I think it's fair to say that despite the admirable efforts of Andrew Bennett in devising the pledge that should a similar scheme now be launched it would not be met with the same level of fan support. My view is that the endless discussion/pillorying of players is pointless. That what we are witnessing (and as fans supporting financially) is a long term failure of strategy in the area squad development, recruitment and retention. This is not about Potter and tactics or players and individual mistakes. This is a systemic failure of decision making throughout the senior management of the club. What has accompanied this failure has been a news/rumour management campaign designed to divert attention away from the performances on the field. This has followed on from a disastrous period of financial management by the previous BOD.

What we are seeing is the fruits of 8-9 years of mismanagement by both this and the previous board. During this time the 'story' from the club has become less and less credible. This season is a write off but more worrying is the slide into lower crowds and the threat to our membership of Super League. I really feel we stand on the brink and have been conned into thinking this nonsense about the Caisley camp and the Hood camp when in actual fact they have combined to destroy one of the finest rugby league clubs in the land.

The only way forward in my view is for the current board to resign. The shareholders would be forced to call a meeting of the shareholders to constitute a new board which would demand their support or they divest themselves of their interest in the club. This is not without risk but ask yourselves this. Who will buy a season ticket next year? If the club is hamstrung by it's own ownership then why should the fans support it? Because we love the Bulls and are stupid but believe me there will a lot less of us next year. And then where do we go?

Completely agree with most of the above, standards are set from on high, not just at player / coach level. However, ask yourself, who / what are the alternatives ? I don't see a big queue forming (of suitable characters) for the roles of BOD's

Maislebugs: whilst I would not go along with some of what you say, or perhaps the wording used, in other respects I suggest you make some strong and objective points. Given our previous arguments, that may surprise you? Maybe the big difference is you confirming that you recognise that the blame for where we are now cannot be laid at the door of a single administration. Ultimately, that is what we mostly argued about?

It IS looking increasingly clear that there is something badly wrong, manifesting itself most visibly on the park. What that is, I really have no idea. The worrying thing is - does anyone at the club? Whether it is down to a "...systemic failure of decision making throughout the senior management of the club" or to continuing financial constraints or to something else - or some combination - is really unclear. I am certain it is not down to lack of effort or will, from what I have seen.

I agree re Bennett's admirable efforts, but yes - who could see a pledge campaign being repeated right now? We'd need something to be a lot more hopeful about - or at least some facts laid on the line - before that could be contemplated again, I think?

Although I have been highly critical of the Caisley administration for spending way beyond our means - and in particular over the crazy pìssìng contest with Hetherington - I don't think the financial situation they got us into was in any deliberate. Imprudent, over-optimistic, and Micawberish for sure, but will have had the interests of the club at heart? Same way as whilst the subsequent administration certainly gave the impression - as Redeverready pointed out elsewhere - of being more reactive than pro-active, doubtless managing the transition from seemingly-rich and strong club to impoverished follower with a load of historic baggage to resolve must have ground them down over time? And I saw no lack of effort or will or having the club's best interests at heart Especially when they have not been able to talk openly about some of the key underlying problems.

And we really have had three administrations over the period, the latest being the current ruling triumvirate plus Duffy? After the board clean-out last summer and appointment of Bennett and Duckett to the board. And I had big hoped that the leaner cleaner executive board would be the platform for the big turnround. Maybe it still will be - but the job seems that much harder than even a few months ago now.

So yes, for whatever reason, Bulls have gone from great to pitiable over those tenures. None of the administrations can escape blame, and ultimately yes the buck has to stop at the boardroom. As in any business.

So, should the current board resign? Is that fair on Bennett, who has achieved a lot in his time so far? Would you sack Duckett as CEO, and if so who would run the club day to day? Who, suitably qualified, could be persuaded to take on that - probably thankless - job? I ask these as genuine questions - I have no easy answers.

The shareholders, last available information (any changes since the last annual return will not be on public file) and totally from memory so don't hold me to it, are Caisley 26%, Hood about 7%, other recent directors and the club president (including several elderly and increasingly infirm gentlemen now) around 45%, one or two others with a percent orn two each, and nearly a thousand holders of a handful of shares - some of whom are probably dead.

If a shareholder's meeting was called, we would therefore see the same old faces back on the board. What would that achieve?

Is it likely that those same old faces would have waiting in the wings some effective executives waiting to take over, with responsibility but no ownership? And how would they be paid, given only Duckett draws a salary now?

