Aaron Mclean just one of a long list of potential targets for Bradford City

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Phil Pakinson will not demand too much too quickly from striker Oliver McBurnie, who is very much one for the future Phil Pakinson will not demand too much too quickly from striker Oliver McBurnie, who is very much one for the future

City are optimistic about bringing in a new striker before Saturday - whether it’s Aaron Mclean or not.

The Hull forward is still the number one target as the club continue to sift through the attacking options on the market.

A “proven” frontman remains Phil Parkinson’s priority and City are hopeful they could have someone on board, preferably Mclean, for the Yorkshire derby with Sheffield United.

Matthew Bates is waiting to find out if he will be involved at Bramall Lane. The defender, who has made 14 appearances, has been on a three-month contract which ran out after the Bristol City game.

City are currently well stocked for centre halves and Bates’s chances of a new deal could hinge on whether they can off-load one at the same time.

But the focus for now is on the forward line, with Parkinson concentrating his efforts on whittling down a long list of possible targets.

City have been linked with Dagenham’s Rhys Murphy, who has scored 12 goals in League Two. Coventry are also rumoured to be watching the 23-year-old and Crawley boss John Gregory was spotted at their recent game against York.

But sources in east London suggest Murphy, who is in the first of a two-year contract, is settled and in no hurry to move on.

The former Arsenal trainee feels some attachment to Dagenham for giving him an opportunity back in the English game after a ecent spell playing in Holland.

Oliver McBurnie partnered James Hanson in City’s attack on Saturday – only the second senior start for the 17-year-old.

McBurnie twice came close to scoring and showed some glimpses of his potential. But Parkinson is keen to stress the teenager is very much a work in motion.

He said: “Olly is very young and inexperienced. He’s got so much quality and is going to be a really good player but we’ve got to make sure we nurture him correctly.

“We’ve really got to just drip-feed him into this team and make sure we do the right thing for him and the club because he’s a talented boy.

“He’s an intelligent player, he can score goals and I like him. But let’s not build him up too much too quickly. I don’t think that would be helpful to him.

“We shouldn’t put that expectancy on him because he’s a 17-year-old kid.

“But I think in the future, if he can keep developing, then he is going to be very good.”

Parkinson could have Andy Gray back in his plans as the experienced frontman builds up his training after injury.

Gray suffered a dead leg against Peterborough last month in only his second outing of the season. It damaged a nerve which kept him out much longer than expected.

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:13am Wed 15 Jan 14

silverbantam says...

The propaganda machine cranks up again !

McLean ? He's just on a list of potential targets and not about to sign for us after all.

Bates won't be signed unless we offload Oliver or Taylor. So expect Taylor to play at Sheffield United on Saturday.
The propaganda machine cranks up again ! McLean ? He's just on a list of potential targets and not about to sign for us after all. Bates won't be signed unless we offload Oliver or Taylor. So expect Taylor to play at Sheffield United on Saturday. silverbantam
  • Score: -7

7:32am Wed 15 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

good news about gray coming back! not!!
another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game!
good news about gray coming back! not!! another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game! tinytoonster
  • Score: -8

7:38am Wed 15 Jan 14

Plastic Bantam says...

tinytoonster wrote:
good news about gray coming back! not!!
another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game!
Don't get the big fuss of "give Connell a chance" He's not good enough either. At the start of the season Parky said he doesn't rate him as a starter.. He see's hin as more of an impact player!!
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: good news about gray coming back! not!! another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game![/p][/quote]Don't get the big fuss of "give Connell a chance" He's not good enough either. At the start of the season Parky said he doesn't rate him as a starter.. He see's hin as more of an impact player!! Plastic Bantam
  • Score: 18

7:56am Wed 15 Jan 14

wakefieldbantam says...

I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.
I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on. wakefieldbantam
  • Score: 12

8:20am Wed 15 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

tinytoonster wrote:
good news about gray coming back! not!! another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game!
Great news about Gray actually. 1 league start, 1 goal. 100% record in the league so far. Nahki who?
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: good news about gray coming back! not!! another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game![/p][/quote]Great news about Gray actually. 1 league start, 1 goal. 100% record in the league so far. Nahki who? Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 22

8:25am Wed 15 Jan 14

Waynus1971 says...

wakefieldbantam wrote:
I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.
You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it.

As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards.

However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.
[quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.[/p][/quote]You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it. As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards. However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well. Waynus1971
  • Score: 4

8:30am Wed 15 Jan 14

ynotdunne says...

Either sign McLean or dont, but ffs please get the ridiculously high paid has been Andy grey off the books, easily afford McLean then.
Either sign McLean or dont, but ffs please get the ridiculously high paid has been Andy grey off the books, easily afford McLean then. ynotdunne
  • Score: 2

8:35am Wed 15 Jan 14

Nevelhound says...

What don't u get about Connell tinytoonster. It is nothing to do if parky likes him. He has done nothing to warrant inclusion. Gray did more in half a game than Connell has all season. Never even looked threatening. Also just remember gray has achieved much more in his career than Connell.
What don't u get about Connell tinytoonster. It is nothing to do if parky likes him. He has done nothing to warrant inclusion. Gray did more in half a game than Connell has all season. Never even looked threatening. Also just remember gray has achieved much more in his career than Connell. Nevelhound
  • Score: 14

8:39am Wed 15 Jan 14

tyker2 says...

if I was a betting man nothing will happen: the McLean thing was nothing more than a smoke screen to get through the Wells situation.

I think the Board will try to muddle through and hope we get a win or two to preserve our status in this division.
if I was a betting man nothing will happen: the McLean thing was nothing more than a smoke screen to get through the Wells situation. I think the Board will try to muddle through and hope we get a win or two to preserve our status in this division. tyker2
  • Score: -4

8:45am Wed 15 Jan 14

wakefieldbantam says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
wakefieldbantam wrote:
I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.
You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it.

As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards.

