Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Bulls news thread


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#21 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,123 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 08:09 PM

Nowhere else to really put this, but you gotta love Jarrod Sammut...!

Post match meal today...
Posted Image



I guess gledhill is with him

#22 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,759 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:24 AM

12 months ago today the RFL bought Odsal...

doesn't time fly.

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#23 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,759 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:35 AM

I suppose this should warm up the board a bit across a few West Yorkshire towns.

Nigel Wood's thumbs-up for Bulls progress, aka we'll probably keep our SL place

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#24 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:29 AM

I suppose this should warm up the board a bit across a few West Yorkshire towns.

Nigel Wood's thumbs-up for Bulls progress, aka we'll probably keep our SL place


I'm not sure about that. The noises coming from the prospective SL candidates in the Championship were along the lines of "don't expect us to rescue the situation, we are gearing up for 2015 applications and won't be rushed into SL half prepared just to sort out someone else mess".

Individual fans may want to have a go depending on the axe they are grinding, but as always they should check the positions of their respective clubs boards before sounding off.

So for me this press release is true to form in that it contains several helpings of absolute bunkum.

As if the RFL are in any sort of a position to demote Bradford and promote whoever.

Here's more absolute bunkum "Uncertainty surrounds the criteria the club must fulfil to stay in Super League beyond 2013".

How does one explain that vacuuous piece of P & R other than they will keep the criteria fluid so no targets are set for the Bulls that they may go and miss. RFL don't want such embarrassments. It really is time to scrap this "licensing criteria" rubbish.

If Bulls can compete on the field that's all that's needed and their success this year will be greatly helped by a Salford depleted by the recent ongoings and protracted negotiations, A HKR that has set a low player spend this year, a Castleford who is in more trouble than Bulls were but have cut spending on players to stay barely afloat, A Wakefield still trying to rebuild after similar problems, and a London who are set for same old same old.

But just how depleted are the Bulls, after all they were protected from having their player base destroyed? the very idea they received that sort of favouritism only to be "threatened" in a bunkum press release they may not survive in SL doesn't add up. The RFL are not going to shoot themselves in their own foot..

This isn't a rant against the Mighty Bulls, it's against bunkum P.R. rubbish like this. Still if it stops Bradford fans "resting easy" and makes them get out to games in their tens of thousands at least it will have achieved some sort of a positive purpose, although disingenuously.

#25 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,157 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 05:12 AM

I'm not sure about that. The noises coming from the prospective SL candidates in the Championship were along the lines of "don't expect us to rescue the situation, we are gearing up for 2015 applications and won't be rushed into SL half prepared just to sort out someone else mess".

Individual fans may want to have a go depending on the axe they are grinding, but as always they should check the positions of their respective clubs boards before sounding off.

So for me this press release is true to form in that it contains several helpings of absolute bunkum.

As if the RFL are in any sort of a position to demote Bradford and promote whoever.

Here's more absolute bunkum "Uncertainty surrounds the criteria the club must fulfil to stay in Super League beyond 2013".

How does one explain that vacuuous piece of P & R other than they will keep the criteria fluid so no targets are set for the Bulls that they may go and miss. RFL don't want such embarrassments. It really is time to scrap this "licensing criteria" rubbish.

If Bulls can compete on the field that's all that's needed and their success this year will be greatly helped by a Salford depleted by the recent ongoings and protracted negotiations, A HKR that has set a low player spend this year, a Castleford who is in more trouble than Bulls were but have cut spending on players to stay barely afloat, A Wakefield still trying to rebuild after similar problems, and a London who are set for same old same old.

But just how depleted are the Bulls, after all they were protected from having their player base destroyed? the very idea they received that sort of favouritism only to be "threatened" in a bunkum press release they may not survive in SL doesn't add up. The RFL are not going to shoot themselves in their own foot..

This isn't a rant against the Mighty Bulls, it's against bunkum P.R. rubbish like this. Still if it stops Bradford fans "resting easy" and makes them get out to games in their tens of thousands at least it will have achieved some sort of a positive purpose, although disingenuously.


