Gutted! This is a major blow and I only hope that McLaren is fit to return for the weekend. How long before Bully returns? Has he started training with the first team again?

Have City been used again?. Is this a ploy to get a transfer fee for him in January?. Or is it typical of a BAD Huddersfield 'Board',who will enjoy using us to get him 'Match Fit',and then revel in taking him back to cause Bradford City AFC problems.
No doubt Huddersfield will have several carefully thought out reasons for re-calling Tom Clarke, and I for one will not accept any of their nasty and deceitful statements.

Re above. Just read on Topp Pill story, that McLaren returned to training yesterday. Looks like he will have to start now then doesn't it.

Gutted!! As much as I hate to say it they are obviously quite in their rights.

Gutted!! As much as I hate to say it they are obviously quite in their rights.

We all knew there was a possibility that this could happen, yet if he doesn't start for them on Sat or even get onto the bench then surely this will just signal that Huddersfield just used us to get him fitter - surely we can ask why extend his contract last week to play 1 game then just recall him ? Parker get on the phone to your Udders man to get the answers !! Its not as if they have an injury crisis !!

Huddersfield are indeed quite within their rights to recall Clarke but why extend the deal only to recall him one game into that extension? I didn't notice anything in the local press stating that they suffered a glut of injuries during the last week, poor form.

gutted...i thought he was a very good player better at centre back but will be one for the future.

Craig wrote:
Huddersfield are indeed quite within their rights to recall Clarke but why extend the deal only to recall him one game into that extension? I didn't notice anything in the local press stating that they suffered a glut of injuries during the last week, poor form.

I agree Craig - poor form by them !

Will McLaren be fit enough ? Could we play TJ in there and have Arny back at RB ? Or maybe Sharry will get a go in centre mid?

Always wary about doing any business with scummersfield in the first place. Funny how we've been paying another player from there wagers when he hasn't kicked a ball in anger all season. Lets not forget that they are hated local rivals and will not like it if we are sharing the same division next year. Expect no favours from that lot and we should extent the same courtesy to them! Interesting to see if Clarkey plays this weekend. Just hope his eyes have been opened and he can now see that City are going places and resents going back over no mans land!!

does anybody know if sheff utd have the same recall option with Law. We would be stuffed if that happened!!!!

Although I'm a bit disappointed myself, you can't go blaming Huddersfield they're perfectly within their rights. In fact we pulled exactly the same trick on Darlington with Joe Colbeck nearly 12 months to the day!

To be honest, Im not suprised by this. Clarke was a product of their youth system and Gerry Murphy has always rated him very highly. There was never a chance we would sign him permenantly certainly whilst Gerry was involved in first team affairs. Have we been used? Yes but only in the same way every team hopes to use a club they lend a player to. They want to get a player fit and in form so they can introduce him immediately back into their first team. Hudders are struggling and Tom is playing well, they will have seen that and feel he can do a job for them.
For me it is only annoying if the parent club dont play them when they go back ala Robson with Law when he was at Sheff Utd.
Good luck Tom and thanks for the effort.

gspot - think all players can be recalled after first month at 24 hours notice so yes, we could lose Law. Would have to say that SM's strong ties with Sheff Utd ought to prevent that happening in his case.
Never do business with the dog-botherers.

Meat Pie wrote:
gspot - think all players can be recalled after first month at 24 hours notice so yes, we could lose Law. Would have to say that SM's strong ties with Sheff Utd ought to prevent that happening in his case. Never do business with the dog-botherers.

Yes, 'Meat Pie' is correct. After the first month's loan has expired, all extended deals have a 24hr clause automatically inserted. Law could be called back at any time, but Jones can not be.

Personally, I don't blame Huddersfield for recalling Clarke. They didn't have a game on Saturday and my sources tell me that Huddersfield representatives were at our game. It was probably Clarke's best match in a City shirt, so it was inevitable they would invoke the recall clause. I am just surprised it took until Wednesday.

Having said all that, I will be very p!ssed off if he doesn't at least make their bench. I know how we felt when Muirhead returned to City and didn't get a look in. He had his loan extended until the end of the season and a couple of weeks later, we recalled him. If memory serves me correctly, Wethers recalled him with 4 games to go. He was an unused sub in the first match back, didn't even make the bench for the next 2 games and came on for Colbeck in his last appearance in a City shirt.

