I really miss the Derby games against the Bulls. the home fixture against them was always my favourite and most anticipated game of the season and what an atmosphere in the ground. The wins were the sweetest and the losses the most gutting. I hope they make it back, not only to SL but also to contenders. But as this years decider against Wakey showed it's a way off yet. I said before they hit the skids, when the cracks started to show, that SL needed a strong Bulls team, I still believe that to be true.

All Bradford have to do is go back to signing the biggest players they can find in every position. A fat Bradford pack worked for them through the 70's the 80's and then in SL.
Big centres, even bigger wingers, fat 6 and 7 and they will be back in the big time before Dominoes can deliver a super deluxe meat feast.

Just going back to salaries - the only player's salary I've ever known for certain was Danny Buderus' and he was on £100k a year. He was of proven quality, so I'd be amazed if Achurch - a then 24 year old with 11 first grade appearances - would be on more than that. Regardless of what comes out of Phil Gould's mouth.

It has been rumoured for all his time at Leeds that Achurch was amongst the highest earners in the squad

As for Sinfield being on less than 100k!! Even Gary couldn't get away with that.

Again, not wanting to gain anything in terms of 'in the know' bragging rights, just sharing what I've been led to believe by someone who doesn't usually let much slip, but when they do, it's absolutely nailed on correct..... Don't know what Buderus was on, but can tell you, despite to all and sundry this being ridiculous - Achurch is 100% on more than that....

Also, Garbutt is on less than Achurch, but similar to money quoted above... Gives you an idea of the type of money we're having to spend to compete with just average NRL wages.... Though Garbutt was signed on fairly big money by the Broncos (he was seen as a big prospect by the Broncos until Bennett arrived) and he's actually taken a pay cut to come to Leeds in terms of the balance sheet / however the positive exchange rate and cost of living reductions mean he's actually still better off at Leeds.

my mates sister is married to a big name bulls player from that era. they paid far, far more over the cap, unofficially of course. with the fact there attendances, when you take the huge number of free tickets off, were average, they had way more going out than coming in.
the club has been mismanaged for years and the pigeons have come home to roost

Karl Pratt was on over £80k at Bradford.... That tells you all you need to know about Bradford and their salary decisions...

IF Leeds have signed Westerman then I think it's a pretty prudent move considering the lack of second row options at the begining of next season...although of course it shouldn't be at the expense of signing a new no.9.

Either way I'm not sure he should get or deserve Sinfield's old jersy. ... for me that should still go to Cuthbertson (he is the 'dream team' no.13 after all )
Garbutt equally deserves to pick up Peacock's old shirt IMO. He has been another shrewd excellent signing.

Westerman would be a cracking addition to our squad. Had a few off field issues in the past but managed correctly he could turn out to be a masterstroke of a signing.
Just look at our incumbent man of steel.

If we could get Westerman into the Leeds way and have him playing pivot that would be ideal alongside a new hooker. With his ball handling skills he would help Sutcliffe enormously

Leeds wouldn't pay £150k for him, Warrington have so he's signed for them.

Not surprised. £150k is a rip off.

Tony Smith relying on his chairmans chequebook again I see.

To be fair, if your academy doesn't produce the players you need and you've got a chairman willing to pay, why wouldn't you?

With Leeds winning all three trophies will it have boosted the earnings of all the players especially those who were in the squads for the major finals?

Link?