the club do you make SHAUN look like a happy-go-lucky, prozac-chomping, optimist moanmoanwhingewhinge
  • Score: 2

7:59pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Pablo says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents.

Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows?

But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player.

Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker.

This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October.

This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key.

Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad.

However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season.

As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game.

Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!.
I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
I've had him forensically checked, shaun. He's got the same DNA! Lonnie was a big fan of Will Atkinson as well.
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!![/p][/quote]I've had him forensically checked, shaun. He's got the same DNA! Lonnie was a big fan of Will Atkinson as well. Pablo
  • Score: 1

11:32pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Willie Eckerslyke says...

Cityman23 wrote:
Correction: " ..disappointed...Cla

rkson WASN'T brought on as a sub."
It was reported last week that he was injured.
[quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: Correction: " ..disappointed...Cla rkson WASN'T brought on as a sub."[/p][/quote]It was reported last week that he was injured. Willie Eckerslyke
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Mon 13 Jan 14

macca1969 says...

Whisky drinker answer me this. If as you say lawn offered wells a new 5 grand a week contract why did he say on the radio the other day that he HAD to be sold in this window as parky took the large budget. Doesn't make sense to offer a new deal to someone who you are looking to sell in the coming weeks
Whisky drinker answer me this. If as you say lawn offered wells a new 5 grand a week contract why did he say on the radio the other day that he HAD to be sold in this window as parky took the large budget. Doesn't make sense to offer a new deal to someone who you are looking to sell in the coming weeks macca1969
  • Score: 1

12:11am Tue 14 Jan 14

bobbyo says...

Wasnt long ago city fans were being told that bradford city were not signing journeymen winding down their careers no more . No player over 27 yrs of age would be signed . CTID.
Wasnt long ago city fans were being told that bradford city were not signing journeymen winding down their careers no more . No player over 27 yrs of age would be signed . CTID. bobbyo
  • Score: 0

2:05am Tue 14 Jan 14

tyker7745 says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents.

Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows?

But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player.

Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker.

This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October.

This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key.

Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad.

However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season.

As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game.

Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!.
I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
what was Peter Taylor gate.

I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar

Pease help on the PT gate?
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!![/p][/quote]what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate? tyker7745
  • Score: 0

8:29am Tue 14 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

tyker7745 wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?
Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!![/p][/quote]what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?[/p][/quote]Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 0

9:01am Tue 14 Jan 14

tyker7745 says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?
Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.
what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please..
sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!![/p][/quote]what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?[/p][/quote]Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.[/p][/quote]what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please.. sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same tyker7745
  • Score: 0

9:12am Tue 14 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

tyker7745 wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?
Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.
what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please.. sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same
If you type in search criteria on you will probably find the thread. I don't know what Lonnie's stance was as far as Peter Taylor was concerned. I think that Lonnie was generally favourable towards Taylor but do not quote him (I mean me - I mean him) on that.
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!![/p][/quote]what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?[/p][/quote]Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.[/p][/quote]what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please.. sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same[/p][/quote]If you type in search criteria on you will probably find the thread. I don't know what Lonnie's stance was as far as Peter Taylor was concerned. I think that Lonnie was generally favourable towards Taylor but do not quote him (I mean me - I mean him) on that. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 0