However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.
I haven't asumed anything at all i go to all the home games and a fair few away games so i have my opinion you don't have to agree with it. Connell himself has said he loves the club which he clearly must do if he's still here.
You have contradicted yourself by saying what a clever striker he is and then in the next sentence saying L1 is too hard for him, so he can't be that clever can he.
However, i don't want to criticise Connell I said i liked him as a player and agree York would be a good place fo him to play.
We need to concentrate on getting good attacking players to replace Nahki and our lack of goals from midfield.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.[/p][/quote]You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it. As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards. However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.[/p][/quote]I haven't asumed anything at all i go to all the home games and a fair few away games so i have my opinion you don't have to agree with it. Connell himself has said he loves the club which he clearly must do if he's still here. You have contradicted yourself by saying what a clever striker he is and then in the next sentence saying L1 is too hard for him, so he can't be that clever can he. However, i don't want to criticise Connell I said i liked him as a player and agree York would be a good place fo him to play. We need to concentrate on getting good attacking players to replace Nahki and our lack of goals from midfield. wakefieldbantam
  • Score: 7

9:17am Wed 15 Jan 14

mrmuzzy says...

Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always. mrmuzzy
  • Score: -6

9:29am Wed 15 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
It does look as if we won't be signing him but we don't know the reasons as to why if this is indeed the case. If Hull or the player are asking for too much then it's quite right that we shouldn't pay over the odds. The proceeds of the Wells sale should be used wisely and not frittered away in a rush to replace him. There are 2 weeks left in the transfer window so there is no need to panic buy and spend money needlessly .
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]It does look as if we won't be signing him but we don't know the reasons as to why if this is indeed the case. If Hull or the player are asking for too much then it's quite right that we shouldn't pay over the odds. The proceeds of the Wells sale should be used wisely and not frittered away in a rush to replace him. There are 2 weeks left in the transfer window so there is no need to panic buy and spend money needlessly . Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 8

9:54am Wed 15 Jan 14

tyker2 says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
It does look as if we won't be signing him but we don't know the reasons as to why if this is indeed the case. If Hull or the player are asking for too much then it's quite right that we shouldn't pay over the odds. The proceeds of the Wells sale should be used wisely and not frittered away in a rush to replace him. There are 2 weeks left in the transfer window so there is no need to panic buy and spend money needlessly .
TOO MUCH MONEY WANTED BYTHE PLAYER AND THE CLUB:WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT YOUNGER PLAYERS ON LOAN,IF NEED BE, FROM PREMIERSHIP AND CHMAPIOSHIP CLUBS.

ILL PARKY PLAY ATRUE RIGHT WINGER
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]It does look as if we won't be signing him but we don't know the reasons as to why if this is indeed the case. If Hull or the player are asking for too much then it's quite right that we shouldn't pay over the odds. The proceeds of the Wells sale should be used wisely and not frittered away in a rush to replace him. There are 2 weeks left in the transfer window so there is no need to panic buy and spend money needlessly .[/p][/quote]TOO MUCH MONEY WANTED BYTHE PLAYER AND THE CLUB:WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT YOUNGER PLAYERS ON LOAN,IF NEED BE, FROM PREMIERSHIP AND CHMAPIOSHIP CLUBS. ILL PARKY PLAY ATRUE RIGHT WINGER tyker2
  • Score: -3

9:55am Wed 15 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have. KnightMcCall
  • Score: 13

10:02am Wed 15 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

KnightMcCall wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.
The attitude of some on here is ridiculous. Calling the chairman a tight ars€ because he won't personally fund someones unsustainably high wages/transfer fee out of his own pocket is craziness.
[quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.[/p][/quote]The attitude of some on here is ridiculous. Calling the chairman a tight ars€ because he won't personally fund someones unsustainably high wages/transfer fee out of his own pocket is craziness. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 21

10:07am Wed 15 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

tinytoonster wrote:
good news about gray coming back! not!!
another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game!
A very silly comment really. Andy hasn't stopped Alan from 'getting a game.' Presumably you thought Nahki did as well.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: good news about gray coming back! not!! another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game![/p][/quote]A very silly comment really. Andy hasn't stopped Alan from 'getting a game.' Presumably you thought Nahki did as well. Peter300
  • Score: 2

10:09am Wed 15 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

wakefieldbantam wrote:
I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.
Like all players Alan needs and wants games. He will have to try and get them elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.[/p][/quote]Like all players Alan needs and wants games. He will have to try and get them elsewhere. Peter300
  • Score: 2

10:16am Wed 15 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
wakefieldbantam wrote:
I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.
You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it.

As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards.

However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.
The fact is (and everyone can check this) that Alan has not been a regularly starter in L2 for the past two seasons and he has not started a single game in L1. At Grimsby he started every single game. At Swindon and City (obviously) he did not. He may get a regular start at a L2 side, but I suspect he will more likely spend time on the bench as well. There is always competition and that applies to L2 as well. Alan is a good player, but contrary to the view of many people it seems, there are a lot of good players about. It is not just about the one.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.[/p][/quote]You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it. As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards. However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.[/p][/quote]The fact is (and everyone can check this) that Alan has not been a regularly starter in L2 for the past two seasons and he has not started a single game in L1. At Grimsby he started every single game. At Swindon and City (obviously) he did not. He may get a regular start at a L2 side, but I suspect he will more likely spend time on the bench as well. There is always competition and that applies to L2 as well. Alan is a good player, but contrary to the view of many people it seems, there are a lot of good players about. It is not just about the one. Peter300
  • Score: 1

10:18am Wed 15 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
wakefieldbantam wrote:
I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.
You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it.

As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards.

However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.
I forgot to ask, how is James Hanson these days? I take it he's OK when he's out and about? No problems to report?
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.[/p][/quote]You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it. As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards. However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.[/p][/quote]I forgot to ask, how is James Hanson these days? I take it he's OK when he's out and about? No problems to report? Peter300
  • Score: 6

10:20am Wed 15 Jan 14

Spenvalleyspartan says...

