Wow, really didn't see this coming, but I'm pleasently surprised. A far greater prospect than Dowes, and much younger (and possibly cheaper) than both Dowes and Fielden. Good bit of business!

apart from the fact that fielden makes more yards, more yards per carry, more tackles, misses less tackles, makes more offloads and breaks 4 times as many tackles. Yup other than that Bryn is far better.

Fielden is currently a better player than Hargreaves. However not by nearly as much as the stats suggest.

And the big reason why a lot of folk would prefer the signing of Hargreaves is the age difference.

Said he was a better signing, not a better player. There's a significant difference.

This is a good signing a good up and coming young player.

I'm pleased for this signing, for many reasons already pointed out.

Never rated Hargreaves - Elima would have been a far better signing. Anyone who thinks he is better than Fielden needs their head read, although it is more debatable where he stands relative to Dowes who is more experienced but equally as average. I've seen a fair bit of Hargreaves in Leeds and Saints encounters over recent years and he's a player that has been regularly exposed and only made to look good on occasions by better players around him.

OTOH he will be a useful body to have in your squad and has age on his side, but I can't see him being anything more than an Ian Kirke type player for you (without the size). Still, every team needs players like this, and he should complement Lynch, Scruton and Kopczak well (I always thought you had been at least one prop short under McNamara). So maybe not so bad after all.

And before I get accused of trolling by the likes of FA (it has happened a lot more since I changed my username to include the word 'Rhino', may have to re-consider that ) I actually think the other signings made by Potter so far have all been good ones. So there.

I wonder if Sculthorpe is in the plans for next year. Hargreaves isn't a "big" signing so we'd still have 4 props plus Hall and possibly Burgess twins as back up.

Are some people having reading problems here?

I agree, he is not better than Fielden. But again I say, that's not what people are saying. They are saying he's a better signing than Fielden, because of his age. Difference between "better player" and "better signing".

In the same way that signing Elliott Whitehead may be considered a better signing than Steve Menzies. Menzies is undoubtedly the better player, but you're gonna get a lot more years out of Whitehead who is still improving.

There's also the "value for money" option, as no doubt Hargreaves is on less than Fielden.

Elima is still on his way apparently.

I really hope people are not seriously directly comparing Hargreaves with Fielden! And I suspect not many bradford fans are. As a player Fielden is better obviously. But he is therefore on proportionaly more of the available salary cap than hargreaves, I confidently suspect, so as a signing relative to his likely % of the cap and potential and usefulness to the squad....its a good signing.

We needed more options in the front row as we are light there for next year because as Exeter Rhino points out we have seemed light in the front row for a while. I would always go into a game with 4 specalist props, not 2 plus a youngster and a 2nd row who can play prop as we have done a lot over the last few seasons. To play 4 each week you need at least 6 front line props in the 25 man squad IMHO, a couple of whom can be promising youngsters, but all should be dedicated props, then use other forwards who can fill in when needed through injury such as Hall/Langley.

So. Lynch, Scruton, Koppy, Hargreaves, Sculthorpe, Crossley(?) would be an improvement on this year, especially if used in groups of 4. If sculthorpe can't play or leaves then we might need another prop unless/until we think one of the burgesses is ready to step into the "6th prop" squad spot....at least, thats how I'd do it.

Agree with all of that.

I've said the same about the comparison. No doubt Fielden is a better player than Hargreaves. But he would also cost more money and only had a limited amount of years left in the game. Hargreaves as a cheaper, longer term signing makes more sense.

I hope Sculthorpe does come back for next year. The idea of having Lynch, Scrutes, Scully, Koppy & Hargreaves all in the squad represents a much better option than this year imo. When all fit, it means you start 2, you have 2 on the bench, and you rest one. No need to burn out Lynch & Scrutes like has happened this year as they can be rested occasionally. Even if long term injuries kick in to stop that happening, you still have at least 3 or 4 established props to use alongside the likes of George Burgess and Crossley (if retained).

This year, we've lacked something in the front row due to a complete lack of option. Not helped by the Sculthorpe situation, but one injury shouldn't mean you have to burn out two players.

I'm sure you remember that Peter Hood negotiates the money side not the Coach!

Not what was said at the fans forum if I remember correctly.

Didn't Hood say that it was up to the coach how he spent the money on the salary cap? Therefore how much to offer a player is entirely decided by Potter.

Steady prop who will take pressure off Lynch and Scruton.