10:46am Tue 14 Jan 14

lookonthebrightside says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
lookonthebrightside wrote:
It is very rare that I comment on articles on here, but I feel the need to as some of the things I have read today are beyond belief. Some of the peopel on this 'forum' astound me with their lack of common sense, reality, optimism, judgement and sometimes 5. Not to mention the attention seekers who say stuff like "iknow this or i know that2 but then fail to offer any real form of proof as to how theu know these things. So in the interest of washing away my disbelief, here goes: 1) I am actually an aqauintice of McLean, like I am of Folan, so from a personal point of view I would like to see him come to 'my' club and do well for us, because as a fan I want us to continue our climb. (Fans head on) It is however a risk/gamble to sign a 30 Year old, but so is signing a young striker with no history. What has to be taken into consideration when discussing McLean though, are external factors that potentially havnt been his fault over the last 2 seasons. Injuries, not being in the managers plans etc (lets not forget Wells was deemed not good enough by Carlise before we got him). You can also consider players like Thorne. Was he not a gamble?? Look how that turned out. Did Chelski see Torres as a gamble? Prob not and that hasnt exactly gome great in terms of goals has it? Gary Jones is 35(ish) and although I dont think he is making the same waves as last season (my own opinion), he was instrumental in his performances, so who is to say McLean will be any less fit? or make less of an impact??? You dont stop knowing where the goal is at 30!!! *well done to AM for confirming this with his latest goal* 2) Some people need to stop comparing his potential wages to that of Wells and Gray etc. When we were after another striker in the form of Clayton Donaldson (an actual friend of mine) we offered him approx 5k a week and we were in league two. We paid Wells what he was willing to accept and this time round, money wasnt the issue to keep him. Do you not think that if Nahki would have signed for 5k a week we wouldnt have offered him a long contract??? HE WANTED TO MOVE. HE DID NOT WANT TO STAY. Nothing to with wages (i accept he has got more at ^*%&$^£) 3)Trust in Parky. yes we are in a slump, so may even say our latest run is that of relegation form, but stick with him. Ill agree some signings havnt worked but some have. Thats life. Ill even agree that sometimes he chooses the wrong tactics, or should i say tatics that i dont agree with. But at the end of the day hes proven very succesful. There are lots of things wrong with our club but there a lots of good things too. The same with most clubs. And if we are going to judge, lets do it after players have signed and proven themselves (or not) first.
What I like is your ability to promote sensible discussion points based on what you know. You have not attempted to bandy figures around as if to suggest you have the inside track. Something that others are inclined to do.

I assume that you get free tickets (based on your contacts)? If so, please consider all my grovelling praise when dishing them out!
Michael i dont get free tickets Im afriad, although I did sit with the brentford fans with Donalsons family during the home leg cup game last season (and before people comment, i was cheering very loudedly for city amongst a very good group of brent fans. the banter was flowing)

I am neither a season ticket holder or flexi card holder because I am a single father and have my 4 year old daughter from weds to sunday every week. I did have a season ticket though for a number of years before I became an 'adult', although my mother and uncle sit right behind the dug out so i sit their when they cant make it etc

I digress.

It jsut astounds me some of the tripe and drivel i read. some people just dont understand football as a business when they compare us to other clubs.
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lookonthebrightside[/bold] wrote: It is very rare that I comment on articles on here, but I feel the need to as some of the things I have read today are beyond belief. Some of the peopel on this 'forum' astound me with their lack of common sense, reality, optimism, judgement and sometimes 5. Not to mention the attention seekers who say stuff like "iknow this or i know that2 but then fail to offer any real form of proof as to how theu know these things. So in the interest of washing away my disbelief, here goes: 1) I am actually an aqauintice of McLean, like I am of Folan, so from a personal point of view I would like to see him come to 'my' club and do well for us, because as a fan I want us to continue our climb. (Fans head on) It is however a risk/gamble to sign a 30 Year old, but so is signing a young striker with no history. What has to be taken into consideration when discussing McLean though, are external factors that potentially havnt been his fault over the last 2 seasons. Injuries, not being in the managers plans etc (lets not forget Wells was deemed not good enough by Carlise before we got him). You can also consider players like Thorne. Was he not a gamble?? Look how that turned out. Did Chelski see Torres as a gamble? Prob not and that hasnt exactly gome great in terms of goals has it? Gary Jones is 35(ish) and although I dont think he is making the same waves as last season (my own opinion), he was instrumental in his performances, so who is to say McLean will be any less fit? or make less of an impact??? You dont stop knowing where the goal is at 30!!! *well done to AM for confirming this with his latest goal* 2) Some people need to stop comparing his potential wages to that of Wells and Gray etc. When we were after another striker in the form of Clayton Donaldson (an actual friend of mine) we offered him approx 5k a week and we were in league two. We paid Wells what he was willing to accept and this time round, money wasnt the issue to keep him. Do you not think that if Nahki would have signed for 5k a week we wouldnt have offered him a long contract??? HE WANTED TO MOVE. HE DID NOT WANT TO STAY. Nothing to with wages (i accept he has got more at ^*%&$^£) 3)Trust in Parky. yes we are in a slump, so may even say our latest run is that of relegation form, but stick with him. Ill agree some signings havnt worked but some have. Thats life. Ill even agree that sometimes he chooses the wrong tactics, or should i say tatics that i dont agree with. But at the end of the day hes proven very succesful. There are lots of things wrong with our club but there a lots of good things too. The same with most clubs. And if we are going to judge, lets do it after players have signed and proven themselves (or not) first.[/p][/quote]What I like is your ability to promote sensible discussion points based on what you know. You have not attempted to bandy figures around as if to suggest you have the inside track. Something that others are inclined to do. I assume that you get free tickets (based on your contacts)? If so, please consider all my grovelling praise when dishing them out![/p][/quote]Michael i dont get free tickets Im afriad, although I did sit with the brentford fans with Donalsons family during the home leg cup game last season (and before people comment, i was cheering very loudedly for city amongst a very good group of brent fans. the banter was flowing) I am neither a season ticket holder or flexi card holder because I am a single father and have my 4 year old daughter from weds to sunday every week. I did have a season ticket though for a number of years before I became an 'adult', although my mother and uncle sit right behind the dug out so i sit their when they cant make it etc I digress. It jsut astounds me some of the tripe and drivel i read. some people just dont understand football as a business when they compare us to other clubs. lookonthebrightside
  • Score: 0

