Matt Taylor making the right move, says Phil Parkinson of Cheltenham switch

Matt Taylo

Matt Taylo

First published in Sport
Last updated

PHIL Parkinson waved farewell to Cheltenham-bound Matt Taylor and insisted: He needs to play for himself.

The centre half aims to put an injury-plagued spell at Valley Parade behind him after agreeing to sign for the League Two Robins on a two-year deal.

There is no fee involved after Taylor’s City contract, which had another season to run, was cancelled by mutual consent.

Taylor is likely to be handed the captain’s armband by Cheltenham boss Mark Yates when he arrives next week.

The 32-year-old played only four times for City and was laid low by a serious foot injury in February when he tore a tendon in the bottom of his right foot. The operation ruled him out for the remainder of the campaign.

But he returned for pre-season and proved his fitness with three appearances in the friendlies against UCD, Shelbourne and Ossett Town.

Parkinson said: “I’ve had several chats with Matt and he was going to find it difficult to be out of the team after the work he has done to get back.

“Having done so much to get himself fit again, he needs to be playing regular football.”

Taylor will be Cheltenham’s eighth summer signing as they undertake a major overhaul.

After narrowly missing out in the play-offs in successive seasons, the Robins slumped to 17th place last term – finishing only five points above the drop zone.

Many of the new recruits are unproven and Yates sees Taylor as the senior defender to succeed 35-year-old Steve Elliott, who will take on more of a coaching role.

Taylor played more games on a month’s loan at Colchester last season than in a City shirt. He told the T&A last week that the past 12 months had been a “total write-off.”

Taylor, a former skipper at Charlton, said: “I can’t go another season with not playing.

“People forget you’re there when you don’t play football. They don’t remember what you’ve done in the past.

“I need to be back performing on the pitch and I’m trying to give myself the best opportunity for that.”

His departure will free up room within the City playing budget as Parkinson looks to bolster numbers before the season kicks off in a fortnight.

He has had a look at two central defenders on trial in pre-season – Richard Bryan and Frenchman Christophe Routis.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:51am Sat 26 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

I can see why both parties have agreed to this transfer. Taylor was down the pecking order and needs to be playing; PP needed to free up funds in his squad. However, I will be bemused if he then signs Routis.

For the past few seasons, PP seems to have built a revolving door for centre backs whilst he's been at the club. First he signed Seip and asked him to cover both the centre back and left back positions. Then at the end of the season, he released him. Then he signed Nelson, who never got a look in before also being allowed to return to Scotland. PP then brought in Taylor as his replacement and yet played more games for another club than he did for us. Now he too has gone again as quickly as he came.

Surely PP needs to sign a player like McHugh who was able to cover 2 positions and happy to bide his time. Does this point more towards young Richard Bryan?
I can see why both parties have agreed to this transfer. Taylor was down the pecking order and needs to be playing; PP needed to free up funds in his squad. However, I will be bemused if he then signs Routis. For the past few seasons, PP seems to have built a revolving door for centre backs whilst he's been at the club. First he signed Seip and asked him to cover both the centre back and left back positions. Then at the end of the season, he released him. Then he signed Nelson, who never got a look in before also being allowed to return to Scotland. PP then brought in Taylor as his replacement and yet played more games for another club than he did for us. Now he too has gone again as quickly as he came. Surely PP needs to sign a player like McHugh who was able to cover 2 positions and happy to bide his time. Does this point more towards young Richard Bryan? Waynus1971
  • Score: 6

3:59pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Pablo says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
I can see why both parties have agreed to this transfer. Taylor was down the pecking order and needs to be playing; PP needed to free up funds in his squad. However, I will be bemused if he then signs Routis.

For the past few seasons, PP seems to have built a revolving door for centre backs whilst he's been at the club. First he signed Seip and asked him to cover both the centre back and left back positions. Then at the end of the season, he released him. Then he signed Nelson, who never got a look in before also being allowed to return to Scotland. PP then brought in Taylor as his replacement and yet played more games for another club than he did for us. Now he too has gone again as quickly as he came.

