How joined-up thinking is shaping Bradford City’s transfer business

By Jason McKeown

Look back on any recent Bradford City season and the foundations that defined it can be traced back to the summer transfer window. The campaigns that ended in success were usually built on smart recruitment and clear planning. The ones that fell short rarely escaped the consequences of mistakes made before the season had properly got going.

It’s one of the quirks of modern football, and the transfer window, that clubs can find themselves locked onto a particular path before a competitive ball has even been kicked. By the time weaknesses become apparent, January is often too far away to provide anything more than a partial fix.

That is why Tuesday’s transfer deadline carries such significance for Bradford City. Once the window closes, the squad is largely set. The major decisions have been made. What follows over the next nine months, including inevitable setbacks like Saturday’s defeat at Plymouth, will put those decisions, and the thinking behind them, to the test.

With the expectation of some late moves before 11pm on Tuesday, there have been enough positive signs to suggest City’s recruitment work is heading in the right direction.

City have so far made nine new signings this window, with many new faces quickly hitting the ground running and offering strong early indications of being upgrades on those whose places they’ve taken. The Bantams have made a solid start to the campaign, although defeat at Plymouth has inevitably dampened the mood. Overall, they’ve shown a clear identity and purpose that belies the fact many of these players have only just started playing together.

There is a long, long way to go, but there have been enough encouraging early signs to justify optimism.

Should that initial optimism be maintained, this will be the third successive summer in which City can claim to have recruited well. It is surely no coincidence that each has featured the same key figures shaping the strategy.

There is evidently a shared understanding of where the squad needs strengthening and the type of player capable of improving it. That synchronisation between manager Graham Alexander, head of recruitment Stephen Gent, head of football operations David Sharpe, chief executive Ryan Sparks and chairman Stefan Rupp proved mightily effective in the summers of 2024 and 2025. The early evidence suggests it may be paying off again in 2026.

It’s worth comparing this joined-up approach with the last Bradford City season that didn’t go to plan, where again the roots of failure can be seen in the summer transfer window that led into it. In 2023, Mark Hughes was still the City manager after the bitter disappointment of the play-off defeat to Carlisle. For 2023/24, Hughes wanted to switch formation from his 4-2-3-1 set-up to 3-5-2. Yet the recruitment required to support that change appeared disjointed, particularly in attack. Pre-season injuries contributed to Hughes beginning the campaign with a 3-4-3, but without the players needed to make it work. A poor start followed and ultimately cost him his job.

Hughes, Gent and the club’s other decision-makers did not appear to be working from the same plan. To an extent, it doesn’t matter who was right or wrong. The important point is that the vision was fragmented, and the consequences were obvious.

What City have built since looks very different: a joined-up football operation in which each key figure is working towards the same objectives.

City have clearly leaned on personal relationships in recent years, with several arrivals having previously worked with Alexander, Sharpe or Gent. It made sense. Their characters could be vouched for, and their strengths and weaknesses were understood before contracts were signed.

But no recruitment strategy can depend on familiar names forever. The longer the key recruitment figures remain at City, the fewer recent relationships they will have with potentially suitable targets elsewhere.

That’s why data is evidently at the heart of what City are trying to build, and perhaps this summer even more so. Take the signing of Callum Connolly. After Max Power and Jenson Metcalfe’s exits, City needed to rebuild their midfield. They certainly weren’t the only League One club who went into this window with central midfielders high on their shopping list, but the answer they’ve found probably wasn’t on many others’ radars.

This is where analytical thinking must have played a part. Connolly spent his last four seasons playing as a centre back and evidently doing it well. But when City studied who could offer them the positional, pressing and passing numbers they want from that position, Connolly must have scored highly. And that will have led to an unconventional route to fixing the Power problem.

It’s still early days, but there have been enough glimpses to understand why City were attracted to the move.

This approach is likely to have influenced much of the other business. Jon McCracken’s data from Dundee last season is impressive. Adam Phillips’ end product is well-known, while Macaulay Gillesphey has a strong track record. Henry Cartwright, George Pratt and Reece Welch arrived with less established reputations, but each seemingly ticked the boxes City’s recruitment team were looking for.

Unlike the previous two summer windows, when the likes of Antoni Sarcevic, Ibou Touray, Max Power, Nick Powell, Stephen Humphrys and Will Swan arrived with existing connections to key City figures, this year’s recruitment has no obvious trace of being built around previous relationships.

That doesn’t mean contacts have become irrelevant. It does suggest City are becoming less dependent on them.