11:51am Tue 14 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?
Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.
what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please.. sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same
If you type in search criteria on you will probably find the thread. I don't know what Lonnie's stance was as far as Peter Taylor was concerned. I think that Lonnie was generally favourable towards Taylor but do not quote him (I mean me - I mean him) on that.
:)

Re McLean, his odds have shortened on him joining us from 1/5 yesterday to 1/10 today whilst Birmingham's have gone from 12/1 yesterday to 25/1 today.

This is from the same site that had Nahki at 1/8 on by 12PM last Friday.

Possibly done deal????
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!![/p][/quote]what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?[/p][/quote]Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.[/p][/quote]what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please.. sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same[/p][/quote]If you type in search criteria on you will probably find the thread. I don't know what Lonnie's stance was as far as Peter Taylor was concerned. I think that Lonnie was generally favourable towards Taylor but do not quote him (I mean me - I mean him) on that.[/p][/quote]:) Re McLean, his odds have shortened on him joining us from 1/5 yesterday to 1/10 today whilst Birmingham's have gone from 12/1 yesterday to 25/1 today. This is from the same site that had Nahki at 1/8 on by 12PM last Friday. Possibly done deal???? Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Tue 14 Jan 14

shaun from richmond says...

tyker7745 wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?
Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.
what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please..
sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same
Lonnie...Stated that he would be more than happy for Peter Taylor to still be Manager of Bradford City?. That he should never have been sacked?.
After that!!.....He has never been heard again. I think he has joined a Monastery......and is Repenting his Sins!!.
If he has come back as a "George Clooney" film perhaps he feels he has been healed??....
Because lets be honest after "Peter Taylor" gate "lonniejockstrap" CAN BE NO MORE!
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!![/p][/quote]what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?[/p][/quote]Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.[/p][/quote]what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please.. sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same[/p][/quote]Lonnie...Stated that he would be more than happy for Peter Taylor to still be Manager of Bradford City?. That he should never have been sacked?. After that!!.....He has never been heard again. I think he has joined a Monastery......and is Repenting his Sins!!. If he has come back as a "George Clooney" film perhaps he feels he has been healed??.... Because lets be honest after "Peter Taylor" gate "lonniejockstrap" CAN BE NO MORE! shaun from richmond
  • Score: 2

2:43am Wed 15 Jan 14

Burnley_Bantam says...

Peter300 wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages.

Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray.....

Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc

Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....
Ha, ha, ha, you're the one panicking. Andy Gray could not get in the side due to the form of James Hanson. Yet you complain about this. I don't think you are right about injuries either.
Form of James Hanson - he hasn't scored in 11 games before the Bristol City game. Yet Andy Gray scores the only time he's played this season.
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: I'd rather go for youth and potentail just like the man that shall not be mentioned again was. Macleans record isn't so good in recent stages. Whilst Parkinson knows these players from his past and looks at how they fit into the spirit of the club and who he can work with ideally we need players on the up not on the way down. WE don't need another Gray..... Spend the money on 2-3 young lads with potential or an older experience guy? For me its the former. Older guys bring experience ut also issues with injuries, not been able to sell on if it isn't working etc Hope city and Parky aren't panicking. They obviously don't wanna get dragged into a scrap at the bottom.....[/p][/quote]Ha, ha, ha, you're the one panicking. Andy Gray could not get in the side due to the form of James Hanson. Yet you complain about this. I don't think you are right about injuries either.[/p][/quote]Form of James Hanson - he hasn't scored in 11 games before the Bristol City game. Yet Andy Gray scores the only time he's played this season. Burnley_Bantam
  • Score: 0

2:45am Wed 15 Jan 14

Burnley_Bantam says...

