I get fed up pf people referring to this sort of issue as an "excuse". It would only be an "excuse" if it was used to "excuse" something, such as the dire defence against Wigan. Don't think it's been referred to in that way.

Obviously for any great team, you start from a base, and as the team plays and builds together, it improves year on year until after a few seasons you can end up with a Man U, a Barcelona, or indeed a vintage noughties Bulls.

Of course, very, very few teams go all the way to achieving greatness, but the process is the same for any new team, and to say that a team will improve a lot once the players get to know each other's styles, have experience of playing in the same team in actual games, and get an understanding of what each is capable of / likely to do / not do, is to me just statin' the bleedin' obvious. Nor will long term injuries in key positions do anything to help the process. Again, no "excuse", just a truism.

The other side to this is that if a club signs a player who performs above expectation his image attains a value. Rangi Chase would be an example at a club without a sugar daddy. Whilst the points about virtuous and vicious cycles are valid it remains the case that I cannot think of one player signed in the last 5/6 years whose 'image value' could be said to have increased whilst at the Bulls.

A further point is that image rights deals are surely traceable by the RFL and HMRC. If the players image was used to sell cars for instance, then it would be a simple matter to ascertain if the figure was out of keeping with other similar deals. I'm not arguing that this isn't a benefit but that the scale of benefit to a particular club needs to be kept in perspective. I've found no evidence of the 'French RL players don't pay tax' thesis.

The final and for me, key point is why when despite being years into a long and painful decline during which we astonishingly still get 10000 season ticket holders are we absolutely untouchable to the type of person(s) who routinely queue up to buy smaller, less well supported and hugely less successful clubs? There was a point on sunday afternoon when I felt the RFL deal to buy Odsal was a bad thing if only because it has underwritten more of the dreadful same. At the fans forum Paul Medley suggested we are being outbid for young talent by teams like Wakefield.

The tension here is between the management of the club and the ownership of the club and I'm not sure where theories on how other clubs circumvent the cap, as thorough and well explained as yours always are, really take us.

Shad Royston & Nick Scruton are 2 off top of my head. not to mention all the youngsters who nobody knew when we signed em

They've signed third party image rights deals have they?

You said you can't think of a player whose image value could have increased.

You didn't say you cant think of one who signed third party image right deals.

If you meant that, than fair enough. Put what you mean in future.

I think you are where we were last year with Morgan. We drew 36 all with a full strength saints with no halfbacks and no hookers for the last 10 minutes but when asked his thoughts on the game Sandercock went straight in with disappointment in the decision making in the last 5 minutes and if we defend like that next week wire will put 70 on us! I like the cut of his jib.

Hull made the top 8 last year, so lets take your plan of been "realistic" and not bothering to pur a performance up and getting hammered 50+ points against the top teams. So lets write off Warrington, Wigan, Catalans, Leeds, Huddersfield & Saints. So we are left with Widnes, Salford, London, Hull KR, Hull FC, Wakefield & Castleford. play each of them teams twice thats 14 games. We have to win all but one of them games to make the play offs. Thats not going to happen. If we were to win 10 of them games it would be an exceptional achievemnt. That means we have to beat the top teams if we want to make the play offs.

again, being realistic, its no surprise we lost to Wigan on the 3rd game of the season.

did you think we would win?

I expect the team to perform better against the big teams, but i'm prepared to let them get used to each other before branding the season a failure (after round 3).

Some fans expect us to sign class players and then finish top - lets not get carried away!

Look at the fixtures, our first 4 home games couldn't have been much harder. Let the players find some form, then we will see them competing with the top teams. Calling for potters head after round 3 just seems a little premature.

But like somebody said on another thread i think,

Its not potters fault with all the errors that are being made on the field and the penalties the players give away which leads to losing field position, you cant blame potter for:- tackling players in the air, holding down, knock ons, forward passes. not finding touch with a penalty or infact when a player gets injured,

Yes potter may of had a game plan but when a PLAYER misses a tackle and other players have to compensate for this it leave gaps ie. Crookes coming accross to stop richards then the ball being passed back over where crookes was no where to be seen,

Personally and this is only my OPINION but wigan made us look that bad cos on the day they really were that good, wigan are a fast team and have learnt how to have a fast play the ball and that is what run us ragged from breaking the line and us having to compensate out of position.

If that makes sense ha

[size=150ex·cuse/[/sizeikˈskyo͞oz/Verb: Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

Noun: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.

[size=150clutching at straws [/size Out of desparation, the act of reaching or stretching for a solution, no matter how irrational or inconsequential. Literally - a drowning person who, unable to find any substantial floatation immediately at had, attempts to save himself from certain death by grabbing hold of a few stray pieces of straw floating on the water within arm's length.

I think it's fair to say that very few RL players have much value in term of 'image rights', but that is only of concern if the contract is a genuine commercial one. If, on the other hand, it is just a mechanism for a rich owner/backer to pay more money to a star player then the actual value of the rights is immaterial.

Of course, I go along with Adeybull that obviously, no-one involved in [iany[/i RL club would ever do such a thing.

I'm sure it goes off to a certain extent & I'm not particularly bothered if it brings in some top talent & stops them buggering off to yawnion. I can't decide whether the objections are to the principle of brown envelope payments or the fact that some directors don't have the rich friends who will make the payments for them.