Then there’s Jake Beesley, who follows a similar pattern of clearly offering exactly what City want from a centre forward in this set up – in terms of track record and data. While Beesley is still waiting for his first goal, there have already been signs of the attributes that persuaded City to pursue him so persistently. He appears to offer what they were missing, but the pursuit of the 29-year-old also tells us something about a less successful element of City’s recruitment.

January.

On BBC Radio Leeds’ Bradford City podcast, Paul Hudson recently provided an interesting “hot take” that if Beesley had been signed in January, the Bantams would have got promoted last season. It’s certainly a good debate. And though it’s questionable if City would have got past Final Boss Bolton Wanderers, even with Beesley leading the line, we can probably all agree they would have stood a better chance.

City wanted Beesley in January, but Burton rejected their approach. They instead turned to Paul Mullin, Kayden Jackson and Ethan Wheatley. Jackson was the only one to make a meaningful impression, with the others never truly earning Alexander’s trust.

January will understandably be remembered as an underwhelming window. But the subsequent arrival of Beesley offers a different perspective. City failed to land their preferred target, yet resisted the temptation to bind themselves to an unsuitable alternative.

Jackson was the only January arrival contracted beyond the end of the season. That allowed City to move on quickly from the deals that did not work, begin the summer with a cleaner slate and return for the striker they had wanted all along in Beesley.

Whether that patience proves wise will ultimately depend on what happens next. If City’s flying start fades and Beesley’s influence diminishes, January will continue to look like a missed opportunity. But if this squad sustains its early promise, keeping their powder dry may come to look less like indecision and more like discipline.

As Tuesday’s deadline approaches, City appear to be tidying the edges of the squad rather than searching desperately for major pieces. Saturday’s defeat understandably throws that thinking into question, but it’s unlikely the club will panic to one defeat and change tact.

Additional wing-back depth is the clearest requirement, with 20-year-old Cypriot Harry Mills, released by Brighton this summer, expected to sign. The rumours around 35-year-old Sam Clucas training with the club, or 20-year-old QPR Kieran Morgan joining on loan, suggest further cover in midfield is on the cards.

George Pratt’s loan move from Blackburn has already given Alexander six recognised centre-backs for the three positions, with Touray required primarily at left wing-back during Tyreik Wright’s absence.

There could also be departures. Stephen Humphrys appears to be out of favour, while Joe Wright may be too far from the first-team picture for a player of his standing. Any exit could bring the need for a replacement, but with City facing Cambridge during the final hours of the window, the club will surely want to avoid a frantic late scramble.

Whatever happens in the final hours, the most important work was completed long before the deadline. The new arrivals were given time to settle, the team began the season with a clear identity and Alexander has not been forced to spend August filling obvious holes.

If the early potential of this side is realised, the summer of 2026 will be remembered as a third successive window in which Bradford City recruited with intelligence and purpose.

More significantly, it will offer further evidence that the club’s improved transfer business is not the product of one manager, one executive or one inspired signing. It comes from a group of decision-makers working from the same plan.

City’s path for the season has largely been set. Whether it proves to be the right one will depend not on the decisions made over the next few days, but on those already taken over the past few months.



Categories: Opinion

Tags:

10 replies

  1. Wonder if Stephen Humphrys, Joe Wright and George Lapslie will all still be with City after the transfer window – and who may be joining, Sam Clucas apparently the main possibility so far

    • Just a theory but I think with Clucas we’ll let him train with us, build fitness and then maybe offer him a short-term deal until Jan (like we did with Corry Evans in 24/25). But, this may be dependent on injuries and other business, as I think Clucas can play at LWB.

      • Interesting theory on Clucas… Wright now signed for Dundee and two decent young season-long loan signings in from Championship clubs, one in midfield and one in defence, will see whether there is more to come before the window closes…

      • Hopefully we can get 1 more Wing-back in, ideally on the right hand side, if not, it’ll be Jackson covering there and perhaps if Morgan’s arrival is a success this will push Sarce back to his right attacking midfield spot.

  2. why do we think Gent has been brilliant? His initial transfers all came from Middlesbrough if I recall. The worst transfer business done by the club was letting Metcalfe go for half his worth. We sold him for about £1.5milllion to the only club who showed an interest Millwall. Whilst Peterborough sold Llipse for £2.75m. Which is poor transfer business on anyone’s book. Especially when Metcalfe has been Millwall’s star man this season already. So WOAP needs to be more realistic and rounded view of City’s transfer business

    • Interesting what you say abo8t the price, but also why let Metcalfe go at all if we have ambition!

      • Metcalf was the clubs future. He was young and as a midfield player was City’s biggest assett. We have not sorted out our midfield! It’s weak we are less effective in that area. Sarcs a great asset up front but not in midfield. If that is not sorted out in this window, we will strugle to win matches. We were poor at Plymouth. We lacked industry in midfield. I don’t believe a young midfielder is the total answer but I would play Sarcs up front where he belongs and hope we recruite a quality midfielder on deadline day.