Meat Pie wrote:
gspot - think all players can be recalled after first month at 24 hours notice so yes, we could lose Law. Would have to say that SM's strong ties with Sheff Utd ought to prevent that happening in his case. Never do business with the dog-botherers.

players can only be called back on a 24hr notice if their club insert it when the deal was re-signed for another month it isnt automatic (league rules) so unless sheff utd did put up this option like hudders yes he can be recalled but from what as been printed in paper only hudders exercised the option and sheff utd didnt so as far as i am aware he will be here till jan 3rd i think

Hudders fans on 606 have been calling for Clarke's recall since Ternent left, as they feel he is better than some of their current first team players. Not that management would listen of course, but I really wish he was staying. Don't think I've heard a bad comment about the lad. Our loss, Hudders gain!

will you lot on this site read/remember my postings re. loans. i have forgotten the times put forward that "LOANS "are a no-no.if we don't have the players on the books then why on earth "BORROW" another clubs maybe!!! a good team is then dissected by surprise! the original club wants him back because he is a better player whilst in this case city are found wanting.

audal wrote:
will you lot on this site read/remember my postings re. loans. i have forgotten the times put forward that "LOANS "are a no-no.if we don't have the players on the books then why on earth "BORROW" another clubs maybe!!! a good team is then dissected by surprise! the original club wants him back because he is a better player whilst in this case city are found wanting.

Audal, what would you have done having 8 first team regulars out injured, our whole midfield 4 from the first day of the season are out as well as Chris Brandon... I hope you would have a plan, because other than a) loaning players and b) using magic to make an amazing young player , As far as i see it, we didn't have a choice other than to delve into the loan market and still stay relatively close top 3 or 4. Would like to know ur thoughts

audal wrote:
will you lot on this site read/remember my postings re. loans. i have forgotten the times put forward that "LOANS "are a no-no.if we don't have the players on the books then why on earth "BORROW" another clubs maybe!!! a good team is then dissected by surprise! the original club wants him back because he is a better player whilst in this case city are found wanting.

Err.... shouldn't you be writing to McCall, NOT having a go at the fans. It is McCall that brought the loan signings to the club, so if you aren't happy, direct your frustrations in the right direction.

ricky wrote:

Meat Pie wrote:
gspot - think all players can be recalled after first month at 24 hours notice so yes, we could lose Law. Would have to say that SM's strong ties with Sheff Utd ought to prevent that happening in his case. Never do business with the dog-botherers.

players can only be called back on a 24hr notice if their club insert it when the deal was re-signed for another month it isnt automatic (league rules) so unless sheff utd did put up this option like hudders yes he can be recalled but from what as been printed in paper only hudders exercised the option and sheff utd didnt so as far as i am aware he will be here till jan 3rd i think

Ricky, you are wrong. Law has got the 24hr clause in his contract. I remember McCall saying so after both he and Clarke had their contracts extended.

Murphy said that Clarke has been recalled to strengthen the squad:

"Unfortunately Joe Skarz has picked up an ankle injury in training this week and with several other players out on loan for good reasons, we have decided to bring Tom back to the Club in order to strengthen our squad."

However, I cannot really see Sheffield United invoking the same clause in Law's contract. He hasn't been involved with the first team since he has been there.

Waynus wrote:

ricky wrote:

Meat Pie wrote: gspot - think all players can be recalled after first month at 24 hours notice so yes, we could lose Law. Would have to say that SM's strong ties with Sheff Utd ought to prevent that happening in his case. Never do business with the dog-botherers.

players can only be called back on a 24hr notice if their club insert it when the deal was re-signed for another month it isnt automatic (league rules) so unless sheff utd did put up this option like hudders yes he can be recalled but from what as been printed in paper only hudders exercised the option and sheff utd didnt so as far as i am aware he will be here till jan 3rd i think

Ricky, you are wrong. Law has got the 24hr clause in his contract. I remember McCall saying so after both he and Clarke had their contracts extended. Murphy said that Clarke has been recalled to strengthen the squad: "Unfortunately Joe Skarz has picked up an ankle injury in training this week and with several other players out on loan for good reasons, we have decided to bring Tom back to the Club in order to strengthen our squad." However, I cannot really see Sheffield United invoking the same clause in Law's contract. He hasn't been involved with the first team since he has been there.

i may be wrong about law having a 24 hr recall but cant remember seeing or hearing that sheff utd had inserted the clause but it isnt automatic they must put that into force when the deal was struck for 2nd month its on the league rules website i was looking at weekend thats only reason why i know i wasnt having ago but just stating football league rules

just been reading football league rules again and the article i read about how loan deals work was dated may 2008 so it may be possible that the 24hr automatic rule is now in force so even though what i printed i thought was true may have been changed from the start of this season and if thats the case i hold my hands up and i may be wrong

ricky wrote:
just been reading football league rules again and the article i read about how loan deals work was dated may 2008 so it may be possible that the 24hr automatic rule is now in force so even though what i printed i thought was true may have been changed from the start of this season and if thats the case i hold my hands up and i may be wrong

I don't think it has changed Ricky. You are probably right about it not being automatic.