I agree but as TT infers it is the role of management and directors to market the club and an association with it to the 'right' people.

I'm not suggesting it's a level playing but rather feel the debate should be more focussed on the reasons a club with all the advantages of the Bulls should be disadvantaged by the situation Adey has previously outlined rather than being able to benefit from it. There's another Andy Wilson piece in The Guardian basically asking how a club like ours can languish in the manner it is doing when to all intents and purposes it is as big a club as Leeds. I think it's time to look past the coach and salary cap and face up to the fact that the Bulls are a failing organisation because of fundamental issues in its boardroom and shareholding.

I've not read the Wilson piece yet, but I agree with him. However it is a very simplistic view. There are numerous parallels in football in Yorkshire - once great/well resourced clubs get into an inexorable decline which, despite repeated changes in personnel, cannot be halted - Leeds Utd, Sheff Wed, Hudds, Bradford City. There must be more to it than just money.

Maybe the perceived conflict between the board and the shareholders is the reason for the recent change in the shareholding?. Could be an attempt to adress the issue.

I didn't hear about that Mat. Was it significant?

Adeybull put the exact figures on another forum but from memory. Current board (hood, duckett and Bennett) only used to control 7% of shares, which hood held. They now hold just over 25%. hood has a tad over 20% and Bennett has 5%. significance of it being over 25% isit means they have power to block special resolutions.

I was happy with the appointment of MP and TBH it has not exactly been a sparkling improvement since the dark days of McNamara now has it? OK, he had to have a heck of a clearout but he has had enough time to do that and we have not improved in the slightest it seems.

Huge defeats now seem to be almost accepted nowadays and this cannot continue. We appear to be far too soft, lacking in fight and nothing seems to have been done about it. Is the problem behind the scenes?

Our fitness/injuries has been a concern for ages now and we seem to get more than our fair share of crocked players these days. It is extremely worrying and now we are just mere also rans. All this "sugar daddy" talk is well and good but what WE need to do is make the best use of what we have. Can we honestly say that this is the case????

I did tell you it wouldn't be the answer, but would you listen?


No. Hood, couldn't, Potter couldn't. The players couldn't.

Or if, on Sunday, or against Catalans, that really, truly, was the best use we could possibly make of what we have, then we may as well switch the lights off and pack it in now.

I missed the Andy Wilson story (just had another quick look but it's not in today's), sad to say I don't expect any RL so tend to skim through the sports pages in seconds.

In fairness, I'm not sure what all the "advantages" the Bulls have had are, other than being fairly successful over (relatively) recent times. It boils down to the fact that you need either a very healthy, profit making business or a rich benefactor to take advantage of things like image rights and, given that there really isn't much money to be made from RL, it seems we are talking about a very wealthy fan rather than someone looking for a business opportunity, unless they want something to set against tax, of course. Peter Hood has said publicly that he would give up the chairmanship if someone else would come in and put some money into the business, and so far as we know, we've had one offer, from someone who clearly didn't have any real interest in Bradford Bulls as a rugby league team.

I've come to the conclusion that this person just isn't there. I feel pretty sure that anyone with even the vaguest interest in the club will be aware of the position and, as yet, we're still waiting. Fair enough, maybe the board really haven't tried hard enough, I'm not in a position to say, but you can't get blood from a stone.

I agree that the way shares are held isn't helping the club. Having the biggest shareholder 'estranged' from the club is far from ideal (though rumours suggest things are a little better), but if he, or any other of the old guard, doesn't wish to sell (assuming someone else is in a position to buy) I'm not sure what can be done. I definitely feel a few new, younger board members wouldn't go amiss.

All that said, we are discussing sport, with all its ups, downs, trials and tribulations. I've seen the club, both in better times and infinitely worse, so I'm not going to jump around waving my arms about with both knees jerking over the current circumstances. Sport by its nature is cyclical and different teams come to the fore and then fade away as another takes its place in the sun. C'est la vie.

Look, you KNOW you always right FA, you really don't need me to tell you.

When have i said i expect us to finish top I said top 8. I then provided you with stats to suggest we have to beat the top sides.

I didn't expect us to beat Wigan. I do expect us to be competitive and not be humilated and concede 50 points again.

We have played two home games and haven't even looked like troubling the opposition.

I didn't think we looked too bad in the first half. We competed and only let them score as a result of a mistake or 2.

2nd half was one to forget though - I'm not going to condone that!

Looking at the next two home games I can't see us troubling them too much either, to be honest, well not in terms of looking as though we might win, though I definitely hope we will defend a bit better. Thing is, we're talking about last years top four being served up in our first four home games. It was always going to be hard and, bar a miracle a pointless four games. I do, of course, live in hope as always, but fully expect reality to bite me on the bum.

For sure, it's never good to concede 50, but Wigan will do that to stronger sides than us before the season is over and in all honesty I don't think it effects where we will finish come September. Losing to Wakey would have bigger consequences so let's hope we rebound on them like we did at Cas.

While wins versus the top 4 might be almost impossible I would like to see us compete a bit more. That would at least show we were making progress. The Wire game is a big one IMO because last year you could see from the players body langauge in the warm up that they were resigned to a hiding. The result was Wire didn't have to break sweat to hammer us as we gifted them tries all over the park. It was second only to Salford away as our worst performance last year.