[Bullseye]

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:45 pm  

Highlander wrote:

Ok. I’ll try.
We’re cutting our cloth, keeping to a budget and have had zero financial implosions for 3 years. We seem to be building bridges with local businesses and increasing corporate income at the same time that ticket income is tanking.

Just wonder how sustainable we're going to be if the 1st team performances keep on as they are. Corporates won't want to be involved if there are no crowds or interest.

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:43 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Just wonder how sustainable we're going to be if the 1st team performances keep on as they are. Corporates won't want to be involved if there are no crowds or interest.

I think we’ve 1 more year of this size budget. If nothing else changes. We need to spend it very wisely.
We have to play better at home. We have to. The 300 or so fans that go to away games have had a fairly good season. That’ll probably change with the upcoming away fixtures.

Things that could save us next season?
A loaded investor
Over performing in relation to our budget
Stadium plans are actually signed & sealed & groundwork starts
Pick which you think is most likely!

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:33 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

Pumpetypump is glad to see the return of the wayward son. At least you have Dundee United comfortably avoiding relegation. Pumpetypump has no other club apart from the comically crap Bradford. I can also reveal that I am both Nestegg and Hudd-Shay.

Office in Leeds. Warm Tap water 0.0% Mmm!

I was missing you sweet cheeks.

As for "comfortably avoiding relegation?" We play a European tie in a fortnight!!!

Office in Dunfermline. Nice cold water cooler!

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:00 pm  

Highlander wrote:

Ok. I’ll try.
We’re cutting our cloth, keeping to a budget and have had zero financial implosions for 3 years. We seem to be building bridges with local businesses and increasing corporate income at the same time that ticket income is tanking.
We’re running teams in 7 competitions. The first team, despite being on a reported 5/6 biggest budget in the league is in 8th place and completely devoid of confidence. Academy/scholars doing well. Womens team a bit inconsistent. The wheelchair team been winning, don’t know if the disability team are playing yet.
Some great youngsters coming through the academy.

The stadium. We’ve all been there. Many times.
I was actually happy that there were at least discussions happening in the background. And the picture we were shown did have a Bradford council planning document logo on it. But. I need to see diggers on the ground.

That’s all I’ve got.

Running teams in 7 competitions???

Not to be a bit blunt here but surely the future of our club is solely based on the success of the first team? Surely all the resources should be going to them first and give us a foundation to build upon?

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:31 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

Running teams in 7 competitions???

Not to be a bit blunt here but surely the future of our club is solely based on the success of the first team? Surely all the resources should be going to them first and give us a foundation to build upon?

I threw this in a few weeks ago but no one followed up on it.

The womens, wheelchair and disability teams get their funding from the Bulls Foundation. So closing them down doesn’t transfer to the first team.

The main question is reserves & academy. Probably £120k goes into them. Every time we’ve struggled, people vote to keep the academy. To be fair, it’s fun to watch on a Thursday evening.

My own feeling is that we’re covering every base we can. To show IMG and SL and the RFL that we bring value to the overall footprint of rugby league. Whether that’s just a punt in the dark, who knows?

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:26 pm  

Keeping the academy is a must for me. It’s the biggest asset we have at the moment. Worth the £120k or whatever it is. We’ve earned that amount from academy products over the years.

What we have is a coaching and recruitment problem. We still make some decent signings like Gill, Wallace etc but then we sign overweight players or players with injury issues etc. Surely those doing the recruitment can’t look at Kibula and say (yeah he’s our man). And even if they do, and they see attributes in these players, the conditioning staff must not be doing a great job. Crossley looked miles fitter last season, Kibula’s still big, Walker hasn’t shipped as much weight as I thought he would have and even players like Patton have looked fatter as the season has gone on. If half the players were fitter it would make a lot of difference.

And then on field there’s no sign of tactics, no game plan or management. It looks like they’ve been told to cart it up, have a shot (spread play), then kick to Gill. There’s no shifting the defence, no spotting players, and we have no defensive structure.

I know I’m being a tad optimistic here but if (its a big if) this plan for refurbishment/new stadium from the City of Culture/Levelling Up funding comes to fruition. Our finances regarding Odsal should be over, we look like a better proposition for players, and hopefully finish Top 8 next season to get into the bottom 10 in 2024 (which co-incides with the end of Dunning’s contract). Maybe that’s the plan. Have a steady season this year, build a touch for next year whilst we build off-field. Then get a proper coach/staff in for 2024 for the first year of SL1/SL2?