  3. I’m not so sure that the transfer business has improved since last season for me metcalfe nor power have not been replaced, in the last few seasons we appear to have gone for quantity over quality maybe it’s ok for the defence but midfield and upfront not for me , plus just play Sarcevic in his correct position or don’t bother

  4. I believe that Sparks or perhaps Sharp said we have a mid table budget this season (just like last) and that in order for us to achieve anything like last year, we would need to significantly over-achieve on the pitch.

    Like it or not, recruitment-wise we are fishing in a different pool to the likes of Leicester, Luton, Huddersfield, MK Dons when it comes to wages, bonuses and signing fees and it looks like the signings that we’ve made reflect that mid-table nature of our available resources.

    It’s understandable when we lost Power and Metcalfe for fees – that people (myself included) expected a “big” signing or two to replace that engine room. It must though be the case that our top targets have slipped through our net, signing elsewhere and forcing us to replace those players with (with the greatest respect) a new low-profile name being asked to reprise a role not played in years and recycling one of our existing team asking him to do the same. This to me looks like silk purse sow’s ear territory and if it doesn’t succeed, the criticism – which has already got some head of steam up after Saturday – will be difficult to silence.

    If the over achievement of last year isn’t repeated then this will leave us likely set for a year of mid-table football accompanied by a return of the “where’s the ambition” accusations and the natural partner “we need a new owner” – thus letting a lot of air of out of the balloon of positivity we’ve had over the last couple of years.

    In my gloomy Plymouth hangover I fear that the signings that do come in will now be young loanees who Alexander typically struggles to trust versus more experienced heads – leaving the square pegs round holes accusation cementing harder by the week and taking the shine off the recruitment team’s standing among supporters, for the time being.

    If we don’t finish the window with any better options than perhaps one tweak that could be made out of necessity would be to change to a midfield 3 of, say, Connolly behind Sarcevic and Philips and play two up top with Beesley and, say, Pointon. That would be surely worth a try in some games to take the pressure off the new midfield pairing who seem to me to have the odds stacked against them as-is.

  5. Maybe I’m in the minority but I do see the reality of why we sold Metcalfe, he had 2 years left on his deal and therefore our options were:

    1) Sell him this summer to maximise the value we could get for him and reinvest.

    2) Keep him for this season (I’ve no idea how he’d have responded to this but let’s presume he cracks on like he did last year and improves) and then we either would have had to hope we get promoted and can keep him in the championship (which still wouldn’t be a guarantee) or we have to sell him with only a year left when clubs can offer a lot less. We’d have been in a weaker negotiating position, unless he was in so demand it started a bidding war.

    I’d have been happy if we kept him and I like the idea of backing ourselves but the reality is we’ve sold him and it appears we’ve used his sale to bring in 2 starters (e.g. Philips, Gillesphey) and given our current budget we need to sell to bring in players on significant (for our level) fees.

    Genrally, our non-loan business since 2024 has been strong, even players who haven’t played regularly and/or worked out as we’d have wanted have had good moments and been involved in our success (e.g. Lapslie, Leigh, Humphrys).

    The benefit of a joint approach is that the club has more control of the direction and data, rather than it being purely down to the manager; Parkinson and his team took lots of information and left us with basically nothing, or so that’s what the story was at the time.

    Our loan signings haven’t been that strong but to be honest I like that we haven’t been dependent on loans to be successful as previous years, due to the risks of a loan being recalled by their parent club and leaving you with a hole; imagine if in 16/17 Cullen was recalled or Burke in 15/16 etc. Of course, we’ve had successes with Adaramola and Shepherd, and to a lesser extent, Mellon (he got that late winner at Salford, so had to mention him).

    I’m writing this after we’ve signed Matthews and Morgan, who give us some extra cover and Morgan, in particular, seems like that extra body in midfield we’ve been wanting. He’s only 20 but seems very highly rated by QPR and their CEO has said he’s coming here to play a career high in minutes. He managed 1,593 minutes in 24/25 across 30 games, which equates to 53 minutes per match, so let’s see if he plays more for us. To be cliched, only time will tell, but if we’d signed him straight after the Metcalfe sale, I imagine many of us would have looked at it favourably? Metcalfe came in with half a season of League 2 football and we’ve signed another young midfielder with 59 championship appearances, albeit, he’s coming in on a season long loan and isn’t our player. I’m not making a claim he’ll be better than Metcalfe and until we see him play a few games for us we don’t know how he’ll work out, but, just making the point that on paper he seems a good addition.