Some stuff from the Harrison article

Sorry?


Sorry? Surely, the starting point is why we DIDN'T "play with what we had". Half the squad may as well never have been signed! Also, it begs the question as to what was the recruitment policy. Clearly from this, it was nothing to do with Harriso. Is it right that it was little or nothing to do with Lowes either, and that Ferres made the signings? I suppose that would fit with Jimmy's personality - "I didn't ask for him, I don't want him, I'm not playing him"?


Very strange. If a player is unproven -but you never play him - how will you get to know whether he is capable of being proven? We seem from all this to have been stuck in some sort of irreconcileable dispute between the coach and the club. Unless Lowes really did want all those players, as individuals - but if he did, then why would he never use them.

Agreed. It's a clear statement that Ferres has signed players Lowe's didn't want.

Well there does appear to be a clear disconnect between players Ferres deemed appropriate and how Lowes feels about the same players.

I can't recall how long a time period Ferres was recruiting before Lowes came on-board, but clearly Ferres had to begin recruiting in earnest as he couldn't have known how long it would take to get the first team coach on-board. You would think that Ferres has been around the block enough to in theory be trusted to commence that recruitment process.

Lowes and Harrison are cut from the same cloth - blunt, arrogant and full of attitude. Neither know the difference between being a boss and being a leader of men. I can imagine them both ranting and raving in the dressing room, struggling to put a coherent sentence together.

If those are the criteria for the coach, then we've got a busload of top candidates on these boards

Jimmy took over before relegation was confirmed, so I'd say he came in sort of late June -ish. Don't really have a clue as to [iexactly[/i when recruitment started, but I'd guess it certainly didn't get into full swing until our position for 2015 was pretty certain, ie around the time Jimmy rocked up or very shortly afterwards.

I've always felt that a number of players were signed from Youtube videos and, probably someone known to the club in Aus, saying they might be OK. Clearly, two or three weren't good enough for to Jimmy to risk in the side, so given the standard of a couple of others who were played, that is some indictment.

Considering the Bulls had been playing with "Skinny" squads for the past few seasons, I suspect part of the brief was to make sure there was large playing squad to increase competition and cover the usual injuries accrued from pre season right through to season end. Hindsight by some says quality over quantity, which considering the Bulls precarious finances meant good players were not going to be easy to find.

Absolutely Blotto. It was always going to be difficult to recruit 'quality' players after being relegated - in fact, we did well to retain as many of the previous year's staff as we did, no doubt helped by the fact there was no promoted club that season, if there had been we may well have lost far more than we did.

The Harrison article does seem to suggest that Lowes is very much a my way or the highway sort of manager. I just wonder if that, combined with his little tantrum after the MPG explains our less than stella performances across the year?

I have to say, I'm still not conviced by Lowes as a head coach and I'd be surprised if he's still in charge this time next year should we fail to gain promotion again.

No, he has to get to the MPG. Unless by some minor miracle we end up in it playing against another side in total disarray, then we all now know we have no chance of winning it. So you can't sack a coach for that. And anyway, they didn't sack him this year, when we could and should have won it, so why would they next year if we get easily controlled by a superior quality SL team?

Having thought a lot about the permutations this year, I'm convinced that the best chance of promotion from this division isn't the MPG, it is somehow making the 3rd spot. It's not a lot easier than the MPG but if the combination of fixtures and critically other results goes our way, there would be a way to sneak in via the 3rd place door. Essentially what you need is one of the SL teams to have a mare throughout the playoffs.

It makes you wonder why we didn't turn up against Wakefield in the first meeting in the Middle 8s. Would that have given us third place if we'd also bothered to try against Halifax and beat all Championship opposition plus two SL teams?

Our best chance of rising is maybe that one of the SL clubs goes through the same kind of financial problems which laid us low. I wouldn't wish that on any club though, but it must remain a medium [at least possibility, the way things are and maybe even a bigger possibility if the clubs start overreaching themselves with their 'marquee' signings.

I fully expect the coaching situation will be decided well before we get to the play off's in August.
If you were in charge would you leave such a big decision to a few games in September?
I would decide after Easter if Jimmy is the man for a third season. If so, then give him an extension. If not - which I suspect most fans will now say is their preferred option - then start looking in May or around then so the new man can start planning.

I will say now that I expect to hear calls for Brian Smith to be offered the job when Jimmy completes his contract. I will be very surprised to see Jimmy offered a new contract early in the season. If he isn't, then Green is waiting to see how they go but he can't wait too long. Jimmy needs to know early or the new man does or we are playing catch up for a third year.

Imagine this situation. In June we offer Smith a job for 2017 and he accepts. Wakey then end up in the play off's again. What will their chairman do as his coach will be coaching against his new club in vital games. Would Smith really want to stop the Bulls getting promotion as it would hurt his chances of SL. It would be hilarious reading the posts on the Wakey site questioning Smiths loyalty. This is just a thought - but a possibility!