I actually think you are correct and there is zero chance the Bulls will be thrown out. On the other hand the Titanic was considered to be unsinkable.

#26 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,568 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 01:05 PM

I actually think you are correct and there is zero chance the Bulls will be thrown out. On the other hand the Titanic was considered to be unsinkable.

I think that is fair comment, to be honest.

From what I've read of the conditions it doesn't really sound certain at all; the printed matter goes on about standards being met and complying to requirements etc and sounds very onerous. Which, given the circumstances, is fair enough I guess, after the problems, and anyway who knows what 'assurances' might have been given in private? Logically though, it wouldn't make any sense at all for the RFL and SL, to have gone to all the trouble of facilitating the take over, only to sink the new ship before it had done its maiden voyage.

It does seem that the RFL are going to keep an "on-going" check on the club, which I'd expect would obviate the necessity of the 'mini licensing round', affecting just the Bulls, at the end of this season. It is though all guesswork and assumptions.
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#27 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 02:00 PM

Who knows what 'assurances' might have been given in private?


:D The movers and shakers are having their own little meetings agreeing things whilst we get fed "press releases".

The usual suspects were down at Toulouse earlier last year.

#28 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,568 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:45 PM

:D The movers and shakers are having their own little meetings agreeing things whilst we get fed "press releases".

The usual suspects were down at Toulouse earlier last year.

I can only imagine!!

It is difficult for the authorities to be fair; they try to help one 'down and out', only to be accused of ignoring another so they make public promises which can only be sanctioned by the agreement of several people - some of whom may not, in truth, be in total agrreement - and who knows what arm-twisting goes on in these meetings and what terms have to be included to keep clubs on-side with it.

I'm firmly under the impression that the terms, as written down on paper, are far more onerous than the 'realité' - but, of course, it's the officials who decide whether those terms have been met, so what they may have beeen told by these officials is probabaly more important than the written contract. If a written contract actually exists....Anyway, things seem to be moving along sweetly enough at the moment. B)
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#29 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,157 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:54 PM

:D The movers and shakers are having their own little meetings agreeing things whilst we get fed "press releases".

The usual suspects were down at Toulouse earlier last year.


What annoys me is that if the Toulouse licence comes off, it will be at the expense of an existing SL club.

I don;t know why any new SL club like Toulouse cannot be allowed in and all clubs cut their cloth so that no team is removed and they all operate with a bit less.

Or Toulouse could be let in and not have an initial share in the Sky money. However that was tried with Gateshead and I am sure that was a factor in their eventual demise, that and the old boys club looking after Hull.

#30 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,264 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 05:08 PM

We can't let the game stagnate any further by reshuffling the sae old pack.

We need a new injection of fans, money and interest. Good luck to Toulouse

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#31 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,157 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:54 PM

We can't let the game stagnate any further by reshuffling the sae old pack.

We need a new injection of fans, money and interest. Good luck to Toulouse


So what are you saying, dump Widnes or Wakefield or Castleford or Hull Kr or London or Salford. I have nothing against Toulouse, but it would seem crazy to dump an existing team, a British one at that for another French team who are not attractive to advertisers or whom do not contribute much to clubs coffers from gate receipts.

Better to keep them all plus Toulouse and exist on a little smaller salary level for those who cannot meet the present cap without spending every penny and then some.

#32 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:25 PM

What annoys me is that if the Toulouse licence comes off, it will be at the expense of an existing SL club.


If it happens it will be a club who can offer more to the game replacing a club who offers less.

That's been the whole principle of licensing.

But before you start that's the same principle as P & R - remove a club who are losers with one who are winners.

So I don't understand your point one little bit.