I can feel another Bradford City **** up closing in on us here! Akin to selling Deano or the second coming of Gray! Stuck between signing player X, Y or Z we end up missing out on all targets and end up signing some stop gap loan player who doesn't give a toss! The goals dry up and we end up in another relegation scrap like 2007-2008 season!!
I can feel another Bradford City **** up closing in on us here! Akin to selling Deano or the second coming of Gray! Stuck between signing player X, Y or Z we end up missing out on all targets and end up signing some stop gap loan player who doesn't give a toss! The goals dry up and we end up in another relegation scrap like 2007-2008 season!! Spenvalleyspartan
  • Score: -4

10:21am Wed 15 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

ynotdunne wrote:
Either sign McLean or dont, but ffs please get the ridiculously high paid has been Andy grey off the books, easily afford McLean then.
Thank you for providing me with your coherent and well argued points. I appreciate your assessment of the situation. Well done!
[quote][p][bold]ynotdunne[/bold] wrote: Either sign McLean or dont, but ffs please get the ridiculously high paid has been Andy grey off the books, easily afford McLean then.[/p][/quote]Thank you for providing me with your coherent and well argued points. I appreciate your assessment of the situation. Well done! Peter300
  • Score: -2

10:31am Wed 15 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

wakefieldbantam wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
wakefieldbantam wrote:
I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.
You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it.

As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards.

However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.
I haven't asumed anything at all i go to all the home games and a fair few away games so i have my opinion you don't have to agree with it. Connell himself has said he loves the club which he clearly must do if he's still here.
You have contradicted yourself by saying what a clever striker he is and then in the next sentence saying L1 is too hard for him, so he can't be that clever can he.
However, i don't want to criticise Connell I said i liked him as a player and agree York would be a good place fo him to play.
We need to concentrate on getting good attacking players to replace Nahki and our lack of goals from midfield.
How do you know that York would be a good place for Alan Connell? The answer is you don't. I think the criticism of Alan Connell , Andy Gray etc. is both stupid and ridiculous, not to say ignorant. essentially, these players - in the case of Connell and Gray - are being savaged for not displacing Hanson and Wells. There would have been a long line of players who could not win a place in City's team ahead of James and Nahki. Managers are right when they say that fans always latch onto players who are not in the team. City have been very fortunate over the past two seasons to have their two main strikers, who have played most of the games. It was unfortunate for Andy Gray he was injured this season and Alan Connell has had no starts. City are obviously trying to replace Nahki, but the moaners are still complaining.
[quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.[/p][/quote]You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it. As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards. However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.[/p][/quote]I haven't asumed anything at all i go to all the home games and a fair few away games so i have my opinion you don't have to agree with it. Connell himself has said he loves the club which he clearly must do if he's still here. You have contradicted yourself by saying what a clever striker he is and then in the next sentence saying L1 is too hard for him, so he can't be that clever can he. However, i don't want to criticise Connell I said i liked him as a player and agree York would be a good place fo him to play. We need to concentrate on getting good attacking players to replace Nahki and our lack of goals from midfield.[/p][/quote]How do you know that York would be a good place for Alan Connell? The answer is you don't. I think the criticism of Alan Connell , Andy Gray etc. is both stupid and ridiculous, not to say ignorant. essentially, these players - in the case of Connell and Gray - are being savaged for not displacing Hanson and Wells. There would have been a long line of players who could not win a place in City's team ahead of James and Nahki. Managers are right when they say that fans always latch onto players who are not in the team. City have been very fortunate over the past two seasons to have their two main strikers, who have played most of the games. It was unfortunate for Andy Gray he was injured this season and Alan Connell has had no starts. City are obviously trying to replace Nahki, but the moaners are still complaining. Peter300
  • Score: 6

10:32am Wed 15 Jan 14

Peter300 says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
The club have shown remarkable ambition over the past two seasons. I applaud them.
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]The club have shown remarkable ambition over the past two seasons. I applaud them. Peter300
  • Score: 10

11:13am Wed 15 Jan 14

wakefieldbantam says...

Peter300 wrote:
wakefieldbantam wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
wakefieldbantam wrote:
I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.
You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it.

As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards.

However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.
I haven't asumed anything at all i go to all the home games and a fair few away games so i have my opinion you don't have to agree with it. Connell himself has said he loves the club which he clearly must do if he's still here.
You have contradicted yourself by saying what a clever striker he is and then in the next sentence saying L1 is too hard for him, so he can't be that clever can he.
However, i don't want to criticise Connell I said i liked him as a player and agree York would be a good place fo him to play.
We need to concentrate on getting good attacking players to replace Nahki and our lack of goals from midfield.
How do you know that York would be a good place for Alan Connell? The answer is you don't. I think the criticism of Alan Connell , Andy Gray etc. is both stupid and ridiculous, not to say ignorant. essentially, these players - in the case of Connell and Gray - are being savaged for not displacing Hanson and Wells. There would have been a long line of players who could not win a place in City's team ahead of James and Nahki. Managers are right when they say that fans always latch onto players who are not in the team. City have been very fortunate over the past two seasons to have their two main strikers, who have played most of the games. It was unfortunate for Andy Gray he was injured this season and Alan Connell has had no starts. City are obviously trying to replace Nahki, but the moaners are still complaining.
Peter think its time to change the medication, if you read both my posts properly I have said I have a lot of time for Connell no where have I criticised him I have infact praised him.
Stop having a go at every post on here, which is all you do, and go and watch a few games.
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wakefieldbantam[/bold] wrote: I like Connell who is a good player and clearly loves the club but his problem is he likes to play deep in an attacking midfield role more than an out and out forward role, which does not suit us and won't suit a lot of clubs at our level so sadly i think its time for him to move on.[/p][/quote]You make lots of assumptions in the above post, but no actual facts. How is it 'clear' than Connell loves the club? He can't get in the side; couldn't last season and still can't now. He has been asked to find another club (to free up his salary) but to also help himself out as he could struggle to get a new deal elsewhere in the summer and he opted to stay, knowing he isn't going to get games. That's not love; that's someone who has a good contract and, rightly so, doesn't see why he should break it. As for his 'style of play', again this is just an assumption. When Connell played for Grimsby in the Conference, he was the main striker and scored his biggest ever goal haul. He is a clever striker, but that doesn't mean 'he likes' to play a more deeper role. It tends to be the way we play him to accommodate him and our other forwards. However, I just think L1 is too much of a step up for a player who has only ever been prolific in the Conference. He is a good footballer and given the chance to play regularly (at somewhere like York for example), he could do really well.[/p][/quote]I haven't asumed anything at all i go to all the home games and a fair few away games so i have my opinion you don't have to agree with it. Connell himself has said he loves the club which he clearly must do if he's still here. You have contradicted yourself by saying what a clever striker he is and then in the next sentence saying L1 is too hard for him, so he can't be that clever can he. However, i don't want to criticise Connell I said i liked him as a player and agree York would be a good place fo him to play. We need to concentrate on getting good attacking players to replace Nahki and our lack of goals from midfield.[/p][/quote]How do you know that York would be a good place for Alan Connell? The answer is you don't. I think the criticism of Alan Connell , Andy Gray etc. is both stupid and ridiculous, not to say ignorant. essentially, these players - in the case of Connell and Gray - are being savaged for not displacing Hanson and Wells. There would have been a long line of players who could not win a place in City's team ahead of James and Nahki. Managers are right when they say that fans always latch onto players who are not in the team. City have been very fortunate over the past two seasons to have their two main strikers, who have played most of the games. It was unfortunate for Andy Gray he was injured this season and Alan Connell has had no starts. City are obviously trying to replace Nahki, but the moaners are still complaining.[/p][/quote]Peter think its time to change the medication, if you read both my posts properly I have said I have a lot of time for Connell no where have I criticised him I have infact praised him. Stop having a go at every post on here, which is all you do, and go and watch a few games. wakefieldbantam
  • Score: 2

