Wrong accent, and the guy was far too positive.

Some points that I found worthy of note:

Hood confirmed that the club was spending full salary cap 2006-2009 and only this year has the full cap not been spent. Player recruitment has always been 100% in the hands of the head coach and that remains the case for Potter. It rather begs the question of whether McNamara would know a decent player if he fell over one - if you believe that we were operating at full cap.

A number of new signings can be expected to be announced after the 1 Sept deadline, albeit not all at once. All recruitment decisions are made by the head coach.

Potter ok'd the contract extensions of LSH and Geoff Evans. He was fully consulted. LSH worked with Potter's assistant Purtill for 3 years so he will know his capabilities. Also Evans was head conditioner at Saints recently so this too would weigh in his favour.

Certain extraordinary costs that the club have had to cope with will all be paid come 2012, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

When asked with hindsight whether it was a good idea to give McNamara such a long contract Hood replied that there were a lot of things to consider at the time. He emphasised that Potter's been given a 2 year deal. That was quite revealing.

When asked why the team appeared at times not to be fit or looking interested Paul Medley made two points. The first was that on a number of occasions there have been only be half a dozen players actually fit to train in the week before a game. The rest may only be fit a day or two beforehand and often players need a needle in order to take part. Second, at the moment many of the kids aren't quite at the level where they can fill in for 1st teamers though that should come in the next year or two.

The bloke at the end asked why if the juniors are so good why they aren't top of the tables in the U20s and Academy. Medley said that the club's aim is to produce 1st teamers not to win competitions at lower levels. Many U20s are now in the 1st team which causes U20s to rely on under-age lads. This has an impact on results at that level. Stepping up to U20s can be a big step from Academy as you can often end up playing against 1st teamers. For example Paleassina has played for Wigan U20s this season. The Burgess brothers initially struggled with the step up to U20s so the coaching staff have been reluctant to have them step up a struggling first team until they're sure they're ready.

Southernwood was signed with an eye on the future. His selection this season was seen as mainly a shock tactic as the opposition won't have prepared for him. He is still learning the club defensive and attacking systems (this got an ironic laugh). Also he needs to develop physically and he apparently didn't get much of this at Wakey. The club has a duty of care and will not putting him at undue risk. He is significantly younger and smaller than e.g. Tomkins or McGuire when they debuted.

All in all it was a useful evening. I was impressed with the turnout. The key really to turn things around would look to be a better showing by the first team in 2011. With a decent coach in charge, some new signings, the full cap spent and a number of kids blooded should see us do better. The top 4 aim and cup run remains (Hood acknowledged that this season was a failure, albeit not helped by McNamara being distracted by the England job and injuries to key players.)

I was stood at the back wall to the left of the stage and when we heard the ref question, me and my mate rushed to look round the corner hoping to glimpse the legend but alas no.....

Indeed. I could never understand why the McNamara apologists persisted in defending him for so long given the statements about a full cap being available. Some of his recruitment would be comprehensible if Bradford were not operating under a full cap, but otherwise, signings (and repeated selections when past it) like Finnegan, McAvoy, Feather, Worrincy, Sculthorpe, Jefferies, Tupou, Sheriffe, Platt, Halley, Reardon, Deacon, Rinaldi, Hawkyard have mostly been average at best. Even solid players like Godwin, Sykes and Nero didn't seem to improve much under his tenure, or went down hill dramatically like Solomona, Newton, and now it seems Hall. Clubs like Leeds, Saints and even Warrington have tended not to go for these sorts of players (or at least in such numbers).

Very good and accurate summary of some of the most interesting points arising there from Sam above - defo a "highlights" list there. There was plenty more like that - don't anyone come on here now and say the club is refusing to engage with the fans?

Mick is real, good lad too.

If you go on the Bullbuilder facebook page, he posts on there too

Like W.Bowling Bull?

OK... two things that have sprung to mind whilst writing on another post.

1. Last night Mr. Hoody held up a dog eared piece of market research carried out by the RL that rated what fans valued when watching RL. This showed that matchday entertainment (other than the clowns on the pitch!) was significantly less important than whatever the other columns were. He used this to justify the lack of investment in the gameday entertainment.

I was thinking about this whilst he was saying it and it's been bugging me a bit during the night as well. My own thoughts are that as a club it was something we did better than any other both on the pitch with bands and stuff as well as around the ground with things like face painting and other stuff for the kids. One of the main reasons we were so successful in this to my mind is the fact that once you enter the stadium itself there is a vast amount of space away from the terraces where you could get the kids entertainment in whilst the parents had a drink or something to eat, this is something that no other club was able to replicate due to the limits of their respective grounds.

