And you can't say fairer than that!

I think ross is reporting things well!

Yes, give him time to find his own voice, but genuinely his own. I thought the flow of articles pre season was pretty good, as it covered players that were returning from injury and almost new recruits as well as actual new recruits, and just when the pledge 2 scheme was open, providing a bit of perspective on the difficulties of last season.

I wouldn't start defending journalists if I were you Mick, even if you've now joined the 'pres pack' . What did Craven make up by the way? They'll take your NUJ card off you for that kind of talk.

On Murphy the six monthly watershed you speak of roughly corresponded with Murphy's long piece publicly urging the board to renew Macnamara's contract. In the aftermath of this 'foot in mouth' moment he did go on to produce some genuinely analytical pieces which adequately reflected the disappointment of the fan base. He also appeared to have genuine affection for the club but to say he set the bar high is over egging the pudding IMO.

I can't for the life of me think what there is significant to gripe about in the case of either Murphy or Heptonstall. Maybe I'm missing something. Journalists do what journalists do, and I doubt they would consider they need any 'defending'. The T&A doesn't give a whole lot of information out about in depth Bulls stuff, but I presume that this won't be for lack of asking. What is the issue with Heptonstall, then? What do people want? Paul Foot?

OK. I didn't live in Bradford during his previous spell (and I don't now) so I didn't see his work then.

To me, his work seems to be uninspired and formulaic - I accept your point about there being nothing to write - and dotted with poor English. His work reads like the half-witted correspondents at the bottom of the page.

I get the impression that he would rather be doing anything other than reporting on the Bulls. Still, I don't care, I just won't read it.

I do find his articles boring and lots have bin laden with errors.

Christ almighty, is Stul not allowed an opinion on this then? If he thinks the coverage is poor then he is quite entitled to say so IMO.

Bloody ridiculous the people who seem to want to censor opinion sometimes.

FFS Eddie, nobody has censored opinion anywhere. One person offered his opinion, another offered theirs. It's a discussion forum. It's a not a series of isolated opinions on their own shiny pedestals that float in space and never come into contact. People discuss things, and suprisingly enough sometimes disagree. Disagreement is not suppression.

In his latest piece on the debut of Keith Lulia he refers to him as 'former Penrith....'. Considering he's the designated Bradford Bulls reporter on a Bradford paper it's not very good is it?

Read it again, you're reading it wrong.

It reads "The former Penrith centre tore his pectoral muscle during last weekend’s victory at Castleford and a specialist in Manchester has revealed the extent of the injury"

Which is reffering to Purtell NOT Lulia

Apologies to Mr Heptenstall, Mick's right about him

Never said it was. The problem is that the lad made an opinion that others seem to want to quieten down. Pretty sad really.

Still, I guess those with agendas need to be seen to support their sources.

But they're not, they're expressing a contrary opinion of their own that happen to be inspired the opinion of someone else. Surely this is allowed?

Jesus Christ. Lock this thread

It is if you ask me!

Agendas my Harris.

Not many people say that

Some apparently believe not.

It's an irregular verb.

I disagree with you
You censor my opinion...

He can't, he's not listed as a mod

He sounds like one bad mofo.

Excellent, that shut him up.

I kid! I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm going.

Had people any idea what you are on about perhaps they could join your self appreciation society.



Anyway time for the real Karl Pryce to stand up.