If the principal shareholders sought to divest themselves of their shares, who would buy them? You and I have had the debate before about whether the club really sought outside investors or expertise, but the fact remains that in recent years only Bennett seems to have been brought on board.

I am probably at least as frustrated as you. And although we may not agree as to the causes (neither of us will know what has really gone on) we sure agree on the prognosis if something is not done, and done quickly.

Given what I said, I cannot see the current triumvirate resigning will of itself solve anything. If nothing else, who would run the club while the shareholders debated what to do?

But other than a rich guy walking up to Odsal with an open chequebook I am struggling to come up with any suggestion of my own - I am totally perplexed as to why a coach who's appointment was heavily supported by the fans, and a squad that was seen by the fans as being much better balanced and stronger than last year, seems to have resulted in a team that has totally lost confidence in itself.

They're not a team. They weren't for McNamara, and they're not for Potter. Maybe we need to face the uncomfortable truth that the reasons why we leak so many points, make so many bad decisions, squander so much ball, and play with such ill discipline is because we have a majority of players who, it turns out, are just not SL material, and never will be. Or maybe there was and is a split of some sort in the ranks, and faction 'A' won't talk to or bond with faction 'B'. Or maybe some of both.

Whoever is the defensive coach - if anyone is - must be the luckiest bloke on the planet still to be in a job, because in some decades I've never seen anything like it in a Bradford shirt.

Adey, The problems you highlight in respect of the BOD resigning are real and serious. I would have thought that both Duckett and Duffy are employed by the club and could resign directorships without leaving their posts in the short term. It would be harsh on Bennett, it's quite simply none of his fault and he has brought something positive to the table.

My view is the complicated ownership of the club is off putting to investors as it would appear very difficult to gain control. Nobody invests money to enrich others. The spectre of Caisley also looms large. Ted Richardson solicited investment for years at Wakey but only when the club was in administration and almost certainly losing it's Super League status was an investor found (2 in fact). Why? Because he could do a deal for the whole club with the administrator. My fear is this is where we're heading - a collapse in ticket sales followed by a drop in income leads to administration and the championship. It's a doomsday scenario but one we should face up to.

FA is right this is the worst Bradford team I've ever seen since I first came in 1976. How can Bennett Market this? The BOD resigning would certainly present problems but to proceed as we are is to invite an even worse situation.

Duffy is not on the BOD. Duckett was CEO before being promoted to the board, so presumably could continue in the CEO role regardless of directorships - albeit with less authority (and personal risk!). Bennett was referred to additionally as Marketing Manager (or similar) on the club website, but I see that has been dropped now and he is currently shown just as a director.

We appear to have violent agreement regarding your second paragrpah. I am sure we would both love to know whether there are or ever were any parties out there interested in making an offer for ALL the big shareholdings - or indeed whether such was actually sought (I know you are sceptical on this)? And if there ARE or WERE, what is the impediment to a sale or transfer? The shares must surely be worth little if anything, since a purchaser would almost certainly have to inject resources into the club and no-one with any sense tries to run a professional RL club as a business to earn you or your family profits. You would therefore surely assume that any of the holders would happily transfer their shares, for a notional amount, to any incoming wealthy investor who could satisfy them that he (or she...) had the best interests of the club at heart? And if NOT, then you could only assume that the shareholder/s felt they could do a better job?

I agree Bennett must be very concerned how he can market the current situation. I just cannot see how the BOD resigning would solve anything, since the shareholders who would be gathering to appoint a new BOD would be the very directors and former directors at whose doors the responsibility for the current plight is being laid. And yes, there ARE ways to break any deadlock - go ask Wakey, as you point out - but at what enduring cost? Yet IF the cause of the problem requires new bodies at the top to resolve it (and I don't know if that is the case) I cannot think of any alternative way of effecting that if there are no new willing bodies out there (or enough existing shareholders willing to sell).

A huge problem we supporters have is trying to determine what are causes and what are symptoms of the current total failure to perform on the park? If, for example, the primary cause was a combination of: a load of new players; few if any existing natural inspirational leaders within the retained players; and a crazy level of injuries preventing us from putting out a more settled team to try and gel, then probably only time - and some good luck for a long-overdue change - would fix it. Although bringing in a couple of top-flight players in key positions might just speed up the process significantly? What we are seeing would be the symptoms of it, and trying to fix wrongly-identified causes of it would likely only make matters worse - what I refer to at work as the "shutting down the wrong engine" scenario.

