: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:21 pm  

Beechwood Bull wrote:

And the club is bound to secure top quality sponsorship with that approach.

If you were in business and looked to sponsor a high profile regional sports club which one would you go for?

1. The club that markets itself as one of the success stories of SL with many SL titles and CCs and who has competed in the play offs every year and still considers itself capable of lifting major honours.

or

2. The club that responds by accepting they've been on the brink of bankruptcy due to massive overspend by the last administration and probably won't win anything for three to four years?

Please either buy the club and invest the millions required or accept that just because you've watched a lot of academy rugby doesn't mean you know anything about bringing a £5million a year business with a money pit for a ground and the slowest most over paid SO in the league back from losing half a million quid a year.

So as a fan your happy being lied to after buying a season ticket just so that they can get a sponsor. IMO they would be better saying nothing than the everything is rosy line which is often used when it's looking more likely that it isn't.

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Sing? Sing?? Would this be the Hull that are fighting for the wooden spoon, and the Sing who has got, er, TWO tries all year? That Sing?

Yes, but it is also the Hull who will be competing in a major final for silverware and knocked out Bradford on their own patch to get there. Sing has had his fair share of injuries at Hull, and his lack of tries scored this season is no indicator of any lack of quality.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And King? Whilst his form has recently taken a slight upturn, the general consensus of all fans all year is what a waste of money. certainly he is unrecognisable as the Matt King who played in the NRL (overrated as he there was). I'm glad we didn't get him. I call it a lucky escape.

OK, even if you are laying it on a bit thick. You could also add the likes of Whatuira, Hicks and Webster to that list who have performed since coming to SL and are probably on much less than King. Why did Bradford miss out on them?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

As for Feather, he has been cursed with serious injuries and health problems so unless you were Mystic Meg you can hardly cite his case in support of anything.

Feather was largely anonymous at both Leeds and Wakefield before Bradford signed him on a 3 year deal. When he's not been injured at Bradford he's continued to be anonymous. You don't have to be Mystic Meg to see he's always been poor.

[Bullseye]

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:55 pm  

As af said in an earlier post it's possible to find a middle way in communicating with fans and sponsors. It doesn't take a genius to get the tone right so that fans get a fair picture of where we are but remain on board and optimistic without making sponsors run for the hills.

All the "People's Team" stuff was about fans, directors, players all being in it together rather than the club being run by a small group out of touch with the view on the terraces. It's all about communication in the end. There have been a lot of knee jerk reactions on here but as time wears on and the team struggles when it ought to be doing better that thinking is going to gain more credence.

If the club want people to keep the faith then they need to think about acknowledging that things perhaps haven't gone as expected, shoulder some blame and then come out fighting with some plans on how things will improve in the short term and long term. A long term view is to be applauded but that shouldn't be at the expense of the here and now.

I remember back in 98 I got a long email from Matt Elliott that told me in no uncertain terms how hard everyone was working throughout that difficult season. He'd not dressed anything up and after reading it I had much more confidence in the future as it was obvious how much he was putting into things. I think we could do with that straight shooting approach now, it might not win everyone over but maybe it's worth a go?

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:16 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

As af said in an earlier post it's possible to find a middle way in communicating with fans and sponsors. It doesn't take a genius to get the tone right so that fans get a fair picture of where we are but remain on board and optimistic without making sponsors run for the hills.

All the "People's Team" stuff was about fans, directors, players all being in it together rather than the club being run by a small group out of touch with the view on the terraces. It's all about communication in the end. There have been a lot of knee jerk reactions on here but as time wears on and the team struggles when it ought to be doing better that thinking is going to gain more credence.

If the club want people to keep the faith then they need to think about acknowledging that things perhaps haven't gone as expected, shoulder some blame and then come out fighting with some plans on how things will improve in the short term and long term. A long term view is to be applauded but that shouldn't be at the expense of the here and now.

I remember back in 98 I got a long email from Matt Elliott that told me in no uncertain terms how hard everyone was working throughout that difficult season. He'd not dressed anything up and after reading it I had much more confidence in the future as it was obvious how much he was putting into things. I think we could do with that straight shooting approach now, it might not win everyone over but maybe it's worth a go?

Yes that's all the fans want a little more transparancey

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:44 pm  

redeverready wrote:

So as a fan your happy being lied to after buying a season ticket just so that they can get a sponsor. IMO they would be better saying nothing than the everything is rosy line which is often used when it's looking more likely that it isn't.

No, I'm happy that the board are presenting the club in the best possible light in order to secure sponsorship and badly needed investment despite you and others running a campaign of no confidence. This is a basic element of business management which you clearly don't understand.

Year on year losses, the attempt at finding a big investor a la Caddick or McManus, Lenaghan, Moran or even Ken Davy, the pressure that Hood has sought to put on the council vis a vis the ground and the cost to the club. If you don't see that the board is in a very difficult situation then it's because something is blinding you.

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:40 pm  

Trimalchio wrote:

Yes, but it is also the Hull who will be competing in a major final for silverware and knocked out Bradford on their own patch to get there. Sing has had his fair share of injuries at Hull, and his lack of tries scored this season is no indicator of any lack of quality.

