Taylor finishes Bradford City loan (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

What a roaring success he turned out to be.

Good.

and the purpose of the loan was what exactly? waste of time and efforts in arranging it

tyker2 wrote:
and the purpose of the loan was what exactly? waste of time and efforts in arranging it

exactly.....even has cover for reid. We had O'B and other defensive left sided players. A bloomin pointless exercise and its happenning far to often. why not use what we have got see if they are good enough and if not ship out. If its to take a look at a player a month is still not enough. Some players take time to settle etc.....Like Reed, (remember him?) earlier in the season its been a waste on resources and opportunity to see if what we already have can do a job. In Reed's case Parkinson decided to switch the entire side around to accomodate him, with Jones moved to wide right ?? And even then sent him home despite been eligible for one more game and having started the last one???? Bonkers.....

tyker2 wrote:
and the purpose of the loan was what exactly? waste of time and efforts in arranging it

exactly.....even has cover for reid. We had O'B and other defensive left sided players. A bloomin pointless exercise and its happenning far to often. why not use what we have got see if they are good enough and if not ship out. If its to take a look at a player a month is still not enough. Some players take time to settle etc.....Like Reed, (remember him?) earlier in the season its been a waste on resources and opportunity to see if what we already have can do a job. In Reed's case Parkinson decided to switch the entire side around to accomodate him, with Jones moved to wide right ?? And even then sent him home despite been eligible for one more game and having started the last one???? Bonkers.....

tyker2 wrote:
and the purpose of the loan was what exactly? waste of time and efforts in arranging it

exactly.....even has cover for reid. We had O'B and other defensive left sided players. A bloomin pointless exercise and its happenning far to often. why not use what we have got see if they are good enough and if not ship out. If its to take a look at a player a month is still not enough. Some players take time to settle etc.....Like Reed, (remember him?) earlier in the season its been a waste on resources and opportunity to see if what we already have can do a job. In Reed's case Parkinson decided to switch the entire side around to accomodate him, with Jones moved to wide right ?? And even then sent him home despite been eligible for one more game and having started the last one???? Bonkers.....

3 posts from one press is bonkers too

More brilliant business from "PARKY"!!

Babbsy wrote:
What a roaring success he turned out to be.

He was brought in as a stop gap. You have no idea what the terms of the loan were or what PP was thinking. Take your negative drivel elsewhere...

dannbradfc wrote:

tyker2 wrote: and the purpose of the loan was what exactly? waste of time and efforts in arranging it

exactly.....even has cover for reid. We had O'B and other defensive left sided players. A bloomin pointless exercise and its happenning far to often. why not use what we have got see if they are good enough and if not ship out. If its to take a look at a player a month is still not enough. Some players take time to settle etc.....Like Reed, (remember him?) earlier in the season its been a waste on resources and opportunity to see if what we already have can do a job. In Reed's case Parkinson decided to switch the entire side around to accomodate him, with Jones moved to wide right ?? And even then sent him home despite been eligible for one more game and having started the last one???? Bonkers.....

Determined to be negative aren;t you. PP will have had his own reasons and he obviously wanted OB to leave so playing him in January might have prevented that from happening. Just because you don't understand the reasoning doesn't mean there isn't one. There are many things that go on behind the scenes that you don't understand or know about but you still seem to believe you are sufficiently equipped to criticise. It is boring.

KnightMcCall wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

tyker2 wrote: and the purpose of the loan was what exactly? waste of time and efforts in arranging it

exactly.....even has cover for reid. We had O'B and other defensive left sided players. A bloomin pointless exercise and its happenning far to often. why not use what we have got see if they are good enough and if not ship out. If its to take a look at a player a month is still not enough. Some players take time to settle etc.....Like Reed, (remember him?) earlier in the season its been a waste on resources and opportunity to see if what we already have can do a job. In Reed's case Parkinson decided to switch the entire side around to accomodate him, with Jones moved to wide right ?? And even then sent him home despite been eligible for one more game and having started the last one???? Bonkers.....

Determined to be negative aren;t you. PP will have had his own reasons and he obviously wanted OB to leave so playing him in January might have prevented that from happening. Just because you don't understand the reasoning doesn't mean there isn't one. There are many things that go on behind the scenes that you don't understand or know about but you still seem to believe you are sufficiently equipped to criticise. It is boring.

Whats your opnion??

You fail to answer any of the points raised. If negativity is the reality, and please tell me where i'm wrong in the above, then i'm like a few others negative.

We do/did have cover at fullback. What did we acheive with the taylor signing for instance?

We aslo had cover e.g. Flynn and Jones when Pp accomodated Reed. Is that not a waste of resources, not least unsettling?

As you slightly allude too i can indeed only question, praise and criticise what i know and the above includes what i know from what has been seen with my own eyes and/or released via the media. How do you know i'm wrong? thus your own logic can be applied to your argument e.g. how do you know that O'B wasn't played because Pp wanted rid? Your basing this on nothing whereas i've stated my reasoning based on what we do know.

You seem to apear to feel yourself equipped to criticise my post without actually adding anything or pointing out where what i've said is wrong.