I agree with that post apart from saying that Hull don't have a nucleus of youngsters imo we have a good number with good quality. Players such as Westerman, Briscoe (who is arguably Englands first choice winger), Turner and Houghton. Theres also squad players Reece Lyne, Danny Nicklas, Liam Kent, Liam Cunningham, Ben Crooks, Williams, Aldous. Then others which should break through in a couple of years, Bowden, Pearce, Newton, Jack Briscoe.

And except the obvious ones and Lyne who has had Super League experience? Only McAvoy for us hasn't.

What you may be overlooking is Bradford's chance of retaining these youngsters should they reach a certain level, ever since the Iestyn Harris debacle, Bradford have been a selling club.

yeah that would be why we've been tying up all key players on long deals.



at least we arent a retirement home like yourselves

Where do you get this idea from?

Sam Burgess? - He wanted to go, the club has first refusal on his return, and we got a decent chunk of cash instead of him going free a year later.

i've no idea, RU is not a sport I follow. Any truth in this?

Edited for accuracy.

Anyone know where Debaser is?

On Debottom?

I'm here lovie, why?

You missing him or something?

I know it's only paper talk, but I've shown you that it says we've offered less. Yet you said that you read that we'd offered more.
And I'd like to see where you have seen this.

Who gives a tiny toss?

But it doesn't quote any figures. At all. It just says Hull have offered less. But is that less per year over a longer period that Bradford offered? Is it less being paid by Hull but an "understanding" regarding image rights meaning he's actually on a lot more than Bradford offered? These are the important bits of the offers that we're not privy to.

Oh another option has popped into my head. As he's not signed on to join Hull yet, could the source for this story be his agent? Fishing to try and get a better deal out of Bradford?

I think a lot of people on here assume players sign for a club on the strength of the club's name alone. This is rarely the case.
The figure at the bottom of the pay cheque will always be the number one reason a professional player signs for a club.

You have shown me an article in the local very biased Hull rag which doesn't really say anything other than hearsay. Come back with your facts whenever you like love.

Youv'e yet to show me any facts to back your statement up that you think we paid more.
Still waiting.

Here's a good approximation of a 'fact'.

My guess would be that the paper have got it from the club who've been previously told by his agent that Bradford offered x and if they want Seymour will have to match it. Hull refused to up the money and in light of the fact that they were the highest bidder anyway the agent told them he wanted to come to Hull because Shaun Berrigan (he who was a flop, finishing in the bottom 4 twice and left a year early) told him to.

If Seymour has come to Hull for less money because Berro told to him then he's been back on the drink.

Berrigan wanted to leave a year early due to the death of his father and wanted to be closer to his family.
back on the drink eh? Yeah because Bradford is really appealing isn't it, everyone wants to sign for the mighty Bulls. Your a nothing club now. He obviously see's Hull as the better option for him along with him coming down with a current team mate.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

I don't think he made that statement. He only questioned your statement that Hull offered less.

You're just proving that you were talking , otherwise you would of shown me a link saying that we offered more.

Bless.

You're arguements are flawless but in future if you are looking for a quick win, may I recommend adding FACT on the end of them. It would leave Debaser with nowhere to go

Debaser wrote,

'I disagree with you. As has been pretty widely reported in the press and internet (I assume you can read?) Hull FC stepped in at the last moment with a "big money offer" and pouched Seymour from under the noses of the Bulls.'

But isn't willing to prove where he saw this, therefor seems as though he hasn't got any proof.

Like I said I'm still waiting for him to back his statement up.

It should be "An unknown superstar" not "A unknown superstar" shouldn't it?

Anyway this is heading off topic enough as it is! Please an we somehow steer it back? If people want to have an argument over semantics and how you can interpret a press report then suggest you start PM-ing each other as it's boring the rest of us.