for an initial month.

Confirmed on official site.

I'm not convinced but I'm happy to be proved otherwise.

which is totally ridiculous on both accounts.

I'm going to wait to see how Danny plays this one before I call him a thick tosser first!

or maybe wilson is being advised by kevin keegan and has decided to play 4-3-3?

It's all about competition for places, it's just a shame Kyle can't play in goal.

signed for his height maybe,

So lets say Kylie is going to start. Who would you drop PORTER or BROWN, my choice without a second thought would be BROWN, One day the lad might be able to lace Joel's Boots up for him,

But just for the record I dont think Browny should be dropped for Kylie!

Kevin Kyle is crap!

Precisely, so why upset this in order to play a striker who has hardly scored in years?

Kyle will have his uses, particularly away from home, but if Wilson is planning up splitting up Joel and Brownie and generally disrupting the rest of the team then he's a bigger tit than first thought.

But I will wait to see how he is used first.

What a beauty, complaining about the manager signing a player. Soem people are never happy.

competition for places in any area is healthy, whether that be upfront or anywhere.

Is he better than David Foley?

Sarcasm I hope?

His goalscoring record would strongly backup CM's assessment

Is he better than we already have? Yes or no?

Kyle should be a good player at this level - he'll be a lot more mobile than Barker, but with all the attributes Barker possesses. It spells the end of the line for Barker if Kyle signs on permanently, but that's life in a football club. Players don't get any younger.
I too would be choked if either Brown or Porter were dropped - because I'd like to see Jones and Sweeney in centre mid with Liddle at right back. Assuming Kyle plays, which really he has to if he's only here for a month, it's looking like Brown dropping back to right wing, but also we simply can't drop Monkhouse or Porter from their preferred positions as left mid and left sided forward respectively, or else the side will be weakened at a stroke - especially if the team continues to contain McCunnie.
My team for Friday then would be

Barrett
Liddle Collins Nelson Clark (see what I did there)?
Brown Joines Sweeney Monkhouse
Kyle Porter

Wouldn't know but his goalscoring record isn't as good as our top 4 choice strikers

I appear to be the only one who doesnt think Porter or Brown will be dropped. To me it looks like Kyle will be the replacement for Barker(from the bench initially). He not played much, so will obviously require to get match fit, so coming off the bench for last 20-30 minutes, seems an option to me. I reckon the next move we will see is Barker out on loan to a league 2 club.

Paper talk has his wages at £6-£8 k a week at Coventry, now we will have to meet some of that, probably at the top end of our wage scale, so lets call that £2-£3 k maximum(just a guess), it means we need to probaly cut our wage bill , and to me the only option there is Barker, as Kyle fills his position.

I like it Mr Parmo........ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!!!!!!

but not re-jigging the team round in this case would be the wrong thing to do (I know we've all pilloried the manager for doing this) but quite simply both full backs have to be dropped.
I defy anybody to stick up for McCunnie and Humphreys performances in the past month.
If we play the team I just put up, and give that a few games, I believe it will be good enough to get results and start doing so away from home where the defence has looked poor. Let's face it, the full back positions can't be any worse than what they've been!!!

So therefore he deserves a chance? He is an iinternational player after all, maybe with Scotland but he obviously has something. And he is only 27.

I concur.

I don't really see what your point is though.

I refer the right honouorable gentleman to my previous response. I believe you called the signing of Kyle in a previous thread as "needless". Let's give him a chance. He doesn't weaken our squad does he?

It is needless in comparison to our need for two full backs.

I am definitely going to give him a chance (where have I said otherwise). I don't know if he'll weaken our squad, we'll see the consequence of his signing in a months time. The Porter/Brown strikeforce is awesome at home but not so effective away so hopefully Kyle will add something to our away performances and we can turn these defeats to draws and wins while maintaining our excellent home

Mind you we have to wait till Friday, DW may have messed up and actually signed Jeremy Kyle.

that name's familiar - but I can't quite place it.........................


Google...................

I'm pleased I'm switched off from all that shite in all honesty!!!

On PoolsWorld Kyle says he has been playing/training well at Coventry but can't get in the first team because it would trigger an extra £100k to Sunderland. Sounds like a deal through to Christmas could be on the cards if he fits in well. Lets hope Danny has a master plan. I can certainly imagine Kyle leading the line when we go 4-5-1. Lets wait and see how he does. He speaks of how difficult it can be when the fans get on your back (at Coventry). Lesson there for the Millhouse moaners.

I can almost hear his sigh of relief from here.

He hasn't been playing against 3rd division opposition though, has he?
I remember when Bradford signed Windass in 2003. His record in the higher divisions had been very similar to Kyle's.
He promptly proceeded to tear div3 apart.

For those who argue our priority should be full backs - well maybe it is.
Just because no one says it is and we've signed a striker, doesn't mean...

Explain....

Similar number of games. Similar number of goals. Simple really!
Maybe I should have qualified with "recent" record.

Up until he signed for Bradford, Windass had scored 100+ goals at about a goal in 3.

I can't see the similarities with Kyle's at all.

There both ugly

If Kyle stays fit i think he'll be a decent addition, however, this is a big IF.

Plus i cant really see the logic in it. Ok, its competition for places but in the wrong area. How many forwards do we have to choose from? and how many defender do we have to choose from?
Surely for the wages he'll be getting, we could have brought in a couple of full backs.. Which are much more needed than ANOTHER forward.

Yes and nearly all of them were for lower division or jock teams.
When he played for Borer and the Sheffields (1999+) he stopped scoring for fun and didn't start again until 2003 when he dropped to div. 3 with Bratfud.

Yes, and your point is?

Imagine just for a second that Wilson has been tearing his hair out looking for full backs unsuccessfully.
So because he hasn't found any, he shouldn't sign Kyle?

The article i read on it yesterday in a local Coventry paper said that Wilson had been chasing him all summer, and we've been linked with him all summer.
So i very much doubt that is the case.

I agree, the pair of them are hardly prolific - although Browny is a great prospect he doesn't half miss some sitters - the one against Oldham in the second half being a case in point. Kyle is worth a punt - if it doesn't work out, we can send him back...

yes - clause 73a sub-paragraph III

My thoughts also but no long ball please.

I just can't see the similarites between Kyle and Windass. In the 5 seasons before he joined Bradford, Windass had 1 excellent season, 2 good seasons, 1 'OK' season and one very poor one all in the top two tiers. Kyle has had one good season in his whole career and that was in the second tier.

GK : ALB
RB : Clark
LB : Humphreys
CB : Nelson
CB : Collins
CM : Liddle
CM : Jones
CM : Sweeney
AML : Monkhouse
AMR : Brown
CF : Kyle

that would be my lineup for this friday :)

I'll be walking back out if it is!

works for chelsea , why not for pools?

Brown Porter
Monkhouse Jones Power Sweeney
Liddle Nelson Collins Clark
ALB

the thing that goes against Barker is the fact he is TOO slow. You can be a big, slow, target man - but there is a limit as to how slowly you can get about a football pitch, to the point where even if the ball is played five yards away you still can't get it!!!!

What, just for a month?

I think the signing of Kyle will also suit the system we have recently played away from home (basically one of those 4-5-1 formations that's meant to be 4-4-3 when you have the ball) Kyle is far more suited to playing as the out and out front man leaving Porter left of him and Brown right, now that my friends could just work. I'd have Monkhouse Jones and Sweeney as the midfield three and Liddle at right back. This easily changes to a 4-4-2 at home by just moving Brown right.