Another Hull player being lined up by City - what a surprise!!!
Another Hull player being lined up by City - what a surprise!!! Burnley_Bantam
  • Score: 0

2:48am Wed 15 Jan 14

Burnley_Bantam says...

Jay Emmanuel Thomas would be great - can't see it though...
Jay Emmanuel Thomas would be great - can't see it though... Burnley_Bantam
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Wed 15 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
shaun from richmond wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote:
Pablo wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.
That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power!
In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.
....Lonnie....you're back!
Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!!
what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?
Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.
what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please..
sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same
Lonnie...Stated that he would be more than happy for Peter Taylor to still be Manager of Bradford City?. That he should never have been sacked?.
After that!!.....He has never been heard again. I think he has joined a Monastery......and is Repenting his Sins!!.
If he has come back as a "George Clooney" film perhaps he feels he has been healed??....
Because lets be honest after "Peter Taylor" gate "lonniejockstrap" CAN BE NO MORE!
Coming from the man who would still have Peter Jackson as manager and who has slated PP from the very beginning...often referring to him as Deadbeat...then you went quiet when we got to Wembley and got promoted...and now it is a difficult timeou are back...to slate PP some more.
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: I'd have rather kept wells and let him go for nothing and of next season. True mark lawn has invested in the club but he has no ambition. Now is the time to back phil parkinson and give him money to spend. really can't see it happening though. all its going to be is loan signings and then we will get into a relegation dogfight.[/p][/quote]That was my initial reaction also. However, PP stated that his head was elsewhere since the Shrewsbury game over three months ago. That almost coincides with the start of our bad run. It sounds like he didn't want a sulking player running down his contract and disrupting team morale. Player power![/p][/quote]In hindsight, things might have been very different if the Shrewsbury defender had not injured Wells that afternoon. City were on a role from the promotion; playing at a high-tempo, no injuries and closing spaces in order to make it very difficult for opponents. Perhaps Wells though better of being kicked up in the air; was that the catalyst? Who knows? But there is no point dwelling on the past other than to think beyond the loss of one player. Whilst Wells cannot be replaced (like for like), I see an upturn in fortunes with the return of Davies and the addition of a proven striker. This may be a simplistic approach, but I do not think that the team will be far short if they re-acquire the good habits acquired from March through until early October. This is not an impossibly difficult league but what is clear is that mistakes are punished severely. The main issue is to iron own the fault lines between attack, midfield and defence and start moving up and down the field as a unit. A couple of wins and the season could re-ignite. Confidence is the key. Having been employed in professional football for over twenty years, I would always back Mr Parkinson's judgment over any of the amateur hacks on here (myself included) that do not know what happens on a day to day basis or what it takes to produce a winning squad. However, if I could wish for one piece of business, it would be for the return of Will Atkinson. I think that his ability to retain the ball is something that has been lacking all season. As for Saturday, I think that Kennedy is definitely due a run in the team. He is unproven but could potentially be the box-to-box man we are looking for. I thought that Reid was more direct in the absence of Meredith. I also found McHugh's over-elaborate back heels amusing but effective and he too had a good game. Money in the bank and trust in the manager. Grounds for optimism.[/p][/quote]....Lonnie....you're back![/p][/quote]Don't think Lonnie will be back!....After "Peter Taylor" gate!!. I think this Michael Clayton (Good film!) is an imposter!![/p][/quote]what was Peter Taylor gate. I thought that Lonnie had disappeared but had thought MIchael Clayton was someone very similar Pease help on the PT gate?[/p][/quote]Yes tyker7745. It is fair to say that Lonnie and me share similar thoughts but we are not one and the same person.[/p][/quote]what was peter taylor gate then? can any one help please.. sharing similar thoughts?. The prose is about n exact replica of Lonnie ad it really does appear that you are one and the same[/p][/quote]Lonnie...Stated that he would be more than happy for Peter Taylor to still be Manager of Bradford City?. That he should never have been sacked?. After that!!.....He has never been heard again. I think he has joined a Monastery......and is Repenting his Sins!!. If he has come back as a "George Clooney" film perhaps he feels he has been healed??.... Because lets be honest after "Peter Taylor" gate "lonniejockstrap" CAN BE NO MORE![/p][/quote]Coming from the man who would still have Peter Jackson as manager and who has slated PP from the very beginning...often referring to him as Deadbeat...then you went quiet when we got to Wembley and got promoted...and now it is a difficult timeou are back...to slate PP some more. KnightMcCall
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree