Fleetwood at home 9th February

I’m getting bored of repeating myself on this issue. He wanted a target man to play that specific role, that is fact. As January goes on it becomes clear there isn’t one available of the quality he wants so he changed his thought process and abandons the idea. On deadline day, Billy Clarke becomes available and he thinks he’d rather have him in the squad than not. If a target man comes in Clarke doesn’t, that is obvious.

 

Think the reason you're having to repeat it often is because it makes no sense.

If our manager is thinking from going from a target man to one of the smallest players in football who players in a position that is covered by our best player then for me he has to leave.

We didn't need a number 10!

Why not switch attentions to a decent CB for example or a winger?

Think Hopkin is proving that he is the wrong man to manage this club.

In my opinion Clarke was meant to be a crowd pleaser but it failed as Bradford City fans are not stupid.The signing of Clarke is one of the most pointless signings the club has ever made.

Don't you think it's was a pointless signing? A wage of money?

 

It actually does make sense though.

A good target man was not available.

Billy Clarke presumably came cheap and is worth having as an option.

Butterfield also comes as extremely good value. Was a player in his position urgently required? Probably not. Is he worth signing? Definitely.

 

Hopkin thinks Clarke can do a job for him be at at number 10 or elsewhere. He ditched the idea of a target man when he knew one wasn’t there to bring in. I don’t know how clearer I can make that. Perhaps he should have gone for other positions, who knows. That’s his prerogative as manager and he’ll live or die by that come the end of the season.

 

How does it make sense.

Clarke is a number 10!

Would you say Payne is our best player?
Does Payne play as a number 10?
Don't we've about 4 players that can play as a number 10 already?

Again people could argue the signing of Butterfield makes no sense.

We needed a forward, a winger a a decent CB and we ended up with players that we have plenty of cover for.

Next you will be telling me the signing of Anderson makes sense.

 

This is true.

Hopefully he will keep us up but for me he's made a right mess of the transfer window and hopefully if doesn't come back to damage the club.

 

It only makes sense if we sign players on reputation and availability.
Problem is even a blind man could see we needed some strength and pace in the team to compliment what we already had.
Our signings brought non of what we needed.

 

Hopkin thinks Clarke can do a job for him be at at number 10 or elsewhere. He ditched the idea of a target man when he knew one wasn’t there to bring in. I don’t know how clearer I can make that. Perhaps he should have gone for other positions, who knows. That’s his prerogative as manager and he’ll live or die by that come the end of the season.

 

Correct, give McGugan whatever he demands. Saturday was crying out for some width. Will drag people out of the centre which should allow for more space for Payne & co in the middle to get on the ball. Like has been said. There was some decent balls in the box in the first half and no one in the centre attacking them.

 

Our new signings have been here 11 days?

How do you know they have brought nothing? Judging them on 11 days and two matches?

 

You're arguing at cross purposes to me.

Signing Clarke makes sense as he is an improvement in terms of our match day squad.

Whether a different player who wasn't available would have been better is redundant.

 

Scunthorpe's signings who dont even play, on the other hand, are worldies according to some.

 

You're missing the point.

We didn't need squad improvements. We needed 1st team improvements.

Clarke is a pointless signing.

 

And you're missing the point that in the absence of improving the first team with players who aren't available, we improve the squad, which is not pointless

 

Had it have been a similar type of player but no Billy Clarke then we wouldn’t have signed him. Rhodes said in the Yorkshire Post that the money we that we owed Middlesbrough over lack of appearances was saved when Barnsley bought him and we used that to finance the Clarke signing. Why didn’t we use that money on a more pressing position, say cemtre back or wing?

 

Agree, as much as I like Billy Clarke, we needed an out and out striker, winger and centre half much more. It was a signing which smacked of desperation.

 

Give your head a shake.

All season the 1st team has proven that they're not good enough.

You telling me that we couldn't sign players that are better than what we currently have? Seriously? That what you're saying?

What bit of we spent most of the transfer budget on Payne don't you get? So doing that it makes it pointless signing a AM when we have about 4 already at the club?

Are you seriously suggesting we couldn't sign a player better than O'Connor and NKP? Have you seen them this season?

How about a winger?

Making the squad better isn't going to help us. It's the 1st team that needs improving!

You've made mistakes this season and now it's time to get real!

Billy Clarke for be was meant to be a crowd pleaser signing. That's all I can think it was. Billy Clarke isn't good enough now.

 

Nice call, genius.

What you're implying is Hopkin could easily have signed quality first team players this January, but decided not to because he could sign Clarke.

K.

Crap logic.

 

I'm saying that Clarke is a wasteful and poor signing. Yes I am.

It's utter bollocks that players are not available in January to buy. Utter shi&e!

However, you seem to believe everything.