Or alternatively any unhappier.

Question I have been wondering, why are we such an unattractive club? Up until the last couple of years we have been one of the biggest clubs in the league and still we cannot find anyone willing to invest. Exactly how many directors do we now have left.. and how does this compare with the other clubs in SL?

Quite. I think I was misunderstood when I argued that I was against the straight-out sacking of MacNamara, even though I made it clear that I would be happy to see Mac replaced by a better, more experienced, more convincing coach, in a well-handled, affordable process. Likewise, I'd love to see a more charismatic, PR-savvy & rich chairman than Hood. But, no-one's putting their hand up. What's more, I suspect that Hood himself would like nothing better - as suggested by his earlier efforts to locate that very beast.

Bates; Agar; Coulby (vice-chair); Colin Tordoff (think he is director, not just President; check older accounts to see how much he loaned to the club then allowed the club to write off the loan: hell of a gesture when the club needed it); Ian Illingworth (newish...don't know much about him)

Bulls is unusual in that we have a former chairman owns about 27% of the shares (Caisley), the existing directors bring that up to a little over half, and just under half is owned by a host of small shareholders (and one or two not so small). You tend to find other clubs are either owned by one guy (who usually but not always appoints himself chairman) or by a small number of people who usually appoint themselves directors. The more enlightened owners tend to appoint professional managers to run the place.

And why would anyone want to buy in? What would they get out of it? You don't usually buy into rugby clubs to make money (go ask Wilkinson who has been bankrolling his beloved Salford since Adam was a lad). You usually buy in because you are a fan. Or sometimes because you like the idea of what you perceive as the status and kudos you think it brings. And its not that hard being a non-executive director, provided you are happy to put money in and not be worried about ever seeing it again. Its rather harder if you take on executive responsibilities (like Hood does) since you are likely giving up a load of your time as well as your money. To be abused by the fans whenever anything doesn't go as they want.

Caisley appealed for someone to buy his 27%. Last time I looked, years later, he still owned them. They don't ever pay dividends; you can't sell them on the open market, even if there was a buyer. Jack Bates may well feel the same, dunno.

Re: OP


Yeah, if only Hood had said that.

Adey's reply:



In short nobody "invests" in a rugby league club. Whatever the varied reasons for sinking in cash, investment isn't one of them. A point totally lost on some of Hood's arch-critics on here, who fail to even consider on what, if they were Hood, they are "getting out of it", and have no clue what they would do if they were Hood.

Invest probably wasn't the best choice of words.. so is our lack of wealthy backer just bad luck? Do we just not have enough wealthy people in Bradford with an interest in RL?

Yeah, I'd say that pretty much sums it up. We all know there is of course Ken Morrison but, for whatever reason, that's seemingly never to be. There's Jack Tordoff, but then (thank god) he already ploughs fortunes into the club in various ways. Who else is there in the rich lists?

Also it may be that a lot of the major players in Bradford are from the Asian community, and it has proved hard enough to engage with that community on even a fans-through-the gate level, let alone an emotional attachment sufficient to justify disposing of very significant sums of money.

Plus, and this is obviously not the historical reason, but just now in the teeth of a recession our chances of any such person coming over the hill any time soon have probably vanished, if they existed.

AFAIK the club haven't had a wealthy backer in their entire history.

The success of 96-05 was built on solid investment of Sky money in the first few years. How we could do with money like that again!

Does that give him the right to tell porkies to us then?

If by "porkies" you mean the article on formal contact from Oz . . . . . . . .you may want to [icarefully [/ireview what he actually said in his statement in the T&A of 29th and, possibly, more importantly when it was provided to them (. . . . was it really the same day as the Bulls release

He's read what he wants to read and what he thinks was said. As you say, he hasn't read what was ACTUALLY said.

Racking my brain for other famous Bradford folk with some brass. Have we tried getting any money out of David Hockney? Perhaps he could donate one of his paintings? Not my cup of tea but folk seem to like them.

And then there's Kiki Dee...

Not sure about Hockney! Wouldn`t he come with a health warning, I mean he`d probably insist that everyone wore a flat `at and had a fag dripping from the mouth....................

Duncan from the dinner ladies must be minted from all of his sitcom bit parts

Actually maybe he just wants to contribute to the player sponsor

Hood has form for this sort of thing.

TBF, as you are the sort to make a big deal out of perceived "dishonesty" your continued defence of Mr Hood shows you to be a complete and utter hypocrite.

Again.

Don't start this up again sunshine. The board does not need it. I have tried to ignore you but it is not always easy when I read comments from you that strike me as at best absurd and at worst downright dishonest. I will continue to try to do so, in the interests of the board.

Oh dear. Somebody is mistaking himself for a moderator.

I will consider myself told off Mr Mod.

, but you still get on my tits.

Awww bless.

That really upsets me to know that if the truth be told.

Thought it might, you seem the sensitive sort.

Clearly conflict would have been avoided if the thread was accompanied by a poll on where fans stand re: Hood

Fill yer boots Ancient one!