By all means call for a 16 club SL, but don't criticise something that's only the same as the P & R you favour

#33 Father Ted

Father Ted
  • Coach
  • 1,543 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:33 PM

The Bulls won't be replaced by a Championship Club.
Never mind the polictics of it all, if the Bulls have sold 6500 season tickets at full price then they will not be threatened.
Halifax, Featherstone or Leigh will struggle to get 6500 season tickets between them.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the Bulls gates exceed those three with their crowds combined.
One SL club or maybe two could be threatened by Toulouse but that's a different matter altogether.

#34 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,363 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:08 PM

The Bulls won't be replaced by a Championship Club.
Never mind the polictics of it all, if the Bulls have sold 6500 season tickets at full price then they will not be threatened.
Halifax, Featherstone or Leigh will struggle to get 6500 season tickets between them.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the Bulls gates exceed those three with their crowds combined.


Blimey :o You in a mood?

#35 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,264 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:54 AM

So what are you saying, dump Widnes or Wakefield or Castleford or Hull Kr or London or Salford. I have nothing against Toulouse, but it would seem crazy to dump an existing team, a British one at that for another French team who are not attractive to advertisers or whom do not contribute much to clubs coffers from gate receipts.

Better to keep them all plus Toulouse and exist on a little smaller salary level for those who cannot meet the present cap without spending every penny and then some.


To tell the truth, though I am Bradford through and through and have gone home and away since 1975, I wouldn't mind it if we merged with Huddersfield and/or Halifax to free up a Superleague spot for a team with major potential. I'd certainly rather merge than be ripped off by Bradford City.

Obviously, I would object to merging with Leeds, but then so would everybody else.
;)

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#36 Mumby Magic

Mumby Magic
  • Coach
  • 3,072 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:03 AM

ANY new club needs to go via the CC1 route and work their way up.

Lilly, Jacob and Isaac, what my life is about. Although our route through life is not how it should be, I am a blessed man.


#37 MrPosh

MrPosh
  • Coach
  • 2,946 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:05 AM

To tell the truth, though I am Bradford through and through and have gone home and away since 1975, I wouldn't mind it if we merged with Huddersfield and/or Halifax to free up a Superleague spot for a team with major potential. I'd certainly rather merge than be ripped off by Bradford City.

Obviously, I would object to merging with Leeds, but then so would everybody else.
;)


Now I find that strange. I only followed the Bulls (Northern) when I moved to the city in '93 and so have only really known the rivalry with Leeds - I was aware of the Halifax one, but it rarely seemed to manifest itself.

However, everything I have been led to believe is that Halifax is the traditional rivalry and Leeds is Johnny-come-lately one.
People called Romans they go the house

#38 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,264 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:17 AM

For me, Halifax were always a rival but not the rival. Over the years, I have often been to watch them midweek or when the Bulls have not been playing. I have never done the same for Huddersfield or Keighley.

Both Thrum Hall and the Shay have been great RL venues and offered terrific fan atmosheres.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#39 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,568 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:57 AM

Now I find that strange. I only followed the Bulls (Northern) when I moved to the city in '93 and so have only really known the rivalry with Leeds - I was aware of the Halifax one, but it rarely seemed to manifest itself.

However, everything I have been led to believe is that Halifax is the traditional rivalry and Leeds is Johnny-come-lately one.

I guess all local rivals are 'derbies' but Leeds is the only real one for most I'd say. Maybe it depends which side of the city you come from? From the western, Buttershaw end, you might think a bit more of the Fax game I dunno. Then I've always quite liked Fax as a club ('cept when we play them, of course) also Keighley though they always seem to dislike us for some reason. In fact some Cougar fans seem to get wound up when I don't hate them back!
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#40 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,155 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:30 PM

I guess all local rivals are 'derbies' but Leeds is the only real one for most I'd say. Maybe it depends which side of the city you come from? From the western, Buttershaw end, you might think a bit more of the Fax game I dunno. Then I've always quite liked Fax as a club ('cept when we play them, of course) also Keighley though they always seem to dislike us for some reason. In fact some Cougar fans seem to get wound up when I don't hate them back!

That's nothing to do with rugby. Keighley hate Bradford full stop.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users