Adeybull

Coach
  • Content count

    1,305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Adeybull last won the day on January 29

Adeybull had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

756 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    At the Gates of Delirium

Recent Profile Visitors

3,211 profile views
  1. League One's Future

    I suspect, sadly, that its not older b*ggers like us that the club, indeed the game, sees priority in (re)engaging with, though. We were the future...once. No longer. The game needs to attract - in the case of the Bulls, re-attract - the youngsters, the families, the women. Otherwise, you can see the future on too many terraces these days. And that future sucks for the game, I suggest? And speaking as someone who has just slipped quietly out of his fifties last month, much as it pains me personally to say it! I can se both sides to the academy lads point. The trrouble is, the position the club finds itself in right now sucks. Does it ever? And the only way the club will have any chance of getting out of that position - absent whatever Wood's schemes might have been, now out of the window no doubt with him, or some major money man waiting in the wings for a return to licensing - is by getting promoted. Which means putting out the team with the best chance of achieving it. Because, if the Bulls do not go up this year, I cannot conceive how they can continue with an academy - or anything much else. And there are a number of excellent other clubs in the divison who will be determined to try and make sure it is THEY that get promoted - and rightly so. So yes, it sucks. But, I suggest, maybe a little less than the alternative which REALLY sucks?
  2. League One's Future

    Or maybe: the coaching staff recognise the damage that can be done if you throw the youngsters in too early? These "weaker teams" frequently have some big tough seasoned guys, who could easily wreck the confidence of some developing youngsters and would likely have few qualms about doing so. And the ONLY essential priority for the club on the field this year is to get out of League 1. No easy challenge, given the remarkable quality and ability and strength of a good number of the other L1 clubs, who will doubtless have precisely the same objective. If that does not happen, I suggest you can forget the idea of an academy and much else going forward? So maybe the coaching staff are picking teams with that overriding imperative in mind? I don't know anything specific, but just suggesting there may be sound reasons? As for the website not reporting on academy games, I would not know since I virtually never visit it. What I DO visit, several times every day, is Facebook - where I regularly see summary match reports as well as Bulls TV (like watching the U19s last night far from disgrace themselves against the mighty Wigan). Maybe the club is directing its limited media resources to where it thinks it will get the most traffic? Or the most likely payback? Or maybe there simply isn't anyone to write expansive match reports? Given the club is in a league lower this season, and income and resources must surely reflect that? Again, I know nothing specific so again just speculating on possible reasons? Speaking as someone who was a very very disillusioned and demoralised former uber-keen supporter, my own impression is that the club has made significant progress this year in trying to re-engage with the likes of me. But maybe that's just me?
  3. Thomas Minns Drug Test fail

    And everyone will look to previous mitigations as precedents, although the circumstances are very unlikely to be identical and so neither should they expect any mitigation to be.
  4. Thomas Minns Drug Test fail

    Indeed. And hence why I made it clear in my first paragraph the slippery slope that is reducing penalties because of "mitigating factors". I very much agree that it is the support and support network after the event - if justified and necesary - that is crucial here, not penalty mitigation. And I absolutely agree about the need for ongoing player education - and not just about drugs, but about so many other "real world" issues as well. I have seen too many examples of full-time players who basically have never grown up, and act in many ways like too many students do, insulated from the challenges of the real world and - let's be frank - sometimes acting daft. Except into their early thirties, whereas most of the latter have to grow up pretty quickly a good decade earlier? It is perhaps all too easy for (some?) clubs to abdicate any real responsibility for player welfare outside rugby, so that the guy enters the "real" world after his professional career ends, seriously unprepared for what awaits? Although, against that, of course while you can lead a horse to water... I guess my point is that, to apply a punishment unmitigated does necessitate the support mechanisms being in place that you indicate in your last paragraph. I know the RFL took the Terry Newton catastrophe very very seriously indeed, and you would hope that clubs and the game do have those mechanisms in place. But I need to be convinced that they always are.
  5. Thomas Minns Drug Test fail

