Would it not have looked a little strange if as soon as Bruce took over his son signed? That would be the ultimate nepotism. Anyone in that situation would say 'Let's just hang fire a bit, sign him, keep it quiet and then give him a trial with no public committments and then say he signed after said successful trial'. I've no idea if the claim from John Aberdeen is true, but if it was there is no way I would announce it within a few short weeks of Bruce being appointed.
i repeat, is he being signed as a cheap right back cover for when macca is farmed out to Mansfield? has he ever played right back? anyone know?
By all accounts he hasn't had a successful trial and we have since signed Faye, which makes the signing (if true) even stranger than if he had signed on the same day as his dad
He hasn't played right back before, he's a central defender who has on occasion played defensive midfield. I'm still clinging to the hope that Elmohamady might provide our right back cover.
I didn't mean he'd just be cover, he'd be the starting choice right winger, I just meant he could cover right back if required.
Are you sure? I think I recall my mate, who is an Ipswich fan, saying that Bruce was playing at right back for them for a stretch?
Having done a little more research, it would seem that he has indeed played right back occasionally and defensive midfield occasionally, but he's predominantly a centre back.
Well with respect he has, cos he has signed. In what other way could the trial be deemed successful or not? There is only one person's opinion who counts on this.
Having been to quite a few Sunderland games in the last couple of seasons (go to uni up there) i've seen elmo play right back numerous times. He looks very comfortable in that position and is a very solid player at both RB and RM. Would be a very good signing for us but can't see Sunderland letting him go tbh.
I think he played RB under Warnock three times when Connelly was out of favour and Bromby was injured. He really is awful though, not in a million years would Bruce senior sign him if he wasn't his son - Honestly anyone thinking he will be okay as back-up - He Won't... A few Leeds fans were saying the same when he came to us from Ipswich and the Ipswich fans told us exactly the same.
And that's exactly why I never wanted this to happen You're spot on about him not joining if he wasn't Bruce's son. If he's not good enough for a Leeds team that's been defensively appalling for about 5 years, why would he be good enough for one of the best defensive sides in the league? Besides that, I thought we signed Faye as 'back-up'. Why the **** do we need Bruce Jnr too?
The only reason he has signed is because daddy is the boss, and like you say it is irrelevant what we all think, only SB gets to make those decisions - I have my doubts and just pray to god our first choice back 4 all play well and stay fit so he doesn't get a look in!
I'd only be worried if I saw his name in the starting 11 ahead of Chester and Faye/Hobbs knowing those 3 aren't injured. If his contract had to be terminated at Brum when they were both together, surely Alex wouldnt want to be a free agent on the move again. Surely both will have learned from last time and Bruce Jr will say to Bruce Snr: "look dad, I know these guys are better than me, I'm happy to be a squad player incase of any injuries, rather than join Shrewsbury for first team football. If I'm desperate for first team football later on, you can loan me out to Donny or Scunny".
I don't think we needed another centre back really and this suggests Bruce doesn't have much faith in Cooper/Bradley (strange since Bradley looked a cut above Bruce at Ferriby and Winterton.) I don't like the idea of dismissing players just because they don't have experience (how are they ever supposed to get it without playing?) and I certainly don't like the idea if signing your own son. I can't understand it at all - if our manager was Messi's dad you could understand the temptation but what about Bruce's ability would outweigh the negative of signing your own son? OLM mentioned that the Allams might have blocked the move which unfortunately seems to have been untrue. If they didn't trust Barmby to sign the players he wanted, why are they letting Bruce sign his son?
Thing with Steve Bruce is that he doesn't just let his son get on with his career, he constantly watches him and bigs him up via his links in the press. I saw him strutting around not far from Leeds fans more than once last two seasons, and was surprised he didn't get a smack. Did an interview as well saying that he'd become a Leeds fan for the season just because Alex was on our books. At least when we had Schmeichel Jr, him and his dad had an entente cordiale not to discuss his career. By contrast, Steve sticks up for Alex because he knows his boy is a failure and feels it's his responsibility to make his little soldier feel better about that fact by getting him a nice lucrative contract and a cushy bench-sitting job. First alarm bells should be ringing for you lot with this news. Seriously.
It typifies everything I despite about Leeds fans. When they go on about 'history' isnt it funny that nothing ever seems to pre-date the 70s? Would a Huddersfield fan not have the right to call TWS fans 'glory hunters'? There consistantly seems to be selective memories there. So as an alternative signature I'd prefer something like: 'Leeds City bore the concept of sporting fraud, Yet songs hail injustice as the irony is lost, Blue and Yellow as an identity was put to the sword, And the biggest stand in the ground remained closed for an entire season further highlighting a percentage of population attending home games as nothing less than shameful.' I think it needs a bit more work to make it scan, particularly the last line, but the message is in there nonetheless.