It concerns me that the board appear to be making a judgement call based on the opinion of fans of other SL clubs rather than the fans of our club who benefited week in, week out from the effort put in on the none 'game' part of the gameday entertainment. I'd also be quite interested in seeing how the question was posed, what the other catagories were and who it was asked to? A lot of adults who attend the games with other adults might rate it quite low, but it always seemed very popular to those with families as it meant that the kids had a reason for coming other than the boring Rugby.

I understand that the clubs current finances might mean that we can't actually afford this sort of thing currently but surely the money spent on the entertainment could be recouped by getting families in and spending early as well as through the gates?


2. Someone asked whether there was enough room to build a new stadium on the land which the council was knocking a school down on. It may be me but the response of the panel looked a little bit... 'yeah, we've thought of that too' and was shrugged off by saying that if we had the money they're build one...

Now, if hypothetically the club were able to finance the building of a stadium on the land at a lower cost than re-developing Odsal, would I be correct in thinking that we would be in breach of some clause in our current lease agreement that states that we had to play a certain percentage of home games at Odsal (80%?)? Would this still be the case it the council decided to pull out of the OSV scheme?

Point 1. Agreed 100%

Point 2. If we play away from Odsal before the end of 2019 we would be in breach of contract with the coucil - if my understanding is correct.

Some good posts on this thread

Regarding the market research, I wonder whether someone with a foot in the door such as Adeybull could ask if the electronic version could be posted up somewhere (PDF preferably) for us to read. Given that Peter Hood seemed quite happy to give his paper copy away, I don't see why that wouldn't be permissible! I think it would be very interesting to be able debate the whole marketing strategy for the future in the light of this, as I agree that the questions asked, the size of the sample and all sorts of other details would be important in thinking through the implications.

The question about building a new ground at Tong was interesting - in fact I'd just said to my lad a few seconds before 'if there is space when they knock down Yorkshire Martyrs perhaps they'll build a new stadium there' I can't believe that the thought has not crossed the minds of the directors.

The description and analysis of the Tong facility was one of the highlights of the night for me. And thinking about it today, I wonder whether a useful way of further supporter engagement over the close season would be to organise an 'Open Day' at Tong. I would certainly be interested in going an having a look around, meet a few players, grab some freebie car stickers etc. Could be a really good way to involve and connect with the supporters?

Did anyone know about St.Helens being known as simply "The Saints" next year.

Last night was the first I'd heard about it.

I'd forgotten about that, but yeah that's the first I'd heard too. Interesting news.

I was just wondering if that is still the case if the council pull their backing for OSV.

Of course the council may also agree to void that part of the agreement of we move from one council site to another.

I must say, looking out of the Coral Stand last night and seeing Odsal from an angle that I haven't seen before... it's a bloody awesome stadium.

They are "Saints RL" now, are they not?"

If they are, I wasn't aware of it. I thought they were still St. Helens RLFC and hadn't seen anything about a change of name. Perhaps something that just slipped under the radar a bit.

I fully agree - I found it quite an inspiring view from that angle and elevation!

Regarding the Stadium agreement, Peter Hood mentioned a figure of something like £150 million to be cut from the Concil budget of £450 million (if I remember the figures right, but I think that was what he said). With a third of the budget to be slashed you'd have to assume that projects like the OSV would be likely to be culled. Much as we all love the Bulls on here, the general population of Bradford are hardly going to be pleased to see schools not getting built and libraries closed just so the Bulls can get a new stadium.

Surely that would mean that the original agreement about the Bulls having to play at Odsal would effectively be null and void?

Not at all.

Stand-alone agreement that did not require the council to deliver anything further once they had made the settlement.

Unless the money for the development is already ring fenced - didn't I read somewhere that it's some of the money they made from selling LBA?

I imagine "The Saints" thing is to do with the switch to Widnes for a year while the new ground is being built and the physical move away from St. Helens?

I'm sure Hood mentioned that the council were looking to make a £150m cut out of a £450m budget.

That would suggest massive cuts and I'd frankly be amazed if the OSV still went ahead while that was going on.

It seemed to be suggested (although I can't remember the wording, so apologies if I picked this up wrong) that St. Helens as a town doesn't have the best image and is considered a kind of "suburb" (I forget the exact word used) to the big city of Liverpool, and the club kind of wanted to rebrand and disassociate a little from that image.

Its apparently because they want to distance themselves in the public mind from "St Helens", which is now generally perceived as being a suburb of Scouseland with a declining industrial base, its major employer owned by the Japs and not really being an attractive place in the eyes of sponsors, and its got a Warrington postcode. And the stadium is on the edge of the town, so visitors will not even have to go near the town proper.

Seriously. I jest not. And they make a very good point.

And, other than the postcode, does it remind you of anywhere we know? How long before we become Bulls RL? This was all alluded to yesterday.

(Edit: Sorry Kev, did not realise you had posted in amongst)

On the same day that I stop supporting. Losing "Northern" was painful, but negotiable for me. Losing "Bradford" isn't.

Dropping the "Bradford" would do more harm than good IMO.