Bradford City manager Parkinson sees through transfer window hype (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

shame he couldnt have got rid of fagan and duke .i am sure that would free up some big money on the wages front .

eckybantam wrote:
shame he couldnt have got rid of fagan and duke .i am sure that would free up some big money on the wages front .

I totally agree with you on that one. Neither of those 2 would be missed!

Well how did City keep this one quiet

http:/www.skybet.com
/cns/breaking-transf
er-news.shtm?name=Ja
mes+Hanson

£83 million to Barcelona!!!

I must get something done

"OVER-RATED"!!......
Yes that sums up Parkinson quite well!!.
Peter Taylors..."love child"!!

"HAPPY VALLEY-EXCESS ALL AREAS"
'JOOLS & LAWNEE'

(Over a 'cuppa')

L: See it says in today's 'T & A' Parkie thinks the transfer window's 'overrated!!

J: Yeah...he seems to prefer the 'emergency loan system'!!

L: How many 'emergency loan players' have we had, Jools?

J: Er..quite a few ..Lawnee..ha ha!!

L: So...I guess...we must be in ...a bit of an 'emergency-type' situation!!

J: Yes...well ..you could say that...seeing as we're still at the bottom end of 'Division 4..!!

L: Has 'PP' finished bringing in emergency loan WINGERS d'ya think, Jools!!

J: Oh, I hope so...Lawnee...Taylor
...Haworth...Atkinso
n....

L:...Yeah..I mean...he didn't like Compton much...

J: He didn't track back enough, Lawnee!!

L: Yeah..that's the 'official party line'..but these other three...have been soooo....

L &J:...OVERRATED!!! Ha Ha!!

No mention of Ramsden again just what new injury has he got or is it the old injury playing up ?.....

Please no more loan players unless it really is an emergency.

Save our budget for next season when we give it a proper go

Ramsden is mentioned and no, it is a fresh injury and not his issue from last season.

we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP.

no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

tyker2 wrote:
we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP.

no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position?
.
The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote: we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP. no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position? . The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Whilst it all makese sense; Threlfall does not seem to be in the plans at all at the moment. Having Taylor on the bench in front of him seems strange to me when Taylor was never likely to be kept on long-term.

Agree with comments on Wells though. I think too much was expected of him last week with long balls being hoofed into channels.

Not sure that PP will drop Fagan for Atkinson and if there are any doubts about Reid then perhaps he will start on the bench.

Not sure why Mitch does not seem to get a look in

KnightMcCall wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote: we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP. no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position? . The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Whilst it all makese sense; Threlfall does not seem to be in the plans at all at the moment. Having Taylor on the bench in front of him seems strange to me when Taylor was never likely to be kept on long-term.

Agree with comments on Wells though. I think too much was expected of him last week with long balls being hoofed into channels.

Not sure that PP will drop Fagan for Atkinson and if there are any doubts about Reid then perhaps he will start on the bench.

Not sure why Mitch does not seem to get a look in

Knightmccall

you singled my out recently for saying very similar/questioning things in you are oing in your own post e.g. why not try our own players before acquiring loans, such as Mitchell. You also question the logic of playing Taylor in front of our own in Threfal. Thus your basically saying the same things yet accuse me of negativity and not understanding Parkinson's goals or reasons behind such things. Why? when you are doing the same?

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP.

no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position?
.
The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Makes sense i can't see Parkinso using Mitchell again if he can help it. Why is another question. Do you seriously see him dropping Fagan? The only way this will happen is if Fagan is suddenly announced has having a diplomatic strain/injury;-). Also Hannah our player but not Parkinson's is behind Smalley at the minute. Taylor played in front of Threfal recently so read into that what you will. We have always had options within our own players imo without resorting to loans. Davies aside we could have managed and as the cup side showed consistently they may have got some better results;-).

Seriously, the return to excessive loans is disappointing. especially the short term one's that appear to be nothing more than trials. i hope we aren't using finances that would be better served acquiring our own players. Loans offer to much disruption and should be used only in emergency situations. Prior to O'B leaving we had 3 potential left backs yet brought in taylor. there's other similar situations but its clear to see that parkinson wants to build HIS own side with his players. This again is fair enough when you can afford it and feel you can get better players. But like others have said he realyy didn't give the players already at the club much of a chance or attempt to develop the one's already here. Again, fans have questioned this policy and also the direction of where its heading......

dannbradfc wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP.

no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position?
.
The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Makes sense i can't see Parkinso using Mitchell again if he can help it. Why is another question. Do you seriously see him dropping Fagan? The only way this will happen is if Fagan is suddenly announced has having a diplomatic strain/injury;-). Also Hannah our player but not Parkinson's is behind Smalley at the minute. Taylor played in front of Threfal recently so read into that what you will. We have always had options within our own players imo without resorting to loans. Davies aside we could have managed and as the cup side showed consistently they may have got some better results;-).