Not quite sure how you accommodate your ethos under a different salary cap..Quality costs money usually at the cost of quantity.

different levels of player dependent on the playing level of the club. Finances would mirror that.

We operate on sound business principles whereby the owner will invest more on the basis that the investment pays for itself. In SL, the salary costs and player ability would rise, as would the income, via crowds, TV money and competition disbursements. The club hasn't always done so but nowadays operates in a cloth cutting and businesslike manner.

Still not sure how you fit that in under the current cap.Your saying possibly 10-15 fringe players to cover injuries or rotate.That will get you to the 8's again but then what?

to something like 30. This isn't just about cap but finances in general - remember, unless things have changed, it's only the top 25 who count under the cap anyway, so ten our last years' squad wouldn't have counted, though they would have to be paid, of course so it impacts on club's bottom line.

As for the eights, with clubs on different levels of cap it's many miles from a fair competition, which is exactly what the RFL always wanted imo.

The RFL must surely be sweating a bit now on the Bulls situation though. I mean, it worked out kinda OK for one season in the Championship - we spiced that up, it restored a feelgood factor and we made the MPG and thus the Super 8 format, an arguable success. But the RFL now know what's wrong with the Super 8s format, and that in reality it is not a genuine chance of promotion barring accidents. And they will be watching very warily what happens at Bradford as they can't afford to have a properly run Bulls out of SL for long, because there is no long-term or even medium-term future for the Bulls as we know them in the Championship.

I think you're over emphasising our importance to the game. Yes, it would probably be better for SL if we'd replaced Wakefield. It certainly wouldn't have harmed the average crowd numbers. But I really believe that the RFL already KNOWS that the current format is not genuine promotion and relegation as the format is designed to ensure the status quo, while giving the illusion of P&R

It wouldn't matter if we were posting 20k crowds, we have no God-given right to be in Super League. We may consider ourselves a loss to the competition but I'm not sure there are many who really miss us from the top flight. New rivalries emerge or are renewed such as Leeds v Castleford now being the big derby game for those two clubs. Ten years since we won owt, memories fade and the competition moves on.

I think this 'illusion of P & R' argument only holds water if we'd demonstrated that with 3x the salary spend of most other clubs and a bedrock of SL and NRL experience, we were the exceptional team in the Championship. Had we done so and then put up gallant efforts in defeat to SL clubs and narrowly failed in MPG then I think you could make this claim.

In fact we didn't. We were lamentably inconsistent, interspersing 8 or 9 good efforts with performances which ranged between uninspiring and pathetic. And yet, remarkably we came within a score and 5 minutes of getting promoted. Leigh, Bradford and Sheffield all beat SL teams during the season. If anything the evidence suggests not only was promotion possible but that we were pushing on an open door and still failed. Neither position instils an ounce of optimism for 2016.

I agree with others who say Wakefield cannot possibly be as bad again but then that depends on their finances and just what hole Smith made in next year's budget to keep 17 on the field and what season tickets they sell.

Whilst I'm fully on board with the "Illusion of P&R" argument, I do agree that what happens at the end of next year may depend, to some extent, on what budget Wakefield will be running with. As you say it may be blown by the cost their 'new team' they brought in at the back end of the last season and they remain well below the normal standard associated with top level clubs, and the obvious target of any club attempting to go into SL. They do retain the advantage of playing at a higher level for the full season though, and this is a big advantage which shouldn't be underestimated.

There's a higher central funding budget for SL clubs this year. I think for the first time ever the salary cap going out (up to £1.8m) and the sky money coming in (£1.8m) match. So central funding can now completely cover maximum playing staff budget. Tickets, merchandise, sponsorship just needs to cover everything else.

Hardly. You are joking, right? The Bulls were, and remain, the ONLY club capable of generating the tidal wave that was Bullmania. There is no replacement club who could even dream of attracting 20,000+ crowds for fixtures against Leeds, or averaging 15k home crowds. So far as potential, for crowds, marketing, etc goes, we are unique, and of the Championship clubs, there is none who are within coo-ee. Can you imagine, for example, if Sheffield had been promoted?

How can our potential be over-emphasized? Especially in a league that really has no more than a couple of other clubs of real substance (as we once were) and NONE who can aspire to anything approaching.

And that is before you take into account that we rent our ground from the RFL. If we go down the pan completely,then it will cost them (and ironically all the clubs that stole from us) plenty.

When was the last time we pulled in those sorts of figures?

The Bulls have been in terminal decline for the best part of 10 years. The fact that we've managed to bottom out is no indication that we'll get back the previous level of success any time soon. The positives are that we have the core of a young team who could do great things over the next 5/6 years as well as a chairman/owner who's at least got business sense to get the off-field stuff into better shape and at least try to be honest with the fans.

The negatives, the team is still missing an actually on field leader to take up the captaincy and direct the team forward and is being coached by a man who, when the chips are down, throws a tantrum.

Yes, there's potential there for the club to grow back to where it was. But you could say that about half a dozen other clubs. Bradford is not as important as you'd like to wish