11:17am Wed 15 Jan 14

mrmuzzy says...

Is a proven goalscorer at this level.
Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition???
Sorry something doesn't add up!
Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.
Is a proven goalscorer at this level. Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition??? Sorry something doesn't add up! Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend. mrmuzzy
  • Score: -3

11:25am Wed 15 Jan 14

silverbantam says...

Peter300 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
The club have shown remarkable ambition over the past two seasons. I applaud them.
You must be related to them !
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]The club have shown remarkable ambition over the past two seasons. I applaud them.[/p][/quote]You must be related to them ! silverbantam
  • Score: -1

11:27am Wed 15 Jan 14

jamiejoe says...

KnightMcCall wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.
Are you really saying no football fan in the country can have a view on potential transfers unless they have invested and presumably have a seat on the board? Or does this just apply to City?

This is a bit of a recurring theme on here. Presumably if you were on the board you would have a duty of care to the club and you could not speculate on confidential matters on fan forums. Really ... we need to get real. This is akin to fans talking in the pub before the game, we need to take it in that light hearted spirit.

Unless we become a fan owned club with lots of small 'investors' and a bit of serious money to move up the leagues. Have you seen what it cost Cardiff in the Championship on wages? We are 10 times away from that level at the moment and for the foreseeable ...
[quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.[/p][/quote]Are you really saying no football fan in the country can have a view on potential transfers unless they have invested and presumably have a seat on the board? Or does this just apply to City? This is a bit of a recurring theme on here. Presumably if you were on the board you would have a duty of care to the club and you could not speculate on confidential matters on fan forums. Really ... we need to get real. This is akin to fans talking in the pub before the game, we need to take it in that light hearted spirit. Unless we become a fan owned club with lots of small 'investors' and a bit of serious money to move up the leagues. Have you seen what it cost Cardiff in the Championship on wages? We are 10 times away from that level at the moment and for the foreseeable ... jamiejoe
  • Score: 5

11:35am Wed 15 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

jamiejoe wrote:
KnightMcCall wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.
Are you really saying no football fan in the country can have a view on potential transfers unless they have invested and presumably have a seat on the board? Or does this just apply to City? This is a bit of a recurring theme on here. Presumably if you were on the board you would have a duty of care to the club and you could not speculate on confidential matters on fan forums. Really ... we need to get real. This is akin to fans talking in the pub before the game, we need to take it in that light hearted spirit. Unless we become a fan owned club with lots of small 'investors' and a bit of serious money to move up the leagues. Have you seen what it cost Cardiff in the Championship on wages? We are 10 times away from that level at the moment and for the foreseeable ...
He's not saying you can't have an opinion on transfers, far from it. Having a go at the chairman for not donating money out of his life savings to the club is a bit ridiculous though isn't it? ML is no Sheik Mansour or Abramavic and doesn't have a bottomless pit of money.
[quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.[/p][/quote]Are you really saying no football fan in the country can have a view on potential transfers unless they have invested and presumably have a seat on the board? Or does this just apply to City? This is a bit of a recurring theme on here. Presumably if you were on the board you would have a duty of care to the club and you could not speculate on confidential matters on fan forums. Really ... we need to get real. This is akin to fans talking in the pub before the game, we need to take it in that light hearted spirit. Unless we become a fan owned club with lots of small 'investors' and a bit of serious money to move up the leagues. Have you seen what it cost Cardiff in the Championship on wages? We are 10 times away from that level at the moment and for the foreseeable ...[/p][/quote]He's not saying you can't have an opinion on transfers, far from it. Having a go at the chairman for not donating money out of his life savings to the club is a bit ridiculous though isn't it? ML is no Sheik Mansour or Abramavic and doesn't have a bottomless pit of money. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 4

11:36am Wed 15 Jan 14

mrmuzzy says...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion!
But it looks like we are going backwards not upwards
for a big club we show no ambition!
I wonder if phil parkinson gets any money to spend at all.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion! But it looks like we are going backwards not upwards for a big club we show no ambition! I wonder if phil parkinson gets any money to spend at all. mrmuzzy
  • Score: 0

11:49am Wed 15 Jan 14

lawsonio123 says...

