Not quite sure what you may be alluding to with "very much the opposite" but I don't think you mean an announcement about NOT signing a marquee player?

However (and quite probably unrelated to your post) I'm beginning to think that a period of administration may not be a bad thing. It would certainly sort out any disparate owbership issues and if things go well the worst that happens is we start next season on minus 4 points (probably more like minus 8 because it is Bradford after all).

Wakefield don't seem to have been harmed by it and are in a much stronger position because of it.

You have to be (or to be likely to become) insolvent to have the administration route open to you, though. That would mean we would have to be in a considerably worse financial situation than most people believe or assume?

I know several people have raised the question, and their points are valid as far as they go. But I'm not sure its a good idea debating the implications of administration over-much on here at this time? Unless it ever became clear it was a serious possibility - as it did at Wakey, when their forum went into overdrive on the subject. (And, sadly, relatively few of those contributing to the debate had much knowledge of the subject so a load of nonsense was talked in amongst the facts). It sends out some very negative signals surely, at a time when that is the last thing we want?

One point that I do think needs making though, is that in any administration there are invariably lots of small local businesses and others who don't get paid at least part of what they are owed. I'm not sure that would be a very good thing? And I would expect our agreement for the long lease with the council - as well as those for other public and private funding streams - to become void in the event of an act of insolvency. Newbullsco could well find itself having to cut a deal, at short order and from a position of serious income stream weakness, with the owners of Valley Parade.

to be honest the only realistic options of improving have been taken. Our training facilities are good providing comfort for the families of juniors which is often overlooked.we have put steps in place to develop our youth.we may not get the program perfect initially but we are developing from within which is what wigan saints and leeds have been doing for years.that is what will help us survive we are lucky in some ways that fans remember the good times which were good -?now it is upto uthe club to develop a policy of bringing through the youth and giving us chance in the future for inevitable player losses and less need for outsiders who do not understand the family culture.it is difficult thouggh as leedss have found as to when you evolve your team.

That'll teach him to believe some of the posters on here.

On a positive note, my under 8's team were awesome!

Olivier Elima, Pat Ah Van and Tom Burgess handed out the awards at our prsentation night a couple of months ago and they seemed to remember the kids, as they were watching the game with interest when the Bulls players came out for a stroll on the field before they got stripped.

He did turn it around, he turned it around into reverse.

In many businesses, EXPERTS are brought it in to turn around the balance sheet or stop companies losing as much money. In almost all these situations, the number one criteria the person responsible for the changes is judged is the financial state of the company moving forward. Peter Hood has achieved this having been restricted massiveley by the contracts in place and legal action over issues that took place before his time.

RE macca, the Bulls had a coach who was widely regarded to have a lot of potential, but more importantly will have known and accepted the restraints and problems he had to deal with. Like it or not, there wont have been a line of established coaches who wanted to oversee the transition the bulls had to undertake to remain a going concern. the fact that he has then managed to attract a coach of potters pedigree, and players such as orford and menzies is a major achievement imo.

when you look at some of the players we have attracted, i think we have done well. Le strange and kearney and top drawer players who have worked out. Menzies was exceptional here so must be classed as a good piece of work. The others were V unlucky not to work out. Hall was v good and has been awesome back in the NRL. Orford was a world class HB who a number of clubs would have loved to have signed. We also agreed terms with Bird, who is world class also. not bad for a club with out finances.

the bulls have had to scrape their way out of a dire financial position to where they are now, and that is a club with good facitilies and some promising youngsters. we now have a platform to build on and the next stage wont come easy given our lack of a big money backer.

That looks like the sort of post I normally write...!

Re bringing in Experts (your first point) I think that was what Gareth Davies was brought in to do. I know they put together a pretty detailed business and financial plan. I suspect that a few people were not at all happy with some of the inconvenient financial truths that that plan brought out, and I suspect Brian Noble may have been one of them.

Biggest mistake the club made was Nobby not playing Pryce at Stand-Off when he asked to play there.

its easy to say that in hindsight, but noble was hugely sucessful and had earned the right to back his decisions. he decided that pryce wasnt the best standoff at the club, having not played the position since he was 16?? in that case, do you really assure him of it when you dont think hes the best person for the role

Yeah and Harris was so much better for us -_-
If Pryce had been given a chance at SO then chances are he would have stayed, Him and Deacon would have been awesome for us over the years.

I don't think it is hindsight though, we won a WCC with Pryce at stand off when he was outstanding. Iestyn was a good player for us but its the knock on effects that make it a bad decision.

We also won WCCs with either/both Karl Pryce at stand off didnt we??

And Karl Pratt for a Grand final

It wasn't a bad decision when we won the SL GF. Not all players get to play where they want and get paid what they want. It just so happens Pryce and Peacock took their bat and ball home. Regardless of them leaving, IMO we would never have found ourselves in the position we do now had remained and had not been driven out.

It was Mr Davies who made all the academy part time. That was one of his first acts when he got the job.

So you know this as absolute fact do you or is it just wild conjecture on your part.

Well I'd not say Peacock took his bat and ball home. He was current MOS, the leader of our pack and massive player for us. So he went to Chris Caisley and said "I'd like an improved deal that matches my ability". He was told no. But with a more colourful turn of phrase. So when Leeds came in and said "we'll offer you that deal" he took it. And I don't blame him.

Pryce was in a similar situation. Looking back, I'd rather we'd kept Peacock and Pryce than ever signed Harris.

He got a whinge on coz he didnt get what he wanted and you know it.

You can call it that.

I call it one of our best players, coming to the end of his contract asking for a pay rise for his new deal and getting told to eff off. It's a move that was indicative of Caisley's time in charge.

So I heard. I think as one of the first "cost-saving" measures - and I know the numbers they had to save to keep the club out of the hands of the insolvency professionals had more noughts on the end than most at the time (certainly including me) ever realised.

I guess the big question is - and with the benefit of hindsight - what cost reduction measures did much more harm than any financial benefit could outweigh? And what ELSE could have been cut instead to do less harm? We'll never get to know, though, unfortunately. It just alarmed the hell out of me to be going up to Odsal for formal meetings every month or so, and keep finding fewer and fewer people who I was working with still there - at all levels, from Chairman down.

Interesting to see that there seems to be a big issue over Leeds way regarding cutting back on academy spend. I'm increasingly wondering if they are starting to tread a similar path, generally, to the one we have been plunging down?

according to posters on leeds board they are only offering their academy players match payments now, part of the fallout of which resulted in us getting marcus elliot and several other u16s leaving. you'd have thought they'd have seen what effect sending our academy part time had os us and thought better of it.

He wasnt though was he, he'd just signed a new improved contract before Harris was signed. His contract didnt end until the end of 2005.

Leeds academy has been part time for last 3 years this is different to part time.

Davies also had a lot to do with the Harris signing from his time at Reebok.

forget players whinging or not- if we dont have the money why not give somone a chance rather than a. Sign a player plunging us in more debt regardless of name or ability. B. Risk losing academy players because they have to go part time due to cuts and potential financial problems?

Nobby must have had a clue of the financial situation and when he was looking at options pryce's and paul or pratt, etc he was not exactly making use of what he had was he? Cameron phelps most usefull import into the english game-:lets think of today somone else will fix tommorow.maybe i am just bitter but i do feel the decisions he made were short sighted.
Although cutting academy would not have been my initial choice so long as it was potentially short term i suppose we have survived.id have rather we cut other things lbut i guess it was not simple.