Seriously, the return to excessive loans is disappointing. especially the short term one's that appear to be nothing more than trials. i hope we aren't using finances that would be better served acquiring our own players. Loans offer to much disruption and should be used only in emergency situations. Prior to O'B leaving we had 3 potential left backs yet brought in taylor. there's other similar situations but its clear to see that parkinson wants to build HIS own side with his players. This again is fair enough when you can afford it and feel you can get better players. But like others have said he realyy didn't give the players already at the club much of a chance or attempt to develop the one's already here. Again, fans have questioned this policy and also the direction of where its heading......

Irrespective of what he thinks of Mitchell and/or Threlfall, surely one of them has to start? Ramsden is still injured and Kozluk suspended, so that only gives us Seip, Mitchell or Burns. If he goes with the former, we will need to replace him on the left. O'B has left and Taylor sent back, so that only leaves Threlfall, unless he is planning on playing Haworth there, LOL.
.
Parkinson knew Reic was due back. So if he knew this, why sign a right-winger (who can play on the left as cover), until the end of the season with a view to a permanent deal? If PP is only going to play Fagan and Reid, how can Atkinson earn a new contract? Surely Fagan has to be 'rested' for the new signing??

Waynus1971 wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote: we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP. no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position? . The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Makes sense i can't see Parkinso using Mitchell again if he can help it. Why is another question. Do you seriously see him dropping Fagan? The only way this will happen is if Fagan is suddenly announced has having a diplomatic strain/injury;-). Also Hannah our player but not Parkinson's is behind Smalley at the minute. Taylor played in front of Threfal recently so read into that what you will. We have always had options within our own players imo without resorting to loans. Davies aside we could have managed and as the cup side showed consistently they may have got some better results;-). Seriously, the return to excessive loans is disappointing. especially the short term one's that appear to be nothing more than trials. i hope we aren't using finances that would be better served acquiring our own players. Loans offer to much disruption and should be used only in emergency situations. Prior to O'B leaving we had 3 potential left backs yet brought in taylor. there's other similar situations but its clear to see that parkinson wants to build HIS own side with his players. This again is fair enough when you can afford it and feel you can get better players. But like others have said he realyy didn't give the players already at the club much of a chance or attempt to develop the one's already here. Again, fans have questioned this policy and also the direction of where its heading......

Irrespective of what he thinks of Mitchell and/or Threlfall, surely one of them has to start? Ramsden is still injured and Kozluk suspended, so that only gives us Seip, Mitchell or Burns. If he goes with the former, we will need to replace him on the left. O'B has left and Taylor sent back, so that only leaves Threlfall, unless he is planning on playing Haworth there, LOL. . Parkinson knew Reic was due back. So if he knew this, why sign a right-winger (who can play on the left as cover), until the end of the season with a view to a permanent deal? If PP is only going to play Fagan and Reid, how can Atkinson earn a new contract? Surely Fagan has to be 'rested' for the new signing??

You would think so but been able to read whats going on is difficult. As for the loans Parkinson DID need wide players thats why the Taylor loan seemed very strange. Its interesting that the t and a initially announced that he was a left winger. Did Parkinson think the same?If so thats terrible mangement and surely not true, but why bring him in otherwise with so much cover at left full back? Was this done out of panic at not having a fit recognised wide player at the time? Which again casts doubt on Parkinsons decision because he must have known that there was a strong possibility that Compton would turn down our loan extension. So why dint he have something lined up?

There alot of questions and it would be nice if parkinson was prepared to explain some of his thinking and long term strategy. This would end alot of the fans questioning.