Mclean Fees ect agreed but then our Directors had second thoughts and who is to say they are not right in view of the large amount of money involved it may be better spent else where. It still remains team improvement needs to take place now and MR PARKINSON MUST BE BACKED BY THE BOARD. It is no longer a matter of FREE TRANSFERS give him some money and let him get on with it he will do what needs doing TRUST HIM
Mclean Fees ect agreed but then our Directors had second thoughts and who is to say they are not right in view of the large amount of money involved it may be better spent else where. It still remains team improvement needs to take place now and MR PARKINSON MUST BE BACKED BY THE BOARD. It is no longer a matter of FREE TRANSFERS give him some money and let him get on with it he will do what needs doing TRUST HIM lawsonio123
  • Score: -10

11:56am Wed 15 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion! But it looks like we are going backwards not upwards for a big club we show no ambition! I wonder if phil parkinson gets any money to spend at all.
I see your frustrations. The windfall from last season seemed to just dissapear with little or no enhancement of the squad. As ML has said though we were predicting a loss of £600k for the season. How much more money would you want to risk spending? Much better to live within our means or we would just be repeating the errors of the past and nobody wants those days to return.
I agree though it will be frustrating if none of the Wells money is spent. Lets see what we bring in in January before we write off the club as having 'no ambition'.
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Everyone is entitled to an opinion! But it looks like we are going backwards not upwards for a big club we show no ambition! I wonder if phil parkinson gets any money to spend at all.[/p][/quote]I see your frustrations. The windfall from last season seemed to just dissapear with little or no enhancement of the squad. As ML has said though we were predicting a loss of £600k for the season. How much more money would you want to risk spending? Much better to live within our means or we would just be repeating the errors of the past and nobody wants those days to return. I agree though it will be frustrating if none of the Wells money is spent. Lets see what we bring in in January before we write off the club as having 'no ambition'. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 1

12:03pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

Plastic Bantam wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: good news about gray coming back! not!! another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game!
Don't get the big fuss of "give Connell a chance" He's not good enough either. At the start of the season Parky said he doesn't rate him as a starter.. He see's hin as more of an impact player!!
You must be new here. Here are the rules;

After seeing him play for 10 minutes here and there and not really doing a great deal Connell is a world beater and MUST start!

Despite not seeing Gray play at all he is totally past it and MUST NOT play ever!
[quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: good news about gray coming back! not!! another player parky can use to stop connell getting a game![/p][/quote]Don't get the big fuss of "give Connell a chance" He's not good enough either. At the start of the season Parky said he doesn't rate him as a starter.. He see's hin as more of an impact player!![/p][/quote]You must be new here. Here are the rules; After seeing him play for 10 minutes here and there and not really doing a great deal Connell is a world beater and MUST start! Despite not seeing Gray play at all he is totally past it and MUST NOT play ever! Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 5

12:07pm Wed 15 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Can't see any advantage in rushing into any player acquisition, we need to take our time and use the Nahki cash wisely. Personally as soon as I heard McLeans mate singing his praises in the T&A yesterday alarm bells rung. If he's any good no mates endorsement is needed. We don't need another Gray situation. So the club needs to carefully weigh up the finance of any deal and what that does to the dynamic of the dressing room.
Can't see any advantage in rushing into any player acquisition, we need to take our time and use the Nahki cash wisely. Personally as soon as I heard McLeans mate singing his praises in the T&A yesterday alarm bells rung. If he's any good no mates endorsement is needed. We don't need another Gray situation. So the club needs to carefully weigh up the finance of any deal and what that does to the dynamic of the dressing room. bcfc1903
  • Score: -3

12:12pm Wed 15 Jan 14

lawsonio123 says...

Grey is mostly UNFIT What good is a player who is very often not fit so cannot play END OF STORY
Grey is mostly UNFIT What good is a player who is very often not fit so cannot play END OF STORY lawsonio123
  • Score: -4

12:14pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
Is a proven goalscorer at this level.
Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition???
Sorry something doesn't add up!
Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.
As we would have been sat on an asset which was reducing over the time he wasn't playing. If we didn't let him go he wasn't going to play. Simple as that. We could maybe have tried for more of a fee but we were never going to keep Wells as an L2 player on any wage.
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Is a proven goalscorer at this level. Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition??? Sorry something doesn't add up! Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.[/p][/quote]As we would have been sat on an asset which was reducing over the time he wasn't playing. If we didn't let him go he wasn't going to play. Simple as that. We could maybe have tried for more of a fee but we were never going to keep Wells as an L2 player on any wage. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: -2

12:18pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Olivermac says...

tyker2 wrote:
if I was a betting man nothing will happen: the McLean thing was nothing more than a smoke screen to get through the Wells situation.

I think the Board will try to muddle through and hope we get a win or two to preserve our status in this division.
Yes I agree and one thing for sure is that Parky has read some of the reviews about Mc Burnie he should not have been in the 11 that started on Sat and against Rotherham he should be used on a 10 to 15 min basis.
Now Parky has stated that they are keeping all options open about a new striker ?????and now you could have written the script, what a surprise to see after 4 weeks that Gray has suddenly recovered from a dead leg and my bet is that he will start on Sat and if he gets a goal on Sat Parky will tell you all our problems are solved regarding a striker that is if Gray keeps injury free. So if gray scores on Sat your bet is a safe one
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: if I was a betting man nothing will happen: the McLean thing was nothing more than a smoke screen to get through the Wells situation. I think the Board will try to muddle through and hope we get a win or two to preserve our status in this division.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree and one thing for sure is that Parky has read some of the reviews about Mc Burnie he should not have been in the 11 that started on Sat and against Rotherham he should be used on a 10 to 15 min basis. Now Parky has stated that they are keeping all options open about a new striker ?????and now you could have written the script, what a surprise to see after 4 weeks that Gray has suddenly recovered from a dead leg and my bet is that he will start on Sat and if he gets a goal on Sat Parky will tell you all our problems are solved regarding a striker that is if Gray keeps injury free. So if gray scores on Sat your bet is a safe one Olivermac
  • Score: -6

12:46pm Wed 15 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

jamiejoe wrote:
KnightMcCall wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.
Are you really saying no football fan in the country can have a view on potential transfers unless they have invested and presumably have a seat on the board? Or does this just apply to City?

