proves my point we sell a full back who was home grown and bought platt who isn't as good ... bad move from the bulls

Impossible to say not knowing what their respective wage demands are.

If Readon wanted 250k a year and Platt wanted 50k a year would we still have been correct keeping Readon?

Well I know we bought Platt. But I don't remember SELLING Reardon.

I thought he left because his contract was up and he rejected a new one in favour of a bigger one on offer?

Spruce unproven? Loughlin a lesser name? Eh? For example. Although I agree with the general thrust of your argument - Bulls developed players to achieve their potential - not sure I agree with all your player categorisation. And anyway, on the subject of we don't sign "Big Names", you missed out the hugely-successful signing of Penguin's best mate Shaun Edwards...

We shouldnt have let Nick Zisti leave the club. Bad move by Bradford IMO.

You seem to be disregarding the significant time that elapsed between the two events? Hardly cause-and-effect?

Was it ever...!

Some could argue it was the start of the end.

Some saw letting the great Zisti go as the tipping point, after which Bulls would never again achieve greatness.

Me, I'm not sure it was the end; nor even the beginning of the end. But it was, maybe, the end of the beginning...? [size=59=cyanwith apologies to Winston...[/size

I liken that signing to that of Terry Holmes and for the same reason have blocked it from memory.

Spruce wasn't accomplished, had had a brief shine but was, at the time, playing in National 1 in a struggling Widnes side. he had far more potential than pedigree at the time. As for Loughlin, OK he was an established international player but compared with what went the other way in terms of Star, he wasn't a signing to set the pulse racing, particularly as Saints at the time rated him less than one third (and a bucketful of cash) of a Paul Newlove.

Anyway at least you got the jist of what I was trying to say.

I think some of our players tried to block him from the ball, let alone memory...!



And yes, I did, and OK take your point about the ratings of the players at the time of their signing as opposed to when in their pomp. Sprogger still cost us a fair bit, though.

Yes he did. And it was Newlove well spent I reckon.

Been said loads of times before, but the Newlove deal was surely the best bit of business this club has done in recent years - for the reasons said, and not least because that way we also acquired the outstanding services of Sir Bernard?

Better than 500k for Stuart Fielden?

(a player that in the space of two seasons now looks to be worth about a packet of crisps and a stale pint)

Interesting comparison. Thought it was reported as £450k though? And there appeared to be very strong indications that the deal was not necessarily quite like all it seemed. But I guess if you compare the two: the Newlove deal set the Bulls up for SL and gave us the cash and the platform on which to build a championship-winning side; the Fielden deal may well have...shall we say, done the club a big favour financially?

Although I agree the Newlove deal was excellent (how they managed to strike a deal of that makeup is beyond me - getting the three players to agree), in terms of value for money, Fielden at 450k seems like an excellent piece of business now bearing in mind his game over the last well three seasons.

Less of the praise please... it's not how we do things on here.

Yes please.

To what ?

Bring Noble back ?

To what ?

Bring Noble back ?