I'd personally like to see Mitchell have has a go before now but since parkinso arrived its been fairly obvious who he wanted long term and not. Your suggestion of Seip and Threfal makes sense however and would look the most likely choice. As for Fagan, as you know we had a debate recently when i highlighted that he was going under the radar for his contribution. Ironically i viewed the Compton goal at L**ds yesterday and it was Stewarts run and and lay back that stood out. He's another that wasn't given a fair chance to prove himself. But in that glimpse you can see what Fagan doesn't offer us on the right e.g. someone prepared to attack the full-back and drive towards the bye-line. Fagan does have other good qualities e.g. his technique allows him to hold the ball well and slow things down if needed. And he does try his best in his defensive duties. His distribution however is totally hit and miss thus we are relying on service too much from one side of the pitch. Double up on Reid and the opposition will have substantially reduced our goal threat.

dannbradfc wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote: we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP. no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position? . The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Whilst it all makese sense; Threlfall does not seem to be in the plans at all at the moment. Having Taylor on the bench in front of him seems strange to me when Taylor was never likely to be kept on long-term. Agree with comments on Wells though. I think too much was expected of him last week with long balls being hoofed into channels. Not sure that PP will drop Fagan for Atkinson and if there are any doubts about Reid then perhaps he will start on the bench. Not sure why Mitch does not seem to get a look in

Knightmccall you singled my out recently for saying very similar/questioning things in you are oing in your own post e.g. why not try our own players before acquiring loans, such as Mitchell. You also question the logic of playing Taylor in front of our own in Threfal. Thus your basically saying the same things yet accuse me of negativity and not understanding Parkinson's goals or reasons behind such things. Why? when you are doing the same?

Main difference Dann is i say "it seems strange" i.e. I accept that just because I don't understand the reasoning doesn't mean I think I am right. I am not criticising, I am not questioning and certainly not having a go at PP for his decisions.

As such, I am not "questioning the logic" of PP, just indicating I am not sure what the reasoning is. I am sure that PP has his own logic and he sees a great deal more of the players than we do. As such, whilst i find it strange, does not mean that I do not expect there to be a perfectly valid explanation. Hope that makes sense.

dannbradfc wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote: we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP. no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position? . The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Makes sense i can't see Parkinso using Mitchell again if he can help it. Why is another question. Do you seriously see him dropping Fagan? The only way this will happen is if Fagan is suddenly announced has having a diplomatic strain/injury;-). Also Hannah our player but not Parkinson's is behind Smalley at the minute. Taylor played in front of Threfal recently so read into that what you will. We have always had options within our own players imo without resorting to loans. Davies aside we could have managed and as the cup side showed consistently they may have got some better results;-). Seriously, the return to excessive loans is disappointing. especially the short term one's that appear to be nothing more than trials. i hope we aren't using finances that would be better served acquiring our own players. Loans offer to much disruption and should be used only in emergency situations. Prior to O'B leaving we had 3 potential left backs yet brought in taylor. there's other similar situations but its clear to see that parkinson wants to build HIS own side with his players. This again is fair enough when you can afford it and feel you can get better players. But like others have said he realyy didn't give the players already at the club much of a chance or attempt to develop the one's already here. Again, fans have questioned this policy and also the direction of where its heading......

Irrespective of what he thinks of Mitchell and/or Threlfall, surely one of them has to start? Ramsden is still injured and Kozluk suspended, so that only gives us Seip, Mitchell or Burns. If he goes with the former, we will need to replace him on the left. O'B has left and Taylor sent back, so that only leaves Threlfall, unless he is planning on playing Haworth there, LOL. . Parkinson knew Reic was due back. So if he knew this, why sign a right-winger (who can play on the left as cover), until the end of the season with a view to a permanent deal? If PP is only going to play Fagan and Reid, how can Atkinson earn a new contract? Surely Fagan has to be 'rested' for the new signing??