This is a bit of a recurring theme on here. Presumably if you were on the board you would have a duty of care to the club and you could not speculate on confidential matters on fan forums. Really ... we need to get real. This is akin to fans talking in the pub before the game, we need to take it in that light hearted spirit.

Unless we become a fan owned club with lots of small 'investors' and a bit of serious money to move up the leagues. Have you seen what it cost Cardiff in the Championship on wages? We are 10 times away from that level at the moment and for the foreseeable ...
There is a big difference between havng an opinion and slagging off the Chairmen for not spending his OWN money.

Mrmuzzy is not stating an opinion he is having a rant. Ill-informed and peurile too. No issue with people having an opinion on whether we should sign a specific striker but I do have an issue with people who think that they have the right to spend other people's cash when they won't spend their own.

Does that make sense?
[quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.[/p][/quote]Are you really saying no football fan in the country can have a view on potential transfers unless they have invested and presumably have a seat on the board? Or does this just apply to City? This is a bit of a recurring theme on here. Presumably if you were on the board you would have a duty of care to the club and you could not speculate on confidential matters on fan forums. Really ... we need to get real. This is akin to fans talking in the pub before the game, we need to take it in that light hearted spirit. Unless we become a fan owned club with lots of small 'investors' and a bit of serious money to move up the leagues. Have you seen what it cost Cardiff in the Championship on wages? We are 10 times away from that level at the moment and for the foreseeable ...[/p][/quote]There is a big difference between havng an opinion and slagging off the Chairmen for not spending his OWN money. Mrmuzzy is not stating an opinion he is having a rant. Ill-informed and peurile too. No issue with people having an opinion on whether we should sign a specific striker but I do have an issue with people who think that they have the right to spend other people's cash when they won't spend their own. Does that make sense? KnightMcCall
  • Score: 3

12:49pm Wed 15 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion!
But it looks like we are going backwards not upwards
for a big club we show no ambition!
I wonder if phil parkinson gets any money to spend at all.
Yes, sadly they are...no matter how ill-thought out that opinion is or how little factual basis there is for it.

Thanks Farsley Bantam; you obviously understood where I was coming from.
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Everyone is entitled to an opinion! But it looks like we are going backwards not upwards for a big club we show no ambition! I wonder if phil parkinson gets any money to spend at all.[/p][/quote]Yes, sadly they are...no matter how ill-thought out that opinion is or how little factual basis there is for it. Thanks Farsley Bantam; you obviously understood where I was coming from. KnightMcCall
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Wed 15 Jan 14

whisky1 says...

KnightMcCall wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
KnightMcCall wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.
Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.
Are you really saying no football fan in the country can have a view on potential transfers unless they have invested and presumably have a seat on the board? Or does this just apply to City?

This is a bit of a recurring theme on here. Presumably if you were on the board you would have a duty of care to the club and you could not speculate on confidential matters on fan forums. Really ... we need to get real. This is akin to fans talking in the pub before the game, we need to take it in that light hearted spirit.

Unless we become a fan owned club with lots of small 'investors' and a bit of serious money to move up the leagues. Have you seen what it cost Cardiff in the Championship on wages? We are 10 times away from that level at the moment and for the foreseeable ...
There is a big difference between havng an opinion and slagging off the Chairmen for not spending his OWN money.

Mrmuzzy is not stating an opinion he is having a rant. Ill-informed and peurile too. No issue with people having an opinion on whether we should sign a specific striker but I do have an issue with people who think that they have the right to spend other people's cash when they won't spend their own.

Does that make sense?
Amen to that> Easy to criticise much harder to be positive and make a contribution. If fans have genuine interest in their club they should post on social media sites responsibly and understand that negativity feeds of itself. If had not had such a great 18 mths it would be kind of understandable. Beggars belief really
[quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Well it doesn't look like we are signing Mclean. Yet another sad sorry excuse from mark lawn!!! Would cost him to much money. Even though we need a new striker!! No ambition like always.[/p][/quote]Where is your cash then? You seem to have a very high ambition for the club when someone else is putting the cash in. Put your savings at risk and then you can slag of others who already have.[/p][/quote]Are you really saying no football fan in the country can have a view on potential transfers unless they have invested and presumably have a seat on the board? Or does this just apply to City? This is a bit of a recurring theme on here. Presumably if you were on the board you would have a duty of care to the club and you could not speculate on confidential matters on fan forums. Really ... we need to get real. This is akin to fans talking in the pub before the game, we need to take it in that light hearted spirit. Unless we become a fan owned club with lots of small 'investors' and a bit of serious money to move up the leagues. Have you seen what it cost Cardiff in the Championship on wages? We are 10 times away from that level at the moment and for the foreseeable ...[/p][/quote]There is a big difference between havng an opinion and slagging off the Chairmen for not spending his OWN money. Mrmuzzy is not stating an opinion he is having a rant. Ill-informed and peurile too. No issue with people having an opinion on whether we should sign a specific striker but I do have an issue with people who think that they have the right to spend other people's cash when they won't spend their own. Does that make sense?[/p][/quote]Amen to that> Easy to criticise much harder to be positive and make a contribution. If fans have genuine interest in their club they should post on social media sites responsibly and understand that negativity feeds of itself. If had not had such a great 18 mths it would be kind of understandable. Beggars belief really whisky1
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Wed 15 Jan 14

moanmoanwhingewhinge says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
Is a proven goalscorer at this level.
Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition???
Sorry something doesn't add up!
Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.
"Why let wells go if thats ambition???"

