Re: Joe Westerman : Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:44 am  

roger daly wrote:

Oh yes them were the days, seems such a long time ago now. With the Bulls decline I've certainly lost a lot of interest

It seems like an age ago now doesn't it, but it isn't really that long ago you were the top dogs. Unbelievable how things have unravelled since 2005. The Leeds- Bradford games back then were great too, would love to get those times back but seems a long way off right now.

Re: Joe Westerman : Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:03 am  

Bullmania only really lasted from 1997-2003. Salary cap bashing, and Harris-gate put an end to their brief flirtation with success

Re: Joe Westerman : Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:04 am  

Biff Tannen wrote:

It seems like an age ago now doesn't it, but it isn't really that long ago you were the top dogs. Unbelievable how things have unravelled since 2005. The Leeds- Bradford games back then were great too, would love to get those times back but seems a long way off right now.

Yes I feel we will be having a local derby with Keighley before we have another one with Leeds

Re: Joe Westerman : Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:09 am  

roger daly wrote:

Yes I feel we will be having a local derby with Keighley before we have another one with Leeds

I used to have similar dislike of the Bulls however I now just want them not only back in SL but also in a position to win things.

It would make the league stronger and more interesting.

Maybe I was just jealous of the Bulls' success back then (and was younger so less objective) but I do hope you guys get to turn things around before it's too late as whatever the things that went wrong you certainly got a lot of things right and to have over 20,000 in Odsall was fantastic.

Good luck for next season!

Re: Joe Westerman : Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:14 am  

Stevosfalseteeth wrote:

Bullmania only really lasted from 1997-2003. Salary cap bashing, and Harris-gate put an end to their brief flirtation with success

Well, they did reach the GF in 2004 and won it again, as we well know, in 2005. Although i would agree that the treble winning 2003 side was the peak. The Bulls fall from grace is a perfect example to any Leeds fan taking the current success for granted, enjoy it and soak it up while you can, because things can very quickly go pear shaped. Obviously we are in far better financial shape than the Bulls were, but you never know what is around the corner.

Re: Joe Westerman : Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:36 pm  

I really miss the Derby games against the Bulls. the home fixture against them was always my favourite and most anticipated game of the season and what an atmosphere in the ground. The wins were the sweetest and the losses the most gutting. I hope they make it back, not only to SL but also to contenders. But as this years decider against Wakey showed it's a way off yet. I said before they hit the skids, when the cracks started to show, that SL needed a strong Bulls team, I still believe that to be true.

Re: Joe Westerman : Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:26 pm  

All Bradford have to do is go back to signing the biggest players they can find in every position. A fat Bradford pack worked for them through the 70's the 80's and then in SL.
Big centres, even bigger wingers, fat 6 and 7 and they will be back in the big time before Dominoes can deliver a super deluxe meat feast.

Re: Joe Westerman : Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:23 pm  

Just going back to salaries - the only player's salary I've ever known for certain was Danny Buderus' and he was on £100k a year. He was of proven quality, so I'd be amazed if Achurch - a then 24 year old with 11 first grade appearances - would be on more than that. Regardless of what comes out of Phil Gould's mouth.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:16 am  

It has been rumoured for all his time at Leeds that Achurch was amongst the highest earners in the squad

As for Sinfield being on less than 100k!! Even Gary couldn't get away with that.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:29 am  

Loyal Leeds Fan wrote:

Just going back to salaries - the only player's salary I've ever known for certain was Danny Buderus' and he was on £100k a year. He was of proven quality, so I'd be amazed if Achurch - a then 24 year old with 11 first grade appearances - would be on more than that. Regardless of what comes out of Phil Gould's mouth.

Again, not wanting to gain anything in terms of 'in the know' bragging rights, just sharing what I've been led to believe by someone who doesn't usually let much slip, but when they do, it's absolutely nailed on correct..... Don't know what Buderus was on, but can tell you, despite to all and sundry this being ridiculous - Achurch is 100% on more than that....

Also, Garbutt is on less than Achurch, but similar to money quoted above... Gives you an idea of the type of money we're having to spend to compete with just average NRL wages.... Though Garbutt was signed on fairly big money by the Broncos (he was seen as a big prospect by the Broncos until Bennett arrived) and he's actually taken a pay cut to come to Leeds in terms of the balance sheet / however the positive exchange rate and cost of living reductions mean he's actually still better off at Leeds.