You would think so but been able to read whats going on is difficult. As for the loans Parkinson DID need wide players thats why the Taylor loan seemed very strange. Its interesting that the t and a initially announced that he was a left winger. Did Parkinson think the same?If so thats terrible mangement and surely not true, but why bring him in otherwise with so much cover at left full back? Was this done out of panic at not having a fit recognised wide player at the time? Which again casts doubt on Parkinsons decision because he must have known that there was a strong possibility that Compton would turn down our loan extension. So why dint he have something lined up? There alot of questions and it would be nice if parkinson was prepared to explain some of his thinking and long term strategy. This would end alot of the fans questioning. I'd personally like to see Mitchell have has a go before now but since parkinso arrived its been fairly obvious who he wanted long term and not. Your suggestion of Seip and Threfal makes sense however and would look the most likely choice. As for Fagan, as you know we had a debate recently when i highlighted that he was going under the radar for his contribution. Ironically i viewed the Compton goal at L**ds yesterday and it was Stewarts run and and lay back that stood out. He's another that wasn't given a fair chance to prove himself. But in that glimpse you can see what Fagan doesn't offer us on the right e.g. someone prepared to attack the full-back and drive towards the bye-line. Fagan does have other good qualities e.g. his technique allows him to hold the ball well and slow things down if needed. And he does try his best in his defensive duties. His distribution however is totally hit and miss thus we are relying on service too much from one side of the pitch. Double up on Reid and the opposition will have substantially reduced our goal threat.

Dann, you need to try and see this from PP's point of view. You want him to give the likes of Stewart, Mitchell etc "a fair chance". If whilst doing so, City are losing games then he will lose his job.

PP watches reserves matches and training and he can use these to make decisions so he may well have given them a fair chance in his eyes and they haven't taken it. If he doesn't rate a player then that is his prerogative as he is the one that will suffer if he gets it wrong.

The main problem as i see it is, even if we write this season off and god willing finish midtable, what have we achieved? The developement squad as effectively been shut down, most the squad are loan players or contacts that finish at the end of the season, we have several players on two year deals that are not part of PP'S plans, so again we will finish the season and have to start all over again so in effect next season will be another building season but this time with only 7000 fans i would guess.
It's a disgrace to be honest and i for one am getting sick of it. We were promised this was the season we would build but have again be let down. Effectively only ravenhill, Hanson, Mitchell, Stewart, Jones and Reid i believe have deals beyond this season out of the main squad or and branston

Just an observation:
PP "the transfer window is a lot of hype and only for premier leaque clubs"
Interesting to note then that of the ten Yorkshire clubs none have have had more transfer dealings in the January transfer dealing window than BCFC who managed 10.
Plenty for both the optimists and negatives to mull over .

KnightMcCall wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote: we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP. no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position? . The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Makes sense i can't see Parkinso using Mitchell again if he can help it. Why is another question. Do you seriously see him dropping Fagan? The only way this will happen is if Fagan is suddenly announced has having a diplomatic strain/injury;-). Also Hannah our player but not Parkinson's is behind Smalley at the minute. Taylor played in front of Threfal recently so read into that what you will. We have always had options within our own players imo without resorting to loans. Davies aside we could have managed and as the cup side showed consistently they may have got some better results;-). Seriously, the return to excessive loans is disappointing. especially the short term one's that appear to be nothing more than trials. i hope we aren't using finances that would be better served acquiring our own players. Loans offer to much disruption and should be used only in emergency situations. Prior to O'B leaving we had 3 potential left backs yet brought in taylor. there's other similar situations but its clear to see that parkinson wants to build HIS own side with his players. This again is fair enough when you can afford it and feel you can get better players. But like others have said he realyy didn't give the players already at the club much of a chance or attempt to develop the one's already here. Again, fans have questioned this policy and also the direction of where its heading......

Irrespective of what he thinks of Mitchell and/or Threlfall, surely one of them has to start? Ramsden is still injured and Kozluk suspended, so that only gives us Seip, Mitchell or Burns. If he goes with the former, we will need to replace him on the left. O'B has left and Taylor sent back, so that only leaves Threlfall, unless he is planning on playing Haworth there, LOL. . Parkinson knew Reic was due back. So if he knew this, why sign a right-winger (who can play on the left as cover), until the end of the season with a view to a permanent deal? If PP is only going to play Fagan and Reid, how can Atkinson earn a new contract? Surely Fagan has to be 'rested' for the new signing??