    As far as I can see, none of us know the full circumstances, and none of us know what the substance was.? The statements imply a "recreational", not performance-emhancing, drug and imply a single instance. But they imply, not confirm. What IS clear is that the guy admitted he did it, and admitted he knew it was wrong (not that he could think otherwise, of course). Any arguments can therefore only be in mitigation. Once you start introducing subjective mitigation, especially based on "moment of personal weakness" grounds, you've effectively debased the whole penalty system IMO. BUT...we also surely need to remember that these guys are just human beings, like the rest of us. And indeed, in many cases nothing like as "educated" (in various ways) as many who post on this forum. It is all to easy to expect a higher level of conduct than "ordinary people" because they are "professionals" in the public eye and role-models. But they are still just ordinary blokes, with faults and flaws and weaknesses - and personal problems and issues - just like the rest of us. And, sadly more often than perhaps we appreciate, also sometimes with mental health issues like some of the rest of us. People will sin in their own ways, and in different areas. But surely the old adage of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is pertinent? In any case, hanging him high on the internet is hardly likely to serve any useful purpose, and has potential to seriously aggravate any such issues that may be there? Reading some of the posts on here, especially the callous OP which - as JD says - did rather set the tone for the thread - I do feel maybe not everyone sees it like that? I wonder what the OP's view would be if (heaven forbid, and hopefully not) we ended up with another Terry Newton here? Because, whenever I read stuff like this, I can't help but think of Terry Newton. No-one but the guy himself knows what personal demons he may or may not have been or be contending with. There may be none, and it might just be manufactured excuses deserving of zero sympathy or mitigation. Or there might be some serious issues needing serious help. Or somewhere in between. We just don't know. That is for the due process to determine. Which is why I am content to take the - to me, responsible - public statements made at face value, and leave it to those close to the issue and those charged with determining the outcome, to deal with it. In the manner most appropriate to the factual circumstances.
  6. Indeed very unlikely 4,000 will have watched all the game. But a good number DID, as was clear from the live comments on the stream. Including Hull supporters. And I defy anyone who did watch the game to be anything other than heartened and encouraged by the talent on display. Is it really necessary to be so negative? The match itself was a great demonstration of why rumours of the impending death of the game are almost certainly seriously exaggerated. If the live streaming helped encourage a few more folk to believe in that, it will have well served its purpose IMO. It sure as hell encouraged me, and these days that is no mean feat.
  7. Incidentally, the cracking game between Bulls U16s and City of Hull U16's was live-streamed this evening. Fans from both clubs clearly watching - many more having the opportunity to watch the game than had it not been streamed. Given the quality of the video, and the commentary, If that was filmed and narrated by a guy on an ipad in the stand, it must have been one hell of a good ipad...
  8. Indeed not. But, of course, that is not what is happening with Proper Sport. At all. So I fail to understand your comment? As for Gledhill, those who have actually listened to his commentary and have passed comment on here are generally pretty impressed.
  9. League One's Future

    Curious to undertand what you mean by "better" in both cases?
  10. One of several very thoughful and honest posts on this thread, posts which IMO sadly ring all too true. All too true, because if you changed but a few words, you would be describing the fall of Bradford there. And, in the fall of Bradford, you see the precedent for what you foresee in your final sentence. The amount of money you lose when you drop from SL IMO makes it very very difficult for any club without a wealthy backer to get - and stay - back. And, under the present system, even chuffing harder since even coming top of the Championship counts for little. I think if you cannot bounce straight back, a relegated club will struggle to bounce at all. Any Fartown supporters advocating it...be very very careful what you wish for. Trust me. Despite all the vitriol levied at Bradford over the years by too many from Huddersfield (and everywhere else), I take no schadenfreude-laden pleasure in seeing you guys (or anyone else) on the track of the same sort of experience. Sadly, it is indeed part of the wider manifestation of what, IMO, you not unfairly describe as the game being on its knees. Without wealthy benefactors, the direction of travel seems to me all too clear.
  11. Just a bit sad

    Can only agree. I find Yawnion boring compared to rugby, but watching the women play Yawnion is far far more interesting than watching the men. You see skills not brawn. Look at Enland vs NZ a few months ago? Thoroughly enjoyed watching that, if not seeing the bloody Kiwis doing what they always do And that is what you see with women playing the proper game too. I really like watching the womens' game, cos you see real skills on display. As for not giving credit...sorry Rach but that is how life works. History is inundated with folk who have made the hard yards, only for others to receive the credit when their work finally comes to fruition. Maybe you should instead be pleased that the womens' game is finally starting to recieve the recognition it well deserves?
  12. The first time I ever heard Mick commentating was a good few years back, when he lent me a headset when he was doing commentary voluntarily for the visually-impaired attending games at Odsal. Now we all know online Mick is online Mick...as of course I did...but I was amazed at just how good his commentary was. 80 minutes of non-stop accurate, descriptive, objective and - most of all - very interesting commentary. And no superflous waffle. Sat watching the game, and listening to Mick, I was very seriously impressed.
  13. I wasn't disputing the views figures, but taking issue with the poster's attitude in his post. Mick was anyway posting in a personal capacity. Whether or not 11k represents 11k different viewers, and whether or not it reflects whole-match views, your conclusion does seem very sound.
  14. So the sherry it was then. I suspect I enjoyed my couple of glasses of a rather nice Rioja more.
  15. Have you been on the sherry? Since that makes zero sense to me.