BECAUSE HE WANTED TO LEAVE!!!!!!!! FFS!!!
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Is a proven goalscorer at this level. Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition??? Sorry something doesn't add up! Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.[/p][/quote]"Why let wells go if thats ambition???" BECAUSE HE WANTED TO LEAVE!!!!!!!! FFS!!! moanmoanwhingewhinge
  • Score: 6

1:23pm Wed 15 Jan 14

whisky1 says...

moanmoanwhingewhinge wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
Is a proven goalscorer at this level.
Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition???
Sorry something doesn't add up!
Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.
"Why let wells go if thats ambition???"

BECAUSE HE WANTED TO LEAVE!!!!!!!! FFS!!!
JR must love Lawny taking ALL the flack instead of him!
[quote][p][bold]moanmoanwhingewhinge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Is a proven goalscorer at this level. Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition??? Sorry something doesn't add up! Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.[/p][/quote]"Why let wells go if thats ambition???" BECAUSE HE WANTED TO LEAVE!!!!!!!! FFS!!![/p][/quote]JR must love Lawny taking ALL the flack instead of him! whisky1
  • Score: -2

1:58pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Babbsy says...

My Mate's a Hull fan and was quite surprised when I was banding about transfer fees (the rumoured £450K) this morning as as far as he is aware he's available on a free. If this is the case, and given the fact we've just raked in at least a couple of million for Nahki, can't we push the boat out a little and make him ours? We need somebody in by Saturday, otherwise I have a feeling we'll all be leaving Bramall Lane just before 5pm, very disappointed again.
My Mate's a Hull fan and was quite surprised when I was banding about transfer fees (the rumoured £450K) this morning as as far as he is aware he's available on a free. If this is the case, and given the fact we've just raked in at least a couple of million for Nahki, can't we push the boat out a little and make him ours? We need somebody in by Saturday, otherwise I have a feeling we'll all be leaving Bramall Lane just before 5pm, very disappointed again. Babbsy
  • Score: 1

3:07pm Wed 15 Jan 14

lawsonio123 says...

Babbsy wrote:
My Mate's a Hull fan and was quite surprised when I was banding about transfer fees (the rumoured £450K) this morning as as far as he is aware he's available on a free. If this is the case, and given the fact we've just raked in at least a couple of million for Nahki, can't we push the boat out a little and make him ours? We need somebody in by Saturday, otherwise I have a feeling we'll all be leaving Bramall Lane just before 5pm, very disappointed again.
If you are correct someone is telling PORKIES oh dear
[quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: My Mate's a Hull fan and was quite surprised when I was banding about transfer fees (the rumoured £450K) this morning as as far as he is aware he's available on a free. If this is the case, and given the fact we've just raked in at least a couple of million for Nahki, can't we push the boat out a little and make him ours? We need somebody in by Saturday, otherwise I have a feeling we'll all be leaving Bramall Lane just before 5pm, very disappointed again.[/p][/quote]If you are correct someone is telling PORKIES oh dear lawsonio123
  • Score: -4

3:30pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

moanmoanwhingewhinge wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
Is a proven goalscorer at this level.
Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition???
Sorry something doesn't add up!
Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.
"Why let wells go if thats ambition???"

BECAUSE HE WANTED TO LEAVE!!!!!!!! FFS!!!
Not just wanted to leave, refused to play.

The pulling up early in the Swindon match?? Player power,....see this is what I will do if you force me to play...he knew 6 weeks ago he was off to the ratdogs and told the club as much.
[quote][p][bold]moanmoanwhingewhinge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Is a proven goalscorer at this level. Ambition???? Why let wells go if thats ambition??? Sorry something doesn't add up! Only mark lawn can prove doubters wrong by at least giving phil parkinson money to spend.[/p][/quote]"Why let wells go if thats ambition???" BECAUSE HE WANTED TO LEAVE!!!!!!!! FFS!!![/p][/quote]Not just wanted to leave, refused to play. The pulling up early in the Swindon match?? Player power,....see this is what I will do if you force me to play...he knew 6 weeks ago he was off to the ratdogs and told the club as much. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Wed 15 Jan 14

mrmuzzy says...

Where did all the money go from last season?
We will see who we aqquire in the next few weeks.
if parkinson isn't given any money why not fetch in someone who can just do deals on freebies and loan.
Where did all the money go from last season? We will see who we aqquire in the next few weeks. if parkinson isn't given any money why not fetch in someone who can just do deals on freebies and loan. mrmuzzy
  • Score: -1

4:39pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
Where did all the money go from last season? We will see who we aqquire in the next few weeks. if parkinson isn't given any money why not fetch in someone who can just do deals on freebies and loan.
Is there such a thing as a free transfer and loan expert that can just be 'brought in'? Genuine question.
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: Where did all the money go from last season? We will see who we aqquire in the next few weeks. if parkinson isn't given any money why not fetch in someone who can just do deals on freebies and loan.[/p][/quote]Is there such a thing as a free transfer and loan expert that can just be 'brought in'? Genuine question. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 1

4:43pm Wed 15 Jan 14

mrmuzzy says...

When was the last time we payed a transfer fee?
Phil parkinson at the moment.
Bates signed a new contract what a joke!!!
No wonder we haven't got any money wasting it on prime donnas!
When was the last time we payed a transfer fee? Phil parkinson at the moment. Bates signed a new contract what a joke!!! No wonder we haven't got any money wasting it on prime donnas! mrmuzzy
  • Score: -2

7:44pm Wed 15 Jan 14

bcfcincheshire says...