Just wish we all had some clarity from the board.

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Tue Jul 19, 2022 9:51 pm  

Highlander wrote:

Ok. I’ll try.
We’re cutting our cloth, keeping to a budget and have had zero financial implosions for 3 years. We seem to be building bridges with local businesses and increasing corporate income at the same time that ticket income is tanking.
We’re running teams in 7 competitions. The first team, despite being on a reported 5/6 biggest budget in the league is in 8th place and completely devoid of confidence. Academy/scholars doing well. Womens team a bit inconsistent. The wheelchair team been winning, don’t know if the disability team are playing yet.
Some great youngsters coming through the academy.

The stadium. We’ve all been there. Many times.
I was actually happy that there were at least discussions happening in the background. And the picture we were shown did have a Bradford council planning document logo on it. But. I need to see diggers on the ground.

That’s all I’ve got.

To be fair, a very sensible post.

None of us want to see yet another admin or worse. I don’t think fans are calling for us to spend what we can’t afford, but I think the issue is that we’re clearly underperforming and the coaching appointment feels like the club are happy to accept that.

Playing underperforming and unfit players again gives the same impression.

Fans rightly can’t / won’t hang all their hopes on the potential stadium development because we’ve heard it all before.

If it doesn’t happen, is the aim to carry on as a small club just to keep the name alive? I’m not sticking around for that and I genuinely think next year will show that many others feel the same.

This is why I think the coaching appointment is so short sighted. Get that right and there’s a reason for optimism, a reason to renew STs. At present I can’t find a reason and I have zero faith in Nigel Wood to give us one.

[Bullseye]

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:40 am  

If we’re pinning our hopes on an Odsal re-development then we really are stuffed as history tells us what happens to those. Levelling up funds are going to be in short supply with the recession around the corner and will be strictly targeted at Tory marginal areas. So expect Keighley to get a few quid.

We need to concentrate on what we can control. Player fitness, attitude and culture is the main thing. Lots of runners and body builders manage to stay fit and competitive without S&C trainers. In fact many people in everyday life manage to avoid having massive guts. As I’ve said before there is no excuse for any of the players to turn up visibly overweight. The explanation for it is a breakdown of discipline within the playing group. If it’s ok for one or two to stop making the effort then more will do the same as they see their teammates get away with it. Then before you know it the whole squad is at it.

Address the discipline and fitness and we’d definitely improve. Ship out those that don’t comply contract or no contract. I would back a 100% committed Bulls side but the current wasters don’t deserve it and that explains the drop in attendances.

As for Noble saying that we’ve comparable fitness to other part time sides I assume he’s comparing us with the Pennine League.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Wed Jul 20, 2022 11:19 am  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

I don’t think fans are calling for us to spend what we can’t afford, but I think the issue is that we’re clearly underperforming and the coaching appointment feels like the club are happy to accept that.

Exactly. There's a massive difference between having players that aren't great but try their best (Paul Sykes), versus a squad that is performing at a level that's not befitting their talent (everyone this year). Mind you, there were still people who slated Paul Sykes for nothing more than not being as talented as they wanted him to be. Oh for the halcyon days of mediocre players that put in some graft. We don't even that.

Supporters might just about cope with average players, but average players putting in below average performances? No bloody way.

Re: Is it actually as bad as it appears? : Wed Jul 20, 2022 1:06 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

Exactly. There's a massive difference between having players that aren't great but try their best (Paul Sykes), versus a squad that is performing at a level that's not befitting their talent (everyone this year). Mind you, there were still people who slated Paul Sykes for nothing more than not being as talented as they wanted him to be. Oh for the halcyon days of mediocre players that put in some graft. We don't even that.

Supporters might just about cope with average players, but average players putting in below average performances? No bloody way.

Ah back in the days when decent superleague players were deemed as "pish" when they signed for us. I am sure I was as guilty as anyone of that tbf.

To think of the difference even a modern Pratt, Sykes, Platt or even (tin hat on) Karl Pryce would make these days eh? Even the guy we got from London, Michael somebody (forget his surname!) but he wasn't helped by McNamara promoting him as some sort of super-athlete. I also remember Luke Gale getting mercilously criticised when he was at the Bulls. He didn't do too badly after us I seem to recall.

Then again, some of these guys played in some of our more horrific games and ultimately played their part in us going down.

It sounds like the team these days are all a bunch of lard-arses. Solomona without the talent so to speak?