The positive announcements should hopefully include players that are staying and some additions, preferably including four seasoned props

Well I'm glad they didn't include the whole article by email like they have in recent weeks. I'm a regular reader of the match day programme and I usually buy it to read the coaches and chairmans comments. Not particularly impressed recently to pay £3 for articles that I have already read by email.

I would expect some news on the financials too. Something like who's going to be sponsoring us.

How long does the Provident deal run? I can't imagine them pulling out just because we're no longer in SL, particularly with them being a local firm as well. That said, all the shirt advertising loses value when we are no longer on tv, so I'd guess we are more likely to see even lower profile [and value stuff than we've been used to over the last few years. Oh for the days when we were backed by the biggest computer manufacturer in the world..

Sponsors like good news for PR purposes, and lets face it compared to this season theres going to be a bit more good news coming out of the club next season if Greens cryptic comments amount to anything of a squad. The size of the deal may be more the discussion point.

Provident deal was 1.2 million spread over 4 years. Can't see them pulling out with two years left given effort they've put in this year on social media. Guess they may want negotiate amount down although it's relatively small money to them and good publicity of keeping same level of sponsorship may negate the reduced exposure/prestige level of championship rugby.

Not got the paper yet, but seen on the online preview of today's League Express we are abandoning the appeal.

Anyone read it/got the details?

And a Scrum Half...

Surely not when he was supposedly given legal advice that the club was 100% certain to win the case ?

Do you really need to fart in with your sarky rubbish? Everyone here sees it as bleedin obvious that whatever the chances of winning, if 6 points back is totally irrelevant then the game isn't worth the candle. Green himself made almost exactly that point and it was widely reported. It's his money, and so Green can surely choose whether to waste it or not.

The thing is, you know all this, and so your post is just the sort of pointless childish, sneering drivel that sadly our situation will continue to attract, like to a bogbrush.

You could try for Jarrad Sammutt on season long loan, he can't get a game for us.

Perhaps he should, 2 wins from 5 is pretty poor.

I think we'll be going with Adam Brook as our 7 next year. Expect him to get a few games between now and the end of the season.

I have not made a single denigrating remark about Bradford's situation on this or any other topic. My point is that when he came out with this stuff it was simply catering for the masses, telling people what they wanted to hear. As soon as he made the claim about barristers being 100% certain of winning the case I knew it to be complete BS, as I'm sure you did too, as there is not a single member of the legal profession who would ever say they were 100% certain of winning any case.

...and that allegation isn't denigrating how, exactly?


An oft-repeated urban myth. In fact there are plenty of circumstances where a case may be a certain win. I would also suggest stating starkly that the claim was "complete BS" could be taken as denigrating too. What if -for example - he was paraphrasing and had been told that there was an "extremely strong case"? Would his comment then be "complete BS"? I suggest not.

100% or whatever, he also very clearly stated that he would only proceed if it was in the best interests of the club, =#FF0000and he would take a bit of time to think it over. He has done what he said he would do, and I would guess come to the conclusion that the court case would cost too much in time and effort that would be better spent trying to ensure that we return to SL1 asap. Or that rebuilding in SL2 carries far less financial risk than eventually winning a case with one day left to prepare for SL1. I dont think that that is hype.

It was bizarre that he'd even consider appealing given that the return of the six would be about as much use as a chocolate poker anyway.

If anything requires 100% certainty it's the focus on re-building so I'm glad he's ditched the idea.

I'd like to think we were accepting relegation with good grace, building again in SL2 and restoring a bit of integrity to the club's name.

That doesn't fill me with confidence, although i expect Brook will be one for the future i would like to see some experience brought in to guide us around the park.

At least the point has been made that perhaps a serious look at those that run the games is required.
Something that seems to be happening with a number of chairmen asking questions about the suitability of the hierachy who are trusted with the games creditability at many levels.
Personally if the rulling body can create this experiment with the two 12 and 3 x 8s whilst having the temerity to talk about promotion and relegation, which of course is the other way round> ie Relegation---Relegation and promotion (one team from championship 1 will be promoted in 2015, whilst 7 clubs will go down).
I honestly think the person that thought that one out, probably thought "Blue Sox" was a good name for a RL club??????

I often think about that. The advent of superleague was a merchandising gift to us all. Anyone associated with the decision to choose a Blue sock rather than an animal (or ANYTHING you could market) had no right to ever be in a position of power again.

So it really should come as no surprise if the walking pork-pie gorgon invented the disgrace of a new league structure.

I'm no fan of the pie muncher, but that's possibly unfairly down to my belief that his appearance does nothing to counter the thick northern stereotype attached to the game. I am also not a fan at all of P&R. I do remember lots of posters saying that our game was dying as a result of the lack of it, however. To suggest that one person is responsible for coming up with the idea & managing to brainwash all chairmen to accept it is ridiculous. Who are all the [inumber of chairmen asking questions about the suitability of the hierachy who are trusted with the games creditability at many levels[/i?

This is no place for that sort of reasonable comment.

The thing about P&R is that someone hast be promoted and someone has to be relegated and this new system does not seem to guarantee it.

Perhaps you should have followed the policy review document, and the rebel clubs walk out. Plus the Salford chairman and criticism of many decisions, Coupled with the worse attendance figures ever? What is your assessment, I remain to be convinced that the head of any organisation isn't responsible as it is understood in all businesses the "Buck Stops here"

Another urban myth. In the Bulls' case, how I wish the most recent buck had stopped with the owner. The reality is our new club is saddled with a skipful of bucks from previous incarnations, and the weight has eventually sunk us.