You would think so but been able to read whats going on is difficult. As for the loans Parkinson DID need wide players thats why the Taylor loan seemed very strange. Its interesting that the t and a initially announced that he was a left winger. Did Parkinson think the same?If so thats terrible mangement and surely not true, but why bring him in otherwise with so much cover at left full back? Was this done out of panic at not having a fit recognised wide player at the time? Which again casts doubt on Parkinsons decision because he must have known that there was a strong possibility that Compton would turn down our loan extension. So why dint he have something lined up? There alot of questions and it would be nice if parkinson was prepared to explain some of his thinking and long term strategy. This would end alot of the fans questioning. I'd personally like to see Mitchell have has a go before now but since parkinso arrived its been fairly obvious who he wanted long term and not. Your suggestion of Seip and Threfal makes sense however and would look the most likely choice. As for Fagan, as you know we had a debate recently when i highlighted that he was going under the radar for his contribution. Ironically i viewed the Compton goal at L**ds yesterday and it was Stewarts run and and lay back that stood out. He's another that wasn't given a fair chance to prove himself. But in that glimpse you can see what Fagan doesn't offer us on the right e.g. someone prepared to attack the full-back and drive towards the bye-line. Fagan does have other good qualities e.g. his technique allows him to hold the ball well and slow things down if needed. And he does try his best in his defensive duties. His distribution however is totally hit and miss thus we are relying on service too much from one side of the pitch. Double up on Reid and the opposition will have substantially reduced our goal threat.

Dann, you need to try and see this from PP's point of view. You want him to give the likes of Stewart, Mitchell etc "a fair chance". If whilst doing so, City are losing games then he will lose his job.

PP watches reserves matches and training and he can use these to make decisions so he may well have given them a fair chance in his eyes and they haven't taken it. If he doesn't rate a player then that is his prerogative as he is the one that will suffer if he gets it wrong.

Well, knightMccall, I also watch the training sessions and reserve matches. Let me tell you a story!

When Jon McLaughlin returned from illness he played in a practice game at Apperley Bridge, with Duke in the opposite goal. Although Jon had every right to be rusty, he made some exceptional saves, without comment from PP. However, when Duke made some elementary stops, this was met by "Saved, Dukester!". Even a layman watching that game would have been able to identify the better keeper. Who played the following Saturday, and for weeks afterwards? Yes, "Dukester".

The fact is all managers have favourites, players who they will tolerate having bad performances, and still keep them in the team. Conversely, when a player's face doesn't fit, they seldom get a chance and, if they do, one or two below par performances and they are cast aside, never to be seen again.

I'm sure we can all name half a dozen of these latter category players at City this season.

I certainly didn't think it was necessary to bring in Taylor, as it was always odds on that we'd be able to bring in a natural winger later on in the transfer window.

Personally I would've played O'B or Stewart on the left in the interim, but it's quite clear that Parkinson didn't think that either were a viable option, and Howarth or Atkinson wouldn't have been available at the time, so that's why he would've brought in Taylor.

I think that's why Taylor was on the bench above Threlfall and O'B, as Parkinson thought he could offer cover at full back, and be a more conservative option left midfield, to help us close out games.

Equally I didn't see the point in bringing in Smalley, when we also have Fagan that can play as the target man, and indeed far and away his best performance for us, was when he played that role in the win against Torquay.

Consequently you've got the situation, where because he's brought Smalley in on loan, Parkinson feels he has to at least include him in the 16, and now that we have another winger to sit on the bench, this means that Hannah is going to miss out.

Now who do you want to bring on in the last 20 mins when we are behind in a game; another target man in Smalley, so we can proceed to hoof the ball up to 2 big men in him and Hanson up front, or someone in Hannah who has shown that he has an eye for goal?

Presuming Reid and Oliver are fit to start, I'd bring in Threlfall at left back, switch Seip to the right, and have a bench of Duke, Bullock, Jones, Atkinson and Hannah.

KnightMcCall wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

dannbradfc wrote:

Waynus1971 wrote:

tyker2 wrote: we have a perfectly adequate replacement right back in the form of Mitchell but he does not seem to be rated by PP. no doubt there will be some strange shuffling at the back to ensure Mitchell is left out again.

Although I agree with you that Mitchell hasn't had a fair crack, especially at right-full back, there is a better option available for Saturday. With Kozzie being out, why not recall Robbie and move Seip across to his 'supposed' natural position? . The only other change would be for Reid to start on the left with Atkinson moving across to the right. And if Wells plays like he did last week, I would sub him (after an hour) with Hannah.