Surely PP needs to sign a player like McHugh who was able to cover 2 positions and happy to bide his time. Does this point more towards young Richard Bryan?
It begs the question.......why did he let McHugh go? Young, talented, didn't look out of place when he played against Premiership opposition and, I would imagine, on a relatively low wage.

Why take the risk of bringing an unknown quantity into the squad?
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: I can see why both parties have agreed to this transfer. Taylor was down the pecking order and needs to be playing; PP needed to free up funds in his squad. However, I will be bemused if he then signs Routis. For the past few seasons, PP seems to have built a revolving door for centre backs whilst he's been at the club. First he signed Seip and asked him to cover both the centre back and left back positions. Then at the end of the season, he released him. Then he signed Nelson, who never got a look in before also being allowed to return to Scotland. PP then brought in Taylor as his replacement and yet played more games for another club than he did for us. Now he too has gone again as quickly as he came. Surely PP needs to sign a player like McHugh who was able to cover 2 positions and happy to bide his time. Does this point more towards young Richard Bryan?[/p][/quote]It begs the question.......why did he let McHugh go? Young, talented, didn't look out of place when he played against Premiership opposition and, I would imagine, on a relatively low wage. Why take the risk of bringing an unknown quantity into the squad? Pablo
  • Score: 8

12:00am Tue 29 Jul 14

Waynus1971 says...

Pablo wrote:
Waynus1971 wrote:
I can see why both parties have agreed to this transfer. Taylor was down the pecking order and needs to be playing; PP needed to free up funds in his squad. However, I will be bemused if he then signs Routis.

For the past few seasons, PP seems to have built a revolving door for centre backs whilst he's been at the club. First he signed Seip and asked him to cover both the centre back and left back positions. Then at the end of the season, he released him. Then he signed Nelson, who never got a look in before also being allowed to return to Scotland. PP then brought in Taylor as his replacement and yet played more games for another club than he did for us. Now he too has gone again as quickly as he came.

Surely PP needs to sign a player like McHugh who was able to cover 2 positions and happy to bide his time. Does this point more towards young Richard Bryan?
It begs the question.......why did he let McHugh go? Young, talented, didn't look out of place when he played against Premiership opposition and, I would imagine, on a relatively low wage.

Why take the risk of bringing an unknown quantity into the squad?
To be fair to PP, did he have a choice? McHugh was out of contract and had been offered a new deal. However, he wanted to be playing and not just sat on our bench biding his time. What could PP have done?

That said, McHugh is under 24 and had been offered a new deal. Aren't we entitled to compensation and if so, why aren't the club pursuing this?
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: I can see why both parties have agreed to this transfer. Taylor was down the pecking order and needs to be playing; PP needed to free up funds in his squad. However, I will be bemused if he then signs Routis. For the past few seasons, PP seems to have built a revolving door for centre backs whilst he's been at the club. First he signed Seip and asked him to cover both the centre back and left back positions. Then at the end of the season, he released him. Then he signed Nelson, who never got a look in before also being allowed to return to Scotland. PP then brought in Taylor as his replacement and yet played more games for another club than he did for us. Now he too has gone again as quickly as he came. Surely PP needs to sign a player like McHugh who was able to cover 2 positions and happy to bide his time. Does this point more towards young Richard Bryan?[/p][/quote]It begs the question.......why did he let McHugh go? Young, talented, didn't look out of place when he played against Premiership opposition and, I would imagine, on a relatively low wage. Why take the risk of bringing an unknown quantity into the squad?[/p][/quote]To be fair to PP, did he have a choice? McHugh was out of contract and had been offered a new deal. However, he wanted to be playing and not just sat on our bench biding his time. What could PP have done? That said, McHugh is under 24 and had been offered a new deal. Aren't we entitled to compensation and if so, why aren't the club pursuing this? Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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