Amazingly we are still only seven points from the play off. If Davies gets back by the Preston match and a new striker is in the squad for Saturday at Bramall Lane momentum can build again...
Just as Peterborough have stalled we can recover....We play all the teams above us in fifth - eleventh. ...they are all very evenly matched....give Yeates and Kennedy more opportunitie ..play without fear but with belief....use the crowd home and away...keep Hanson fit....and I predict sixth by the skin of our teeth....just like we made seventh last season when it appeared hopeless afterExeter away. We will be undefeated in the rest of Jan and in all of Feb and will win half those matches...eighth by March 1st!
Amazingly we are still only seven points from the play off. If Davies gets back by the Preston match and a new striker is in the squad for Saturday at Bramall Lane momentum can build again... Just as Peterborough have stalled we can recover....We play all the teams above us in fifth - eleventh. ...they are all very evenly matched....give Yeates and Kennedy more opportunitie ..play without fear but with belief....use the crowd home and away...keep Hanson fit....and I predict sixth by the skin of our teeth....just like we made seventh last season when it appeared hopeless afterExeter away. We will be undefeated in the rest of Jan and in all of Feb and will win half those matches...eighth by March 1st! bcfcincheshire
  • Score: 2

8:21pm Wed 15 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

bcfcincheshire wrote:
Amazingly we are still only seven points from the play off. If Davies gets back by the Preston match and a new striker is in the squad for Saturday at Bramall Lane momentum can build again...
Just as Peterborough have stalled we can recover....We play all the teams above us in fifth - eleventh. ...they are all very evenly matched....give Yeates and Kennedy more opportunitie ..play without fear but with belief....use the crowd home and away...keep Hanson fit....and I predict sixth by the skin of our teeth....just like we made seventh last season when it appeared hopeless afterExeter away. We will be undefeated in the rest of Jan and in all of Feb and will win half those matches...eighth by March 1st!
its 9 points and you have to be in form with a goalscorer!
and for all you people who twist my comments, i never said connell was a worldbeater.
but tell me he deserves to sit on bench instead of a youth player?
played a youth player instead against rotherham where a forward who drops deep would have been better.
last away game he brought on 2 youth strikers instead of him.
tell me that is not a personality issue?
you talk about a goalscoring midfielder but then say connell drops deep into that role too much.
wake up people parky is not interested in playing that way!
aim for hanson and pick up the scraps!
[quote][p][bold]bcfcincheshire[/bold] wrote: Amazingly we are still only seven points from the play off. If Davies gets back by the Preston match and a new striker is in the squad for Saturday at Bramall Lane momentum can build again... Just as Peterborough have stalled we can recover....We play all the teams above us in fifth - eleventh. ...they are all very evenly matched....give Yeates and Kennedy more opportunitie ..play without fear but with belief....use the crowd home and away...keep Hanson fit....and I predict sixth by the skin of our teeth....just like we made seventh last season when it appeared hopeless afterExeter away. We will be undefeated in the rest of Jan and in all of Feb and will win half those matches...eighth by March 1st![/p][/quote]its 9 points and you have to be in form with a goalscorer! and for all you people who twist my comments, i never said connell was a worldbeater. but tell me he deserves to sit on bench instead of a youth player? played a youth player instead against rotherham where a forward who drops deep would have been better. last away game he brought on 2 youth strikers instead of him. tell me that is not a personality issue? you talk about a goalscoring midfielder but then say connell drops deep into that role too much. wake up people parky is not interested in playing that way! aim for hanson and pick up the scraps! tinytoonster
  • Score: -2

10:28pm Wed 15 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

Olivermac wrote:
tyker2 wrote:
if I was a betting man nothing will happen: the McLean thing was nothing more than a smoke screen to get through the Wells situation.

I think the Board will try to muddle through and hope we get a win or two to preserve our status in this division.
Yes I agree and one thing for sure is that Parky has read some of the reviews about Mc Burnie he should not have been in the 11 that started on Sat and against Rotherham he should be used on a 10 to 15 min basis.
Now Parky has stated that they are keeping all options open about a new striker ?????and now you could have written the script, what a surprise to see after 4 weeks that Gray has suddenly recovered from a dead leg and my bet is that he will start on Sat and if he gets a goal on Sat Parky will tell you all our problems are solved regarding a striker that is if Gray keeps injury free. So if gray scores on Sat your bet is a safe one
You are going to look a bit silly and a bit petty when McLean signs tomorrow.
[quote][p][bold]Olivermac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: if I was a betting man nothing will happen: the McLean thing was nothing more than a smoke screen to get through the Wells situation. I think the Board will try to muddle through and hope we get a win or two to preserve our status in this division.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree and one thing for sure is that Parky has read some of the reviews about Mc Burnie he should not have been in the 11 that started on Sat and against Rotherham he should be used on a 10 to 15 min basis. Now Parky has stated that they are keeping all options open about a new striker ?????and now you could have written the script, what a surprise to see after 4 weeks that Gray has suddenly recovered from a dead leg and my bet is that he will start on Sat and if he gets a goal on Sat Parky will tell you all our problems are solved regarding a striker that is if Gray keeps injury free. So if gray scores on Sat your bet is a safe one[/p][/quote]You are going to look a bit silly and a bit petty when McLean signs tomorrow. KnightMcCall
  • Score: 2

10:43pm Wed 15 Jan 14

torreyman says...

Nobody seems to want Grey why not let him sell programs in the ground at least that way he could start to earn his keep or dress up as clown and sell balloons
Nobody seems to want Grey why not let him sell programs in the ground at least that way he could start to earn his keep or dress up as clown and sell balloons torreyman
  • Score: -2

9:33am Thu 16 Jan 14

KnightMcCall says...

torreyman wrote:
Nobody seems to want Grey why not let him sell programs in the ground at least that way he could start to earn his keep or dress up as clown and sell balloons
You can't even spell his name correctly so perhaps selling programs would be beyond you.
[quote][p][bold]torreyman[/bold] wrote: Nobody seems to want Grey why not let him sell programs in the ground at least that way he could start to earn his keep or dress up as clown and sell balloons[/p][/quote]You can't even spell his name correctly so perhaps selling programs would be beyond you. KnightMcCall
  • Score: 2

9:34pm Fri 17 Jan 14

saintsrlfc says...

only comments on meaningless sporting news now allowed eh ....... whys that then ? don't you like to hear the opinion of your readers on real news stories ?.....aren't we accepting enough of your multicultural nightmare ? your censorship of comments really does show that your time is up ....... the tide has turned .
only comments on meaningless sporting news now allowed eh ....... whys that then ? don't you like to hear the opinion of your readers on real news stories ?.....aren't we accepting enough of your multicultural nightmare ? your censorship of comments really does show that your time is up ....... the tide has turned . saintsrlfc
  • 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