I also know you weren't having a go and just stating league rules. I was simply stating I had heard McCall on the day Law signed saying it 'was a risk as both managers could recall their players, but his hands were tied'.

Finally, have City put the ground protection sheet on the pitch to protect it from the expected snowfall and freezing temperatures?

Accept it the guy has gone back to a better team in a higher division.

Waynus laugh out loud you criticise Audal for'having a go at the fans'. Yesterday you called me a P******K for picking you up on certain issues. I apologise sincerely for having the gall to question your authority, knowledge and in-fallibility' on all things city. You also had a go at the 'bantam from Greece' and told him to stay there for daring to suggest that Willy Top may come back to haunt city whilst calling Eddie Johnson a T**T (your words. It al appears rather hypocritical if you ask me and i cant wait for your smug reply. To the one and only no. 1 city fan w aynus.

On to more serious issues this is definately the most difficult period of Stu's managerial reign tus far. The current injury situation and 'Topp-gate' are certainly problematic and good leadership and decisio making will be needed from now untill after the christmas period which will go a long way to deciding the season. At the mo he wil prob be hoping that his carreer in management is always like this if it means he is in the running for the title. (If we maintain this league position until the 2nd week in January we will defo go up. ) Fingers crossed we get some players back but prob is they also have to get back up to match fitness. Tough times but Stu is nothing if not a scrapper and i hope he remains positive. Pluses so far apart from the obvious league position are O'Brien emerging from the youth academy and performing at a consistently high level. Been comfortably our best player in recent weeks and plays with a confidence and adventure that both belies his age and puts some of the others nervousness play at times, to shame. Hpe he keeps it up and that others can come through so we dont have the problems and expense of loan system in first place. All those who are crying foul at udderscum are forgetting thats what the system is there for. We've done it before and will do in the future and sometimes we've cut loans shortand/or sent players back when they got injured. No team is gonna help a rival for no benefit to themselves simple as that. Lets see what his holiness as to say?????

incase my post got misread let me reiterate. i was neither having a go at any fans nor McCall regarding loanees, my point being that i disagree with this short term "fix" because a club can go from success to failure if the important loans are recalled leaving the club vunerable again,all clubs not just city. ps. security word is TOWN-FAIL

dannbradfc wrote:
Waynus laugh out loud you criticise Audal for'having a go at the fans'. Yesterday you called me a P******K for picking you up on certain issues. I apologise sincerely for having the gall to question your authority, knowledge and in-fallibility' on all things city. You also had a go at the 'bantam from Greece' and told him to stay there for daring to suggest that Willy Top may come back to haunt city whilst calling Eddie Johnson a T**T (your words. It al appears rather hypocritical if you ask me and i cant wait for your smug reply. To the one and only no. 1 city fan w aynus.

Sorry your post lost me. Yes, I called you a p!ll0ck, but that was simply because you were being one! Why is it you have to find fault in EVERY post I make?

I understand some people will agree and others disagree with my views. Some will even agree at times and disagree at others. However, you seem to be obsessed with disagreeing with everything I type! Why?

You claimed yesterday that I had changed my views on Topp and that I change my opinions on everything. I asked you to tell me where. I am still waiting!

As for name-calling, didn't you accuse me of 'going through puberty' and asking 'how old I was'? Don't want to get into tit-for-tat with you, but don't stand the morale high ground when you aren't exactly innocent.

With regard to B-in-G, I agree with him that we may have made a gaff by releasing Topp. I liked the player, but understand McCall didn't think he had enough to get into the team before Boulding (who to be fair has replaced him in the squad). However, to wish that he comes back to 'bite us on the bum' is not the actions of a loyal supporter. He doesn't even refer to City as 'us'.

In relation to Audal, I wasn't having a go at him. He posted, "will you lot on this site read/remember my postings re. loans. i have forgotten the times put forward that 'LOANS'are a no-no". I simply pointed out that he shouldn't be telling us, if he has issues, he needs to raise them with the club. I respect Audal's views so why would I deliberately have a go at him?

Finally, what has my 'criticism' (as you refer to it as) about Audal's comments got to do with my opinions of Johnson. I have always thought he was a 'tw4t', a useless one at that, but never stopped supporting him when he played for City. He doesn't anymore, so I think I am now within my rights to air my views on him.

Please answer my questions this time. Where did I change my opinions of Topp, what has my views of Johnson got to do with anything and why are you so insistent on trying to score points from me whenever I post?