Talk about twisting everything in a poor attempt to bolster a non-existent argument!
Hull got lucky/did well to get to the Final. Good luck to them, though they've no chance - but I dread to think what our Macnamanic depressives would be saying if we were 11th in SL.
as for Sing - you make this argument about injuries and think it is reasonable - yet you dismiss exactly the same argument about feather, whose injuries have been far worse.

I can't be arrsed checking but hasn't Sing got 2 tries from something like 15 games? I am not knocking him unduly and he has been a goo dplayer but really you can't criticize us for duff signings when your comparator has been so much worse.

Trimalchio wrote:

OK, even if you are laying it on a bit thick. You could also add the likes of Whatuira, Hicks and Webster to that list who have performed since coming to SL and are probably on much less than King. Why did Bradford miss out on them?.

Whatuira? I can't believe that you tout the failure to sign an ageing ex-NRL centre as a fault. One minute we never bring on any good British young uns, then we should be shipping in yet another mercenary pensioner. Still, if he's good enough for Huddersfield . . .

Hicks? We have easily the better signing in Tadulala.

Who is Webster? A failure in the NRL and playing so-so for a basement club. What would we want with Webster? Be sensible.

Trimalchio wrote:

Feather was largely anonymous at both Leeds and Wakefield before Bradford signed him on a 3 year deal. When he's not been injured at Bradford he's continued to be anonymous. You don't have to be Mystic Meg to see he's always been poor.

Feather may or may not turn out to be a good signing, but he can't have been viewed as that bad by Leeds who signed him for 4 years, and played him 12 games in 2006. He hasn't broken any pots, but seems to have broken just about everything else, and given his horrendous and unpredictable injury/illness problems it seems ludicrous to make a judgment on what he could be. As a 27 year old 6'4" 18 stone experienced forward I am sure he has the potential to be very good next year.

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:lol:
Talk about twisting everything in a poor attempt to bolster a non-existent argument!
Hull got lucky/did well to get to the Final. Good luck to them, though they've no chance - but I dread to think what our Macnamanic depressives would be saying if we were 11th in SL.
as for Sing - you make this argument about injuries and think it is reasonable - yet you dismiss exactly the same argument about feather, whose injuries have been far worse.

I can't be arrsed checking but hasn't Sing got 2 tries from something like 15 games? I am not knocking him unduly and he has been a goo dplayer but really you can't criticize us for duff signings when your comparator has been so much worse.



Whatuira? I can't believe that you tout the failure to sign an ageing ex-NRL centre as a fault. One minute we never bring on any good British young uns, then we should be shipping in yet another mercenary pensioner. Still, if he's good enough for Huddersfield . . .

Hicks? We have easily the better signing in Tadulala.

Who is Webster? A failure in the NRL and playing so-so for a basement club. What would we want with Webster? Be sensible.



Feather may or may not turn out to be a good signing, but he can't have been viewed as that bad by Leeds who signed him for 4 years, and played him 12 games in 2006. He hasn't broken any pots, but seems to have broken just about everything else, and given his horrendous and unpredictable injury/illness problems it seems ludicrous to make a judgment on what he could be. As a 27 year old 6'4" 18 stone experienced forward I am sure he has the potential to be very good next year.

Whatuira is 27 hardly ageing is it at least he isn't 35 no team would ever sign any one that old would they. As for Hicks is that the same Hicks who has scored in every game this season.

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:22 pm  

redeverready wrote:

Whatuira is 27 hardly ageing is it

For a back, yes, it is.

redeverready wrote:

at least he isn't 35 no team would ever sign any one that old would they.

If they are a living breathing superfit top-of-their-game legend, yes. How many of those can you name?

redeverready wrote:

As for Hicks is that the same Hicks who has scored in every game this season.

But I'm not dissing Hicks. He's done OK. It's just that Semi is a better player.

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:37 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

For a back, yes, it is.

So you wouldn't want Leon back then.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If they are a living breathing superfit top-of-their-game legend, yes. How many of those can you name?

2 or 3 years ago maybe, but at the moment I'm still unconvinced about the impact this signing will have.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But I'm not dissing Hicks. He's done OK. It's just that Semi is a better player.

Sorry but Hicks is the far better player but each to our own.

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:46 pm  

redeverready wrote:

So you wouldn't want Leon back then.

Leon is 26 and (AFAIK) not Antipodean, but anyway who was discussing whether or not whoever would have whoever back or not?

redeverready wrote:

2 or 3 years ago maybe, but at the moment I'm still unconvinced about the impact this signing will have.

Who cares if you're 'unconvinced'? Anyone can choose to comment only with the benefit of hindsight, like you, but what is the point? Menzies "2 or 3 years ago"? If you really think he's been past it for 2 years then with all due respect you have the rugby knowledge of a roasted peanut.

redeverready wrote:

Sorry but Hicks is the far better player but each to our own.

He isn't, but at least you agree that was one bad example by you.