It wasn't uplifting that was for sure.....

You should have come over and said hello.

I must admit I hadn't realised that ALL clubs must have an electronic scoreboard at matches. I assume the club have looked into hiring in one of the trailer advertising type screens rather than try to maintain the knackered one on top of the Coral Stand.

Like the one we used to have in the early days of Super League?

The one that Wakefield had last Friday would be ok at pitch side in front of the Coral Stand IMO or put it where Sky have the big screen.

Sorry mate, I just kinda assumed that since Peter Hood seemed so keen to have the questioner identify himself.

I wonder how many accountants were actually in the room

I think it's nailed on judging my Mr Duffy's reaction when asked.

"We know where he is at the minute - Acapulco"

Even though Leon is at Catalans for the next three years Peter Hood still expects Leon to finish his career at the Bulls.

I did. Since it concerned an issue I have been harping on about for years - the initial treatment of the multi-million pound Odsal settlement. Which I said at the time was wrong and dangerous, and was vindicated several years later when the accounts were restated and the treatment changed. This issue had a lot of very significant implications, not least that the (as restated) release of about £2.5m of the settlement over a period of years meant that the bottom line up to 31/12/2009 was propped up by about £1/3m p.a. Odsal Settlement income. But from 2010 onwards, its all gone and so the bottom line will be worse by that annual sum. It was always going to be. No cash effect though, because the cash all came in in 2002-3.

The treatment of the Odsal settlement was actually very significant indeed to much of what happened in the years following our return to Odsal.

And yes, I understood it. I knew the answer years ago. It is set out in the accounts. But it was not my question, it was Bradford Badger's. And I think he was giving the club the opportunity to prepare those of the fans who are interested for what the imminent 2010 accounts will likely show?

Excellent questions guys, If I wasn't busy I would have gone



Did they mention a business plan for the next three years??

Indeed! I wonder who asked that question?

"Do you agree that the half-working electronic screen above the Coral Stand sends out the wrong impression, and if so will it be repaired?"

Can't have been any sycophantic club mouthpiece who would never ever criticise anything about the club, can it?

I said to Red at the time - "this will be funny, since doubtless folk will assume it was me!"

And at least two that I know of, but there may have been another 20 lurking for all I know...!

Judging on recent statements by Hood, I'll judge this to mean f*ck all.

That was Hood's gag. Glad you finally got a chair!

Well, I thought in all the circumstances it was a very good fans forum, and I was surprised at the amount of positivity in the room. Not at all a lynch mob, and packed to the rafters too. Good stuff.

The panel gave what soundd like fair answers to most questions, even if Potter got off lightly, but Hood readily answered any question, and never got riled or defensive once. He has improved. Our marketing guy is no orator, he came closest to winding people up.

Very interesting bits not so far mentioned were about the circumstances surrounding Deacon's leaving, Menzies leaving, and Medley on the fortunes of the youth teams.

The short story of Deacon was that he had been getting battered as our pack were not giving him enough protection, Wigan came in for him and he asked to talk to his hometown club, where he would be a backup player with a direct opportunity into coaching. The club agreed. They seemed genuinely pleased for him as well as very surprised that the move had led to a new lease of life, as I gather was Deacs, but pointed out this has been playing more at stand off than at scrum half. So a change of club, a change of position, and playing behind a dominant pack = new lease of life.

Menzies was intriguing and at last made some sense. His contract was up and we simply could not re-sign him without going over the salary cap, which is forward-looking and on a week to week basis. Until Hall or Awford left, we were stuck. We could have agreed a deal with him and it was implied we tried to, on the basis that it could not commence until someone left, but that Menzies got a good offer from Cats and understandably chose to take the certainty of an immediate job than sit on his hands waiting for someone to leave. So now Menzies leaving is another thing I can directly blame that ratbag Awford for.

Medley basically said that whilst there have been some floggings for the academy the object is not for thaose teams to win the league, but for them to provide first team players. He pointed out the lads who would have been playing if not on first team duty, and made a very strong case about the position we were in at times, when at the start of the season we had to draft in a whole raft of amateurs who playeed with hardly any training or experience; and later in the season when several players were drafted into the first team squad. Made a lot of sense. But the most intriguing comments were about the Bulls having been battling for two years to get a juniors salary cap, as if a club has a big cheque book then while they cannot sign up fisrt team players without fiddling the cap, they can spend as much as they like in poaching juniors. While there are ways around anything, the Bulls have done well to force this through the agenda, so in future the only way to gobble up a pool of all the best juniors will be by cheating.

Wardle was mentioned. Medley more or less said in so many words that Ken Davy just wrote the lad a huge cheque and he decided to take the money rather than stay, and Medley indirectly criticised Wardle by saying he'd much rather have lads that want to play for the club than are just after max money.

Incidentally the panel were as sceptical of the antics of Warrington and their ability to beat the cap as are we. Hood was scathing in his sarcastic comments about them, and basically without accusing them of anything, yet I know he feels the same way.

