Yes Roofaldo, and its interesting to see that Coulby is much more circumspect in his comments, generalisations that Hood cannot shoot down. I would hope he means the last two years in detail, previous years less detail. And looking at the tone of his comments, what chance now that the club made a profit of £250k in 2011?

GB, just a suggestion, your contributions seem to get obscured by the volume of your mainly argumentum ad hominem postings, balance the two up and perhaps your star will shine a bit brighter.

I speculate Coulby said two years because he ceased to be a director in August 2010. Up to then, of course, he will or should have been fully aware of the situation. He sold most of his shareholding to either Hood or Bennett in 2011 IIRC.

All a matter of public record, incidentally.

Point taken, especially since you tend to make more logical and objective points than some. However, when I read (with increasing frequency) genuine inaccuracies, it is worth addressing, with a little reality. It may not prove popular in this forum colosseum, the rhetoric alone suggests so, but I'll live with that. I've no truc with disagreements or contrary opinion, it's the very essence of a debate; what concerns me as I say, are absolute untruths.

As for Hood and Coulby, stepping off the PR gas, might be a cute way forward; fans have little desire to see the showboating, just action.

I think you will get the thumbs up from all the fans in the Arena for your final comment. Though someone might point out that the slaves didn't get to vote!

I find yours and Adeys posts interesting and thought provoking. I don't like either of you taking personal issue with each other.

Both show you care passionately about our club. Hopefully the BOD read our comments and will treat us with some respect for having both an opinion and some intelligence!

Fair comment and perhaps there is a little too much vitriol involved at times; I've no issue with passion, it's the very essence of humanity.

As for who reads these forums, I'm quite sure we would be very surprised if we knew who read them

For me the constant bickering is getting tedious. You mention debating above, for me you don't debate, you attack the person not the argument. Maybe you're a little too fixated with the person posting the points as opposed to the points themselves.

As somebody else mentioned above I also read the posts with interest but they're beggining to verge on personal attacks, I'm all for a passionate debate but lets debate the issues and leave the other stuff out.

Both Adeybull and yourself give your interpretation of the issues, Adeybull is very open with who is and why/how he has some of his knowledge, yourself less so. I think as adults we can read the differing views and make our own minds up who we want to believe if anybody.

I wouldn't trust an illiterate like you to write a shopping list. Affected is the word you are looking for.

Can we skip all the censorious nonsense please? It's a forum which already has moderators and rules. If you find the threads boring or tedious go somewhere else.

If you genuinely feel the rules are being broken, report it. If, as I suspect, a poster you like is being challenged, post your views in support. That's what this is here for!

Who's censoring? I think all that's being asked for is that points are put across without the constant bickering and point scoring.

Thanks for suspecting but as I said I enjoy reading both arguments and don't favour any poster, I've disagreed with Adeybull on here before and probably will again. In terms of posting my views that's what I did and are doing again now...although you'll forgive me for not going somewhere else just because of one thread, if we we all did that I'm sure this Forum would die.

There's a fine line between outlining your view on your personal preferences for how debates should be engaged and what appears to be sanctimony. Im not here to mitigate my approach or ways of engagement.

You are entitled to interpret or dismiss it as you wish, but this is a forum not the European Court of Human Rights.



Maiselbugs, as usual, hits the nail on the head.

AGreed Adey, could be, or are there clues in his earlier press releases about the pledges, which coincidently cover the last two years. If so then satisfying his curiosity about what has happened in the last two years does not constitute a [ustrategic[/u review.

I broadly agree with that, though I think there has been too much ad hominem stuff.

The club's problems are financial and therefore fairly dense and perhaps Ren boring. Doesn't make them any less important though and I appreciate the time taken by Adey, GB and others to post in-depth analysis of the sort we'll never get to read anywhere else, agree with it or not.

Epic fail

Clearly having no cash is a financial problem, however this is a symptom of lack of commercial and playing success - if you don't get the results then you loose out at the gate and on attracting sponsors.

The opening seasons of the SL the Bulls were carried by a great, successful team, big gates and the "freashness" of the idea. When the gates started to moderate then the income from fans alone made it hard for us to compete against the clubs with big money backing and we gradually sank into the current situation.

Chicken and egg now - need cash to bring the success on the field, but it is the success which brings the cash

Guru is quite well informed....almost as much as I am , right Guru?

Don't shoot the messenger.. but some excellent news may be just around the corner.

I've not posted any 'news' for a while since the streak I had about the signings a couple of seasons ago, but I've heard from a couple of people now that Coulby met with the players this morning. We will not be entering administration at all, and that no players will be sold to other clubs - with the outstanding money problem being plugged by a benefactor.

Make of that what you will.

This appears to be all over twitter/facebook too.. lets hope its true!

Play Nice

Does this mean that we can tear Warringtons Bateman offer up?

You mean the offer that had already been rejected? Multiple times..

Possibly, but as far as I was aware there was a open offer on the table, 6 figures, according to Peter Hood. Forgive me if this is incorrect, but nobody has come out and said it had been rejected.

Peter Hood's been out of office for quite a few weeks now. As soon as this 'news' gets confirmed, that'll be considerable proof it was rejected.

I could kiss you.

Well fair enough, but there's still nothing saying if it was rejected or not.