somebody who plays 7 times over the last 2 years can hardly get the chance to play well?

Understandable POV. Some might say, conversely, from their POV a shrewd one, for reasons they have given. But only the history books will record who called it right.

But I'm still not sure how this signing demonstrates "how low the club has fallen"? Since it seems clear from published comment that the club regards it as a shrewd rather than a strange signing? I still remain to be convinced that in some quarters people are not using this signing as another excuse to berate the club, which is why I'm uneasy at your choice of words tbh. Especially since you addressed my question only indirectly.

I will freely acknowledge that this signing is more speculative than some others, and is not without risk. But I also agree with those who point out that the likely terms of the signing mean that the risk (especially regarding cost) may be expected to be quite low relative to the potential benefits.

I have a sneaking feeling Reardon will prove to be our shrewdest signing for 2010. But if I am wrong, I suspect it won't cost us much to cut our losses. I'm quite happy with the club's actions if that is the case.

Wasn't Reardon Wire's top tackle-bust man in his first year with them? Also I think Cullen described him as the SL's best kick returner?

Injury and personal issues have without a doubt been to the forefront this last year or so but how do you judge the signing "strange"? It is a speculative signing, definitely, but it'll either work or it won't, and seeing as we aren't able to snap up the world's best, and probably won't have lost that much if it doesn't work out, I wouldn't describe it as "strange".

We all wish we had a crystal ball, but don't you at least agree that it [icould [/iwork out extremely well?

all i can say is give the guy a break.

mystic eddie i guess your one of these fans who slags players off on a forum as a keyboard warrior but when face to face with player will say hi mate hows it going

i know stuart well and he cant wait to get started at bulls.he did have offers else where but bradford is the place where he wanted to be.

Reardon's signing is risky? I'd suggest less risky than signing a 'big name' player from the NRL whomay have never been to this country, let alone Bradford;
isn't used to our dreary weather;
has no idea that summer rugby here starts in months with a high risk of sub-zero temparatures and snow
doesn't understand the implications of RL not being the premier sport, e.g. what that means for facilities, etc
doesn't know about the difference in the cost of living
and is earning a significant amount of the cap and taking up a quota spot
[/list

Who said you were allowed to come on here and talk a load of sense? That'll never do!

The Bulls also have previous in signing good players who are coming back from a serious injury - most have worked out well. At least we know Reardon, his talent, his general consistency. A good preseason and the coaching staff will see where he is in comparisonto the rest of the squad. This is a good deal for both parties IMO.

Plus, it's a while now since our backline packed a proper punch

(Yes appalling taste etc etc I know)

Hape looked like he might be a crock when he signed. Despite the injuries he subsequently suffered, he was well worth having.

Way to endear yourself to some on here, Stuart.

Would we have signed Reardon 3 - 4 years ago no, so why now. This signing is very similar to that of Nathan McAvoy in his 2nd stint and i can't remember every one been happing with that either.

Hows about you give the lad chance to prove himself before you throw him to the lions?

Happy to give the lad a chance but I'm really hoping he's seen as a squad player rather than a starter. Hope he's not the back they eluded to and there are more signings on the way

3 - 4 years ago?
You mean in 2005 or 2006?
He played for us in 2005. He spent a lot of time injured but despite this was selected for England and also the GB tour though he didn't play. So yes, I reckon we would've signed a current fringe international in 2005. And we made him a further offer in 2005, so the record shows that we would certainly have signed him

2006 he by all accounts had a good year with Wire. He only scored 4 tries in 22 games but 2 of those were against us, and was their top tackle-buster with 66.

Why do you reckon we wouldn't have signed him? I don't get it.

None of the squad should be "starters" the first 13 should be picked on form and if Stuart shows good form in pre-season, training and is one of our 5 best backs then he should start IMO.