Makes sense i can't see Parkinso using Mitchell again if he can help it. Why is another question. Do you seriously see him dropping Fagan? The only way this will happen is if Fagan is suddenly announced has having a diplomatic strain/injury;-). Also Hannah our player but not Parkinson's is behind Smalley at the minute. Taylor played in front of Threfal recently so read into that what you will. We have always had options within our own players imo without resorting to loans. Davies aside we could have managed and as the cup side showed consistently they may have got some better results;-). Seriously, the return to excessive loans is disappointing. especially the short term one's that appear to be nothing more than trials. i hope we aren't using finances that would be better served acquiring our own players. Loans offer to much disruption and should be used only in emergency situations. Prior to O'B leaving we had 3 potential left backs yet brought in taylor. there's other similar situations but its clear to see that parkinson wants to build HIS own side with his players. This again is fair enough when you can afford it and feel you can get better players. But like others have said he realyy didn't give the players already at the club much of a chance or attempt to develop the one's already here. Again, fans have questioned this policy and also the direction of where its heading......

Irrespective of what he thinks of Mitchell and/or Threlfall, surely one of them has to start? Ramsden is still injured and Kozluk suspended, so that only gives us Seip, Mitchell or Burns. If he goes with the former, we will need to replace him on the left. O'B has left and Taylor sent back, so that only leaves Threlfall, unless he is planning on playing Haworth there, LOL. . Parkinson knew Reic was due back. So if he knew this, why sign a right-winger (who can play on the left as cover), until the end of the season with a view to a permanent deal? If PP is only going to play Fagan and Reid, how can Atkinson earn a new contract? Surely Fagan has to be 'rested' for the new signing??

You would think so but been able to read whats going on is difficult. As for the loans Parkinson DID need wide players thats why the Taylor loan seemed very strange. Its interesting that the t and a initially announced that he was a left winger. Did Parkinson think the same?If so thats terrible mangement and surely not true, but why bring him in otherwise with so much cover at left full back? Was this done out of panic at not having a fit recognised wide player at the time? Which again casts doubt on Parkinsons decision because he must have known that there was a strong possibility that Compton would turn down our loan extension. So why dint he have something lined up? There alot of questions and it would be nice if parkinson was prepared to explain some of his thinking and long term strategy. This would end alot of the fans questioning. I'd personally like to see Mitchell have has a go before now but since parkinso arrived its been fairly obvious who he wanted long term and not. Your suggestion of Seip and Threfal makes sense however and would look the most likely choice. As for Fagan, as you know we had a debate recently when i highlighted that he was going under the radar for his contribution. Ironically i viewed the Compton goal at L**ds yesterday and it was Stewarts run and and lay back that stood out. He's another that wasn't given a fair chance to prove himself. But in that glimpse you can see what Fagan doesn't offer us on the right e.g. someone prepared to attack the full-back and drive towards the bye-line. Fagan does have other good qualities e.g. his technique allows him to hold the ball well and slow things down if needed. And he does try his best in his defensive duties. His distribution however is totally hit and miss thus we are relying on service too much from one side of the pitch. Double up on Reid and the opposition will have substantially reduced our goal threat.

Dann, you need to try and see this from PP's point of view. You want him to give the likes of Stewart, Mitchell etc "a fair chance". If whilst doing so, City are losing games then he will lose his job. PP watches reserves matches and training and he can use these to make decisions so he may well have given them a fair chance in his eyes and they haven't taken it. If he doesn't rate a player then that is his prerogative as he is the one that will suffer if he gets it wrong.

Firstly thanks for both your reasoned replies. I have acknowledged in one of my posts, when questioing the treatment of Stewart, that Parkinson does see things we don't, but even with this in the equation don't you think that given our financial position its better to try our own players before using loans. By your own admission some of these loans are very questionable in what they offer us over and above what we already have. They don't offer consistency and each time need a settling in period. They also disrupt the team and any morale and spirit built up. I'd also argue that the players brought in have been thrown straight in with no real assesment and work with the team on how we play. despite been one of Parkinsons better deals ravenhill went straight into the side without training with the team. How does that fit with team tactics, knowledge, partnerships, building momentum etc?

Whilst your last sentence is correct who knows what results could have been. And thats kinda of the point e.g. was Stewart, Mitchell, etc given a chance to proove themselves? Would they have fared better? We won't know 'cos he hasn't tried. What we do know is there have been some waste of resources e.g. reed, taylor, possibly haworth and smalley (we'll see). Did the results improve? or Performances? Again thats relative and debatable. To have used 36 players is a sorry indication of the way this season has gone. have we really had that many injuries that we needed loans as cover? We have consistently for a few years now used more players than any other club in our division and its got us nowhere. Indeed we have gone backwards in the table. Surely this policy/strategy needs questioning.