OK.

I think you have it the wrong way round. It was him that had a lack of patience. Wanted to be a superstar after two seasons.

I don't think I have. If Pryce wanted to be a superstar, then he'd be one.

I think you've spotted his major plan. We all know that Odsal is the major drain on our resources. So he is going to sell all the players and then lock the gates so we don't have to pay upkeep on the place. He could then invest what money was left and keep us in the black indefinitely.

Serious question: Hood gets sick of all the flak he is getting, and of putting in loads of hours for no salary, and decides sod it...more to life than this.

We have already seen that no-one seems interested in coming in from outside. So Jack Bates takes over.

Are people any happier?

We should be looking for the next generation of top quality super league players and signing them on top class deals instead of journeymen who are past there sell by date IMO!
There is enough quality and experience within the club to bring such youngsters on.
Okay it might take a couple of years but buying big names offers no guarantee of immediate success either!

Or alternatively any unhappier.

Question I have been wondering, why are we such an unattractive club? Up until the last couple of years we have been one of the biggest clubs in the league and still we cannot find anyone willing to invest. Exactly how many directors do we now have left.. and how does this compare with the other clubs in SL?

Quite. I think I was misunderstood when I argued that I was against the straight-out sacking of MacNamara, even though I made it clear that I would be happy to see Mac replaced by a better, more experienced, more convincing coach, in a well-handled, affordable process. Likewise, I'd love to see a more charismatic, PR-savvy & rich chairman than Hood. But, no-one's putting their hand up. What's more, I suspect that Hood himself would like nothing better - as suggested by his earlier efforts to locate that very beast.

Bates; Agar; Coulby (vice-chair); Colin Tordoff (think he is director, not just President; check older accounts to see how much he loaned to the club then allowed the club to write off the loan: hell of a gesture when the club needed it); Ian Illingworth (newish...don't know much about him)

Bulls is unusual in that we have a former chairman owns about 27% of the shares (Caisley), the existing directors bring that up to a little over half, and just under half is owned by a host of small shareholders (and one or two not so small). You tend to find other clubs are either owned by one guy (who usually but not always appoints himself chairman) or by a small number of people who usually appoint themselves directors. The more enlightened owners tend to appoint professional managers to run the place.

And why would anyone want to buy in? What would they get out of it? You don't usually buy into rugby clubs to make money (go ask Wilkinson who has been bankrolling his beloved Salford since Adam was a lad). You usually buy in because you are a fan. Or sometimes because you like the idea of what you perceive as the status and kudos you think it brings. And its not that hard being a non-executive director, provided you are happy to put money in and not be worried about ever seeing it again. Its rather harder if you take on executive responsibilities (like Hood does) since you are likely giving up a load of your time as well as your money. To be abused by the fans whenever anything doesn't go as they want.

Caisley appealed for someone to buy his 27%. Last time I looked, years later, he still owned them. They don't ever pay dividends; you can't sell them on the open market, even if there was a buyer. Jack Bates may well feel the same, dunno.

Re: OP


Yeah, if only Hood had said that.