Another interesting thing the Bulls seem to be close to achieving is the scrapping of the Service Areas, within I think he said the next few months. So as far as juniors is concerned it seems like a helluva lot of good work behind the scenes.

Another topic was the image rights issue. We now pay no image rights but we did, and we will have a payment to make to the Revenue. However Hood said that a deal has now been done, and the taxman has had to accept that rugby players are just as entitled to image rights as anyone else. Some sort of a formula has been or is being worked out and it is now seen as a dead issue by the club. Reading between the lines it was potentially more of problem for us than was let on, but it has been bottomed.

Hood confirmed that we have now finished making the compensation payments for Harris, if indeed we ever made any such payments in respect of Harris, or any other player, which of course is pure speculation.

On the salary cap, we are the same as 11 of the SL clubs in spending almost up to the whole of the salary cap, leaving just enough room for an emergency signing if we had to make one. There are only three clubs who don't spend the whole of the cap, and Hood said one proposal being bandied about was that all clubs might HAVE to spend up to the cap as a means of evening up competition. He pointed out that the increase in the NRL cap, the increase in the RU cap, and the strength of the Aussie dollar mean that for now the days of tempting star Aussies by the lure of cash have practically gone. Except in France, where a tax rate of 5% was mentioned, which clearly gives Cats an immense financial advantage in salary cap terms.

There was loads of other stuff too, and it was a very informative meeting. Well done Hood & Co.

I had a good chat with Messrs Hood and Bennett before the forum (and, for the avoidance of doubt, the first for many months) primarily about the salary cap and how certain other clubs seem to be able to afford much higher quality squads within the cap. The gist is, of course, that the salary cap audit team at the RFL - and apparently it includes e.g. retired police officers who know exactly how things can work - do not have anything like the powers that the police or HMRC have to pursue enquiries - especially into overseas jurisdictions. Therefore, if there ARE activities taking place that are not reported to the salary cap auditor but which have a big bearing on this issue, the RFL can take no action unless they have proof. Which they lack the powers to obtain. Indeed, Hood said the gist of this in the forum, in response to my written question. I think everyone could see what he thinks about how level the playing field is?

My personal opinion - and that is all I can say it is because, like everyone else I have no proof - is that the salary cap is a farce that you can drive coach and horses through if you as an individual have the financial means and structure to facilitate you dong so. And I do NOT believe it is a level playing field. Not in the slightest. But it can only be an opinion. Unfortunately, opinions don't help us asssemble a squad to match those of certaion other clubs.

One thing I WAS pleased to hear is that it looks like the RFL is to introduce a salary cap at academy level. This is to stop certain clubs, ones with plenty of money (or, more to the point, with owners who have) from "stockpiling" young talent by use of the chequiebook. Just like Wigan used to do in the years before SL. I doubt messrs Davy and Moran will be too happy about that, but it might help clubs hang on to their youngsters a bit better AND stop youngsters getting lured by big money yet not then progressing to the first team.

Good post FA



I was going to post a lengthy summary, but you saved me the trouble



I think I was bit less won over by Paul Medley, since he failed to explain why it was that we were in such a parlous position at the start of 2010 whereby we had to raid the local amateur teams for any kids with a pair of boots to make up a team. OK, so we lost Joe Wardle, but he was only one guy, I didn't really understand how we had so few players given that Medley has been in charge of the Academy set up for several years.

That said, it does seem that we'll be in a better place next season, with a much larger squad of academy players, plus the Tong facility now fully operational. So hopefully there are better times ahead.

I was also surprised by just how little Andrew Bennett seemed to understand why the Pledge is almost certainly destined to fail this year. His plaintive pleas about 'value for money' being met with hoots of derision seemed to genuinely surprise him. And I didn't really think he properly answered the questions about extending the pledge deadline. I hope that he'll develop the good ideas suggested about looking into a part-season ticket for, say, the first four home games next season.

But overall quite a good night. More positive than I thought it would be.

Generally an informative evening, not sure how to take Mr Duffy making light of some of poorer results we had this season 'tho.
Also I found it a bit odd that that Mick Potter was sat on the fringes, while Meddars took centre stage.

I was pleased that the questions they used were all genuine ones sent in by supporters (a fact) and that they used, and answered to a large extent, quite a few that I suspect most clubs would have declined to answer. I felt there was a genuine willingness to be as open as possible, certainly within the constraints of anything commercially or operationally sensitive. Some were not exactly answered in full, for sure. But I would not have answered them in full either in a public forum, had it been me.

I think yes, Andrew Bennett WAS surprised and taken aback by some of the pledge comments. I spoke to him afterwards. On one level, I can fully understand his POV about value and the need to get as many signed up as possible, and I really think he was personally quite hurt by some of the criticisms of what he genuinely feels (rightl;y, in my view) is a fantastic value offering. But on another level, and probably in his astonishment and I think without realising it, he committed the cardinal sin, and broke #1 rule in the selling and marketing book - don't argue with your customer, ffs!!!

