Delighted with this!

Quality player, British and still young.

Said on the Saints board that we'd take him if they weren't renewing his contract, maybe Hood & co are monitoring my posts

.

Great signing, undoubtedly better than Dowes, and probably Fielden due to age and value for money etc.

Indeed. We are/were after a "couple of left field signings" so who knows?? Trick is I suspect the more leftfield they are the less likely they are to come off so we might never get official confirmation of any approaches or failed approaches we are making, but that doesn't mean the club aren't trying as its clear they are.

Good signing this, much happier with Hargreaves rather than Dowes, I personally would still make room for fielden but I don't think there is any mileage in that rumour. This is an upgrade to our pack options for sure......now where is that stand off?

I'd guess Potter isn't allowed to talk to current Saints players and St Hilaire has to do it.

Aye, Potter talking would be a conflict of interest, which there's an agreement in place that he won't perform any Bulls duties that interfere with his current job.

In reality, I'm sure St. Hilaire was given instructions on how much to offer and all that by Potter, but he had to formally be the one talking to Bryn.

good signing for you lot, wont let you down.

was always going to be hard for him to cement a place at Saints next year with Graham, Perry, Puletua and LMS, and with a couple of young lads coming through.

Wow, really didn't see this coming, but I'm pleasently surprised. A far greater prospect than Dowes, and much younger (and possibly cheaper) than both Dowes and Fielden. Good bit of business!

apart from the fact that fielden makes more yards, more yards per carry, more tackles, misses less tackles, makes more offloads and breaks 4 times as many tackles. Yup other than that Bryn is far better.

Fielden is currently a better player than Hargreaves. However not by nearly as much as the stats suggest.

And the big reason why a lot of folk would prefer the signing of Hargreaves is the age difference.

Said he was a better signing, not a better player. There's a significant difference.

This is a good signing a good up and coming young player.

I'm pleased for this signing, for many reasons already pointed out.

Never rated Hargreaves - Elima would have been a far better signing. Anyone who thinks he is better than Fielden needs their head read, although it is more debatable where he stands relative to Dowes who is more experienced but equally as average. I've seen a fair bit of Hargreaves in Leeds and Saints encounters over recent years and he's a player that has been regularly exposed and only made to look good on occasions by better players around him.

OTOH he will be a useful body to have in your squad and has age on his side, but I can't see him being anything more than an Ian Kirke type player for you (without the size). Still, every team needs players like this, and he should complement Lynch, Scruton and Kopczak well (I always thought you had been at least one prop short under McNamara). So maybe not so bad after all.

And before I get accused of trolling by the likes of FA (it has happened a lot more since I changed my username to include the word 'Rhino', may have to re-consider that

) I actually think the other signings made by Potter so far have all been good ones. So there.

Who says we've done with our signings? Elima may yet be announced. Probably next week now as we've had 3 signings announced this week

I wonder if Sculthorpe is in the plans for next year. Hargreaves isn't a "big" signing so we'd still have 4 props plus Hall and possibly Burgess twins as back up.

Are some people having reading problems here?

I agree, he is not better than Fielden. But again I say, that's not what people are saying. They are saying he's a better signing than Fielden, because of his age. Difference between "better player" and "better signing".

In the same way that signing Elliott Whitehead may be considered a better signing than Steve Menzies. Menzies is undoubtedly the better player, but you're gonna get a lot more years out of Whitehead who is still improving.

There's also the "value for money" option, as no doubt Hargreaves is on less than Fielden.

Elima is still on his way apparently.

I really hope people are not seriously directly comparing Hargreaves with Fielden! And I suspect not many bradford fans are. As a player Fielden is better obviously. But he is therefore on proportionaly more of the available salary cap than hargreaves, I confidently suspect, so as a signing relative to his likely % of the cap and potential and usefulness to the squad....its a good signing.

We needed more options in the front row as we are light there for next year because as Exeter Rhino points out we have seemed light in the front row for a while. I would always go into a game with 4 specalist props, not 2 plus a youngster and a 2nd row who can play prop as we have done a lot over the last few seasons. To play 4 each week you need at least 6 front line props in the 25 man squad IMHO, a couple of whom can be promising youngsters, but all should be dedicated props, then use other forwards who can fill in when needed through injury such as Hall/Langley.

So. Lynch, Scruton, Koppy, Hargreaves, Sculthorpe, Crossley(?) would be an improvement on this year, especially if used in groups of 4. If sculthorpe can't play or leaves then we might need another prop unless/until we think one of the burgesses is ready to step into the "6th prop" squad spot....at least, thats how I'd do it.

Agree with all of that.

I've said the same about the comparison. No doubt Fielden is a better player than Hargreaves. But he would also cost more money and only had a limited amount of years left in the game. Hargreaves as a cheaper, longer term signing makes more sense.

I hope Sculthorpe does come back for next year. The idea of having Lynch, Scrutes, Scully, Koppy & Hargreaves all in the squad represents a much better option than this year imo. When all fit, it means you start 2, you have 2 on the bench, and you rest one. No need to burn out Lynch & Scrutes like has happened this year as they can be rested occasionally. Even if long term injuries kick in to stop that happening, you still have at least 3 or 4 established props to use alongside the likes of George Burgess and Crossley (if retained).

This year, we've lacked something in the front row due to a complete lack of option. Not helped by the Sculthorpe situation, but one injury shouldn't mean you have to burn out two players.

I'm sure you remember that Peter Hood negotiates the money side not the Coach!

Not what was said at the fans forum if I remember correctly.

Didn't Hood say that it was up to the coach how he spent the money on the salary cap? Therefore how much to offer a player is entirely decided by Potter.

Steady prop who will take pressure off Lynch and Scruton.

...except we're probably getting Elima as well.


But who said that? We haven't announced him as the Messiah or something. And we know better than you about Fielden, since he had (by a mile) is best years playing for us. Now he is back end and only this last season has he regained at least some of his "Awesome Foursome" form but he is still far from what he once was. For the reasons I won't repeat as there is a limit, he is certainly a better signing than Fielden would be.


.... is the point!!




I don't even know who you are! When did I last "accuse" you? But the way not to be accused of trolling is, don't troll! Simples!

He said it was up to the Coach as to how much of the SC would be spent! Usually to the Max, this season was different due to the Tong Training Centre build being finished

The financial details are done by the Club's Management (Ron & Ron) i.e Hood and or Duckett, and Duffers makes sure all the paperwork is correct!

If the Coach wants a player the Club look and see if its financially possible and if it is full negotiations take place, we all know this can be long and protracted for a myriad reasons!

But I thought they were all done in 20 minutes on the morning of 1st September? Aren't they?

Not how I interpreted what was said. May have to agree to disagree here, as I understood it to mean the coach decides how best to spend the cap, not just how much of it he spends.

I would imagine it's a joint effort. The head coach gives the board a list of targets, probably rated in terms of who he feels the team need most, and the board then do the negoiating with the player and his agent.

at least that's my understanding