The League Express once published a full page account from the bloke who Leon Pryce was in court for attacking the first time. It was during the trial and therefore legally prejudicial to the case. That’s when I stopped buying it.
They don't really care about their journalistic responsibilities.
Let’s face it, fewer and fewer people read it so soon enough it won't really matter what they print because nobody will be reading it!

I didn't say you are in strife, it was a number of posters on here that might lead a casual observer to believe you are, HTH. The parlous state of most pro RL teams in the country is largely irrelevant. Yes, a repsonsible journalist would check his/her facts before printing tosh. And you think it is only transfer fees at Bradford that have been cut back?

we're fully aware that we're not spending full cap but this is largely due to there not being any halves/ available who would be an improvement on what we have and theres no point signing other positions where we have plenty of cover just for the sake of spending full cap. I'd call that sensible rather than a problem. likewise we may have cut back on gameday entertainment but we still provide more than a lot of SL clubs.

The only posters on here that suggest we are in financial difficulties are visitors who do not wish us well. Many posters on here seem to think the club has plenty of money, which of course it does not and as the chairman acknowledged. Some of us try to point out the same financial realities as he did - no sugar daddy so money is tight - and express concern for the long-term future if crowds fall and the OSV does not go ahead. Nothing there from us to suggest the club is in "financial strife" or, as that tösser wrote means "financial difficulty" right now.

I'm not sure we are actually "fully aware" of any such thing, even if there may be indications that that might be the case.

I suspect TT was anyway referring more to areas such as off-field staff, marketing and pre-match entertainment where it is clear that severe cutbacks were made - almost certainly following the Gareth Davies business plan, and the disappointing fall-off in attendances plus of course the fiasco with Leeds.

The key point most observers miss though is that those cutbacks were necessary precisely to prevent the club getting into financial difficulties, since we can't go running to a Moran or a Davy or a Lenaghan or a McManus or a Wilkinson (or even a Caddick, at need) if we get caught a bit short.

I suspect somebody who does not wish us well has again been doing what we saw clear evidence of happening but could never prove, several years ago - planting malicious and unfounded rumours in the right ears.

If I had the time or the inclination I am sure I could find a number of posts from loyal supporters on here whose posts do suggest financial difficulties. Anyone wishing ill on another RL team I put with G W Bush.

As I said previously, it depends on your definition of strife. Stevo likes to make cheap, not thought through, controversial remarks, usually bollox, in his commentary. This is another of those.

Four pages so far on Stevo's comments! Grist to the Stevo mill.

I find it amusing that whenever commenting on these issues Hood, in theory an intelligent adult, uses phrases like 'sugar daddy'. He sounds more like some envious half wit in a playground.

I'd bet a lot that the phrase "sugar daddy" has yet to be used in any of the world's playgrounds, even less probably by a "half wit" (sic) but each to his own amusement.

Bullseye in particular has indicated this on several occasions.

pretty sure there were comments in media from both mcnamara and hood at beginning of season that should the right player become available then funds were available. since then the non-appearance of bird and release of tupou would pretty much confirm that we have cap space available. Short term deal for rinaldi wont have cost much ( and I suspect caisley is providing his legal services for rinaldi's case against the RFL at a reduced rate as part of the deal).

agree about the off-field cutbacks,which whilst looking bad are necessary to offset running costs of odsal,settlement with leeds and reduced crowds.
Until performances on the pitch are more consistently positive then can't see benefit of throwing money at marketing budget at the moment.

Wow, what a super bet!

I think it is great that the Chairman of your club resorts to such childishness. Does he have some problem with wealthy people putting money into the game? Would he extend his opprobrium to wealthy corporations? If Tordoff or Morrisson wanted to put a few million into the Bulls would he call them sugar daddy to their face? Or do you think they might find such a description peurile?

I haven't read the LE for years so haven't read any of this. How does use of the phrase "sugar daddy" translate into childishness?

God knows

People will classify the use of this phrase as they wish. Hood seems to use it in a pejorative way. It smacks of envy. He could refer to wealthy backers / supporters / investors. I doubt he would call any potential wealthy invetsor in the Bulls a sugar daddy - and rightly so, it would be an immature thing to do. Refering to other clubs in this way is graceless.

Me neither, until yesterday when I bought one on spec. Will never again, cos reading it reminded me why I stopped reading what was then the media organ of Leeds Rhinos in the first place.

More like it translates into "hit a bit of a raw nerve"?

I bet if you did not have Ken Davy and we did you would not practice what you preach?

I've seen him use the phrase before and never really had that impression. It always struck me as talking his own club up for having achieved success without those advantages than talking other clubs down.

As you say though, all in the eye of the beholder. Clubs with wealthy backers and a long history of failure will likely take it as a childish snub at themselves.

Hood's not graceless.

This is graceless.

So you knew your analogy was bollox when you wrote it.
OK.





It is a cliche and everyone knows what it means. It's shorthand for a wealthy backer who has more money than sense. But why am I telling you this, when you already know? It would seem to be just you who has a problem with what is an ordinary term, well understood by everyone else.


I have no reason to believe so. Do you? If not, why ask?




"Opprobrium", now, is it?
Don't you think you're getting just a tad carried away with yourself now?


I refuse to engage in Rhetorical Questions For Dummies, ta. I would suggest though that whatever financial relationship either of those two exceptionally shrewd businessmen might ever be interested in entering into, anything akin to a sugar daddy would not be it. If you think either would pour vast sums of money into a business for nothing but personal aggrandisement, kudos or whatever (I presume you aren't implying sexual favours) then you truly must be mad.

OTOH if I were as rich as an Abramovich, I might well be inclined to be a sugar daddy for the Bulls. I wouldn't mind a bit if anyone used the phrase, as in that situation I wouldn't be making any sort of real investment, I'd just be chasing a dream, and it would be a very reasonable description.

I didn't want to mention that first but it's what I've been thinking.

You mean the number of posts which cite the financial constraints as a reason why the club has been struggling to perform off-field? Can't be those, then.

Or the number of posts suggesting that the financial constraints have suggested the club has not been able to sign the best players, even though we were told we were spending at or close to the cap? Could maybe be those, but you'd first have to assume that Bulls were spending well below the cap, and we can see teams not far from us in the competition who definitely WILL be spending the cap. So not sure its those either.

More realistically, maybe its the number of posts that have both blamed the league position on McNamara AND at the same time taken the financial constraints as being THE reason why we have not engaged a superstar coach? Although nearly everyone blaming Macca was not recognising the financial constraints anyway, were they? They just said the board should spend...so they were not blaming the "financial situation". Not them, then.

So I'm struggling a bit to identify these "...thousands of posts on RAB blamimg (sic) your league position squarley (sic) on the financial situation at the club".

Maybe its because there have not actually been?

Ooh, the advantiges of a spell chequer.

Had pedant hat on there a bit deliberately, will admit!

Come on Adey you well know that if we were sat top of Super League table playing breathtaking rugby the "Financial Constraints" wouldn't be mentioned. It's only because this season so far has been a massive under achievement it's getting used now as the favorite excuse.

But we're not, and the constraints we are under, far from being an excuse, were well known before a ball was kicked.

If we were sat top of Super League table playing breathtaking rugby that would only be because (a) we had suddenly magicked up another beat-all-comers-all-the-time team and (b) had come into pots of mysterious dosh.

Also don't see money as the "favourite excuse". If there has to be one, it is that we were always going to be, and will be for some time, in a rebuilding phase. I'd see it as a fact, but whether one man's fact is another man's excuse doesn't alterthe situation.