Firstly on the Topp issue you have changed from blaming the management for his treatment and non-appearancs to citing him not been good enough and calling him a drugs cheat. Very fickle. However now he is know longer a player you can slag him off and use offensive language as you appear to justify such behaviour if a player is no longer with us. I doubt very much wheher you know Johnson personally so you should a least 'back-up' what you are saying about him (as you are constantly demanding of others) with some valid points rather than innane name calling. If you are wondering why i criticise your coments you should really look at yourself for that. For as far as i can see you have an opinion on everyone elses and agree with those that concur to your lofted positon and attack those who dont. Often without just cause nor justification. So im just re-balancing the situation. I also admit that i believe your covert criticism of everything the management team do suggests that you may have a secret desire for the positon. My advice to you would be to get a copy of football manager '08 and drop Johnson yourself or perhaps get the latest copy and see how Topp fares. You can thus play out your 'master plan'. x x Calm down now and goranga.

PPS W aynus i hope tat the above post is understandable for you. To reiterate/clarify you have gone from saying that you think Topp was good enough to saying that Stu didnt think so. If that is the case then you should make the point clearer please. However to ask/suggest to AUdal that he should put his points/opinions to the board QUOTE, 'I simply pointed out that he shouldn't be telling us, if he has issues, he needs to raise them with the club'. LOL please look in the mirror. If you were to follow your own advice you would make the postal service very hapy and give McCall eye strain. This is a comments page and you as much as anyone voice it. I really cant believe you said that and hope all the others who present their views within these pages are laughing too. Thank yo for bringing a much needed Christmas cheer to these cold times. LOL The best one yet.

some so called city fans make me laugh yes we are all intitled to make our opinions known but what is the point of getting into a slanging match its childish and doesnt have any effect on the issues that have been raised have a debate by all means where we all can voice our views but slanging matches theres no point time for people to grow up

ricky wrote:
some so called city fans make me laugh yes we are all intitled to make our opinions known but what is the point of getting into a slanging match its childish and doesnt have any effect on the issues that have been raised have a debate by all means where we all can voice our views but slanging matches theres no point time for people to grow up

Totally agree with you Ricky hence my original questioning of w aynus's age to which he began to call me silly swear words thus supporting my original childish observations. Lets have an open minded debate not under the controls of egotists. Up the football leagues we go.

'line-gold' security word. definately Richmond incharge of security

dannbradfc wrote:

ricky wrote:
some so called city fans make me laugh yes we are all intitled to make our opinions known but what is the point of getting into a slanging match its childish and doesnt have any effect on the issues that have been raised have a debate by all means where we all can voice our views but slanging matches theres no point time for people to grow up

Totally agree with you Ricky hence my original questioning of w aynus's age to which he began to call me silly swear words thus supporting my original childish observations. Lets have an open minded debate not under the controls of egotists. Up the football leagues we go.

'line-gold' security word. definately Richmond incharge of security

But whereas I have tried several times to quash this silly 'debate', you seem intent on bringing it up again in each of your posts.

I agree and disagree with many posts. I don't, nonetheless, resort to attacking people. However, I hold my hands up that I called you a p!llock. The way I saw it, you seemed intent on hammering me on every post I made (and still do). Apologies due and I hold my hand up.

Audal made his post sound like he had been telling us something for ages and that we were ignoring him. Or at least that is how I read it. I simply said that if he was so passionate about it, he needed to tell the relevant people. I didn't even disagree with him! In an ideal world, there would be no need for City to get loanees.

In relation to B-in-G, I simply pointed out that at no stage should a fan wish an incident to come back to haunt us. It would be like me saying that if Bazza was not offered an extended deal, I hope he comes to VP and puts 3 past us.

To clarify, you asked of my age and maturity BEFORE my name calling towards you. You provoked the response from me and then stood back and said, 'who, me?'.

The point that started all this was regarding Topp. My opinion on him hasn't changed if you read all my comments. The player is very skillful and exciting to watch. I wanted it to work out for him and had we not strengthened the side, he would have been my preferred 3rd choice forward. The fact we signed Boulding, means he is then my 4th choice striker. That opinion has been the same since the start of the season and never changed. I was disappointed that McCall preferred Ossie to him on the bench, but recent announcements from the club, seem to have explained his reasons.

Like most fans, I was disappointed to learn he had taken a banned substance and wouldn't want ANY player at the club on that basis.

Don't bother responding to this post. Let's just agree to disagree (perhaps we will agree on something else.... such as the need for a 4th striker to compete with the 3 we already have). Olive branch?

yes we both agree on the 4th striker option as i've reasons for which i ointed out to 'soul mate' who see's the need for another midfielder again something we both agree on. As i said this is nothing personal just i have found some of your points and attitues to be that way and also hypocritical e.g. telling others to stop complaining on the comments page and write to the board instead. However i also feel that these points have been made and that you have may have taken some of them on board and i respect you for the olive branch and apology for the name calling. Lets have an healthy 2 sided debate. But probably like yourself i will always be honest to myself and others.