However, it looks like most supporters have decided that the cause is more deep-seated than that example, and it becomes increasingly difficult to argue against that. You have put forward one credible cause; I have pointed to the underlying financial constraints as another possible big factor. My guess, FWIW, is that it is a combination of all of these and maybe other causes too, and that together they have conspired to bring all this about. I'm sure the financial issues over a protracted period will have contributed to a general grinding down of confidence within the club? But, then again, what might have been the case had we not been robbed again at Cardiff, and had we had Wakey not Wigan as our second game? We will never know, but confidence would surely have been significantly enhanced?

We are all of us trying to treat the symptoms of a serious problem, when we do not have enough of the facts to determine with certainty what the real underlying causes are? No wonder so many of us are despairing of a solution being found?

I think the point I'm trying to make is that in the circumstances that the BOD resigned the shareholders would struggle to appoint a board. Who would want the job with such a fractured and financially unsupporting shareholder group? At this stage the shareholding would be ripe for takeover by a single entity which is what we need to unite the club and progress. It's a gamble as nobody may come forward but I don't see what is to lose as the status quo appears to be a slow, support dwindling journey to Faxville.

I just can't believe that one the most famous, successful clubs in the country with a huge support base is less attractive than Wakefield, Hudds, Salford (all due respect to those fine clubs).

All those three clubs - indeed all the clubs with a wealthy owner (not sure how wealthy Glover is) have one thing in common - their wealthy owner is also a big fan.

Which begs the question - one you have raised - of where is OUR big fan to ride in with his millions to bankroll US?

Either we do not HAVE any such fans, despite publically seeking such several years ago - or if we DO, they are not considered a good enough bet; or we do but - for whatever reason - they have not been able to (or deemed it appropriate to) acquire a controlling interest in the club? In which case you would have expected them to appeal to the fans over the heads of the existing shareholders? Which one is it? Buggered if I know!

The thing is, though, if we did have any such fans, we would already know who they were, as everyone would have seen them at the matches. So, who is there? Not many spring to mind. I used to have that bloke from Smokie sitting behind me - he must be worth a few bob, maybe give him a ring?

I look across to see Duncan Preston at home matches. Guess he's not in the same league as Russell Crowe though...?

To add insult to injury, this is what I'm getting from the Bulls' website:



Is this another symptom of the general malaise, or are they just picking on me?

IIRC It was back in 1989 that the then board of directors increased their shareholding so that they held the majority of shares. This does kind of leave us without much to form a board with out of the shareholders given that it's made up of the same old people that have been around for years.

It's just you

Are you sure? Chrome won't have it, and IE gves me this:

So should we sack the web designers?

(It works fine for me btw in Chrome)

It's fine on my IE & Firefox. Maybe you should clear your cookies and start again?

Done it, cleared everything, so it clearly must be a conspiracy. There is no other possible reason.

Maybe this is the problem with the club. We started trying to solve the Bulls problem and end up rewriting IE.

My previous comment was meant to be funny but it may not be far from the truth. How much time and effort has been spent in the past trying to fix the problem of Odsal and not concentrating on the team.

I know that some on here know the complete story but whatare the restrictions on leaving Odsal. Would the current country have to be reformed? Would we have to play outside the city limits? And I'm not talking about moving to VP but could there be some way of combining forces with City at a new venue?

We have to pay a seven* figure sum - its about £1.4m at the moment - back to the council if we do not play more than 90% of our home games at Odsal up until May 2019.

There may well be other obligations in the long lease.
[size=85
* thanks to that that damned pesky Tigertot[/size

Isn't that seven figures? =#FFFFFFSorry.

Why, sir, I do believe it is!

I'd jolly well better go back and fix it before anyone notices...

Either way its money that we don't have

£1.4 m over the next 7 years is 'only ' £200k / year. surely it costs us more than that to keep it open. Plus if we just walked away I'm sure the council would pursue us with the same enthusiasm as they've chased Westfield.

One thing I'd like to know is - Have the current board and shareholders actually been looking to sell the club to a wealthy company or individual?

Not being funny but what is in it for Allam to stick £1m into Hull KR (whilst interestingly not putting money into the RL club that share the same ground as his football team)? I'm sure his intentions are as stated and they are admirable but it's a million less than what he could have spent on the Tiger's transfer fund to get them back in the Premier League.

I don't know whether there actually is anyone around interested in putting money into the Bulls but do any of us actually know whether a. the current lot have looked or b. the current lot have had offers or c. the current lot don't actually want to sell.

Caisley is still one of the biggest shareholders isn't he?