Is it to do with the fact they can longer think up any defence of our current coach's failings.

macca to stay

edit

Having arrived back in the UK after spending nearly a year in China(not the easiest of places to keep up to date with Rugby)I just can't understand how McNamara is still in a job.

May well be.

Then again, it may be that they got fed up with the way everything got hijacked by the NT - at least that's what a few have told me is the reason.

And again, maybe its because they just think the debate and discussion on here is a load of crap anyway - one guy I know, who feels strongly that Macca HAS to go so he's an NT with bar, told me on Friday night that's why HE does not post.

Or maybe its cos some spell-checking and grammar-checking pedants jump on anyone whose communication skills are far stronger orally that in trying to type? One guy I know told me that was one main reason (he's in the PT).

Or maybe its because they are like so many in life, content to let others put their heads above the parapet.

Or maybe even because some of them have a life...!

edit

Maybe because they simply think that Option 1, which states:

... is a self-contained, open-and-shut option, which says all it needs to, and doesn't actually require a "Why"?

Maybe the problem is more that they have not voted the way those with an agenda expected them to vote? After all, we haven't seen anything like all the 55 (so far, assuming no multiple aliases) who voted options 2-4 giving their reasons either. Isn't that odd, given that you'd expect those who want to change something would make far more noise than those who do not?

Never mind though, its like the EU and Ireland over the EU Constitution - sorry Lisbon Treaty, silly me - if the voters do not come up with the required answer, just keep making them vote again till they do?

I was torn between 2 & three, but I went for look for another quality replacement. I don't mean as in publicly or anything, I just mean that if the right coach becomes available we should take a gamble.

This keeps getting mentioned a lot but who do we think is who. I always used to think Honourbull was you Adey.

It is/was.

Very possibly this is the case.

It is just the case if I wanted to defend my teams coach in the face of adversity amongst a growing number of dissenters because I think he is doing pretty damn well under the circumstances, then I would state my case for the defence.

Should that be a semi-colon after but, rather than a comma?

That's how you see things and people/personalities are all different. Nowadays I generally don't join in the fray and tosh that some post on here about how "they know" what to do to resolve the current difficulties. That's not because I can't promote an valid point/counter claim, it's just that generally I can't be ar$ed / don't have the time that some seem to have. All power to them - it gets their posting figures up / gets them [iknown[/i.

I can categorically confirm that to my knowledge (PM's et al) that there have been at least 5 (now ex) regular posters from here <and the old Bulls MB> that have simply had enough of not being able to make a simple/harmless comment about how they view things without "[ihaving someone else's view rammed down my throat, time and time again and with not too little sarcasm or vitriol[/i".

Coming on here for a chat around RL or The Bulls can now be a hazardous, and some one argue stress inducing, pastime. Some poster excel at being good at dancing around the margins of the AUP

edit

After but what?

yourself. Maybe I should have put a

to indicate I was not being entirely serious?

The problem is, that assumes you felt some need to "defend" the coach. Many people do not lay all the club's problems at his door, but rather think it is a combination of a wide range of factors. To mix some metaphors, s coach he may well ultimately carry the can, but for many people, if we were to have a trial, then the coach would be by no means the only person in the dock, and not at the front.

A case for the defence only needs to be put if a person has been charged and put on trial. He may have been charged (even convicted) by some, but not everyone accepts either the validity of the charges, or the jurisdiction of the court.

Such people are happy to discuss the fortunes of the club, the performance of the team, individual players, referees, whatever. Some may misinterpret this as being 'apologists for the coach' etc etc., but that is imho generally because they are blinkered, see everything in simplistic terms, and either do not see, or will not recognise, a wider picture.

[size=75=orangePS The above is a pleasant, reasoned and logically argued post. It is not 'having a go', giving offence, seeking to upset, stir etc and does not contain any sarcasm, 'tone', or other 'between the lines' crap and anyone who reads anything else into it than what it says is a twa=white[/size[size=9.[/size[size=75=oranget and will not be responded to.[/size

I think somebody should put a case for the defence because at the moment it is awful.

Fair enough. It is a valid discussion point and a fair assessment.





brilliant!

Bradford are in a rut this season, and the biggest problem isn't the chairman or coach, it's Odsal. Yes I appreciate the ground doesn't lose games but crowds are falling so revenue streams are suffering.

Bradford Bulls, combined with a new stadium and a new approach to bring back the days of Bull mania, sounds chessy I know, would soon see the Bulls reclaim thier place at the top of the Super League. Thing is where would the funding come from for such a development at a time such as this?

So in other words we are quite literally "in a hole"