In his defence, I very much got the impression that it was only because he felt so passionately about what they are trying to do - and in particular to make the package so much more affordable - that he lost his way a bit there. I said this to him afterwards, but probably won't be on his Christmas card list as a result!

I think it says something too for the quality and dedication and common sense of the audience that it never degenerated into anything ugly, despite the massive potential for just that and a load of frustrated people after another dreadful season. If the board was not both chastened and uplifted by the forebearance and - to an extent - understanding, of most of the audience, and of the fans' obvious desperation for the club to succeed and drag itself back up from where we have fallen to, I'd be very surprised.

It seemed clear that he was not suited by the occasion, though the impression first given wasn't helped by him not being able to use the 'silver' mike. Who IS our defensive coach, though? Potter wouldn't say. He just repeated that he is, he takes responsibility for all the coaching, anyone else is just doing what he tells them. So he's no grass, at least



I was surprised to hear Bennett making precisely the same mistake that I detailed in another thread about the pledge, trying to convince the uncommitted to pledge "because it IS great value, it just IS" is a singular waste of time and a bit arrogant too. Yes, for the 6K hard core who would tend to go whatever, indeed it is, Andrew, but they are not the ones who'd make up the last 6K. But the other 6K are NOT committed fans, but people who can take it or leave it as any other way to spend their hard earned and they don't respond, at all, to anything else but what THEY think is value. If they have decided that going to the Bulls isn't likely a good use of their free time, then they won't come even if it cost nothing. We see this for example every time the Challenge Cup starts, but many weirdly seem to not notice.

Interesting stuff about the salary cap and if, as they say it's effectively unpoliceable then somebody needs to put their head above the parapet and call for it to be scrapped as it's bringing the game into disrepute.

The Menzies story sounds strange considering Menzies, Hall and Orford were all contracted in 2010 and presumably within the salary cap but by the end of 2010 when we had released a minibus full of players we couldn't re-sign Menzies because it would have taken us over the cap?

something to do with other new signings we had made at that point?

But if they did that, then it would give free rein to a very wealthy backer to spend, say, £20m on a squad. I don't think this would be in the interests of the competition. Clearly what appears to many to be going on is anti-competitive, but at least IF it was going on, it is a breach, and not a free-for-all. The fact the cap in this area seems very hard to police isn't I think an argument for therefore scrapping it, but I agree they need to find a way.

It sounded very complicated, and is, but basically once player A's contract is finished, the forecast salary spend for the following week does not include him. But that forecast spend is right up to the salary cap, because a club has put in place contracts for other players and aims to be spending at that level. However what if that club is having to continue to pay serious money to an individual which it knows is leaving, and it has to replace, but he won't leave? Somebody else has to be acquired to do that major job. Or at least the fans expect that. His ongoing large wedge continues to take up cap space. The club obviously did not anticipate having to pay what becomes an extra very large wedge for several months (how could it?) and so cannot sign the other player until space is made.

Obviously a major fact must be the large size of the remuneration of players such as Menzies and Awford. Lesser players' wages might be easier to juggle. Whichever way you look at it, having to pay big money wages to two key players who aren't playing for you must be hard to cover. It sort of made sense to me but I am no expert on the fine detail of the cap.

were any mentions given of the ground, how much is it setting us back and what plans are in place to improve it given that OSV is dead in the water ?

www.superleague.co.uk/article/dr ... reau/19409 Something didn't quite sound right last night with me about the Scott Dureau comment. Based on the link above Catalans announced Dureau in August 2010, at which point I don't think the club had any real belief that "he who shall not be named" wasn't returning. So, were we ever in for Scott Dureau..... Also found this on Blake Green www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... Green.html Now, I'm not saying that we weren't offered the opportunity to speak to these guys, but we had no intention of signing them at the point they were available. I think the Duffster may have been streching the truth a tad stating that we "missed out" on Dureau and Green due to Orford. That being the case we missed out on Inglis the time he went to Souths as we couldn't fit him in under the cap at the time....

www.superleague.co.uk/article/dr ... reau/19409 Something didn't quite sound right last night with me about the Scott Dureau comment. Based on the link above Catalans announced Dureau in August 2010, at which point I don't think the club had any real belief that "he who shall not be named" wasn't returning. So, were we ever in for Scott Dureau..... Also found this on Blake Green www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... Green.html Now, I'm not saying that we weren't offered the opportunity to speak to these guys, but we had no intention of signing them at the point they were available. I think the Duffster may have been streching the truth a tad stating that we "missed out" on Dureau and Green due to Orford. That being the case we missed out on Inglis the time he went to Souths as we couldn't fit him in under the cap at the time....

We'll see the effects in the accounts once they are published - Hood didn't totally answer the question (to which I already know the basic answer to). I was hoping he might let slip what our reported loss (as I expect) is actually going to be when it is announced.

When a few people see the numbers there might be a bit of a panic - I may be wrong, we may have made a profit, but very much doubt it.