So as a fan your happy being lied to after buying a season ticket just so that they can get a sponsor. IMO they would be better saying nothing than the everything is rosy line which is often used when it's looking more likely that it isn't.

Yes, but it is also the Hull who will be competing in a major final for silverware and knocked out Bradford on their own patch to get there. Sing has had his fair share of injuries at Hull, and his lack of tries scored this season is no indicator of any lack of quality.



OK, even if you are laying it on a bit thick. You could also add the likes of Whatuira, Hicks and Webster to that list who have performed since coming to SL and are probably on much less than King. Why did Bradford miss out on them?



Feather was largely anonymous at both Leeds and Wakefield before Bradford signed him on a 3 year deal. When he's not been injured at Bradford he's continued to be anonymous. You don't have to be Mystic Meg to see he's always been poor.

As af said in an earlier post it's possible to find a middle way in communicating with fans and sponsors. It doesn't take a genius to get the tone right so that fans get a fair picture of where we are but remain on board and optimistic without making sponsors run for the hills.

All the "People's Team" stuff was about fans, directors, players all being in it together rather than the club being run by a small group out of touch with the view on the terraces. It's all about communication in the end. There have been a lot of knee jerk reactions on here but as time wears on and the team struggles when it ought to be doing better that thinking is going to gain more credence.

If the club want people to keep the faith then they need to think about acknowledging that things perhaps haven't gone as expected, shoulder some blame and then come out fighting with some plans on how things will improve in the short term and long term. A long term view is to be applauded but that shouldn't be at the expense of the here and now.

I remember back in 98 I got a long email from Matt Elliott that told me in no uncertain terms how hard everyone was working throughout that difficult season. He'd not dressed anything up and after reading it I had much more confidence in the future as it was obvious how much he was putting into things. I think we could do with that straight shooting approach now, it might not win everyone over but maybe it's worth a go?

Yes that's all the fans want a little more transparancey

No, I'm happy that the board are presenting the club in the best possible light in order to secure sponsorship and badly needed investment despite you and others running a campaign of no confidence. This is a basic element of business management which you clearly don't understand.

Year on year losses, the attempt at finding a big investor a la Caddick or McManus, Lenaghan, Moran or even Ken Davy, the pressure that Hood has sought to put on the council vis a vis the ground and the cost to the club. If you don't see that the board is in a very difficult situation then it's because something is blinding you.

Talk about twisting everything in a poor attempt to bolster a non-existent argument!
Hull got lucky/did well to get to the Final. Good luck to them, though they've no chance - but I dread to think what our Macnamanic depressives would be saying if we were 11th in SL.
as for Sing - you make this argument about injuries and think it is reasonable - yet you dismiss exactly the same argument about feather, whose injuries have been far worse.

I can't be arrsed checking but hasn't Sing got 2 tries from something like 15 games? I am not knocking him unduly and he has been a goo dplayer but really you can't criticize us for duff signings when your comparator has been so much worse.



Whatuira? I can't believe that you tout the failure to sign an ageing ex-NRL centre as a fault. One minute we never bring on any good British young uns, then we should be shipping in yet another mercenary pensioner. Still, if he's good enough for Huddersfield . . .

Hicks? We have easily the better signing in Tadulala.

Who is Webster? A failure in the NRL and playing so-so for a basement club. What would we want with Webster? Be sensible.



Feather may or may not turn out to be a good signing, but he can't have been viewed as that bad by Leeds who signed him for 4 years, and played him 12 games in 2006. He hasn't broken any pots, but seems to have broken just about everything else, and given his horrendous and unpredictable injury/illness problems it seems ludicrous to make a judgment on what he could be. As a 27 year old 6'4" 18 stone experienced forward I am sure he has the potential to be very good next year.

Whatuira is 27 hardly ageing is it at least he isn't 35 no team would ever sign any one that old would they. As for Hicks is that the same Hicks who has scored in every game this season.

For a back, yes, it is.


If they are a living breathing superfit top-of-their-game legend, yes. How many of those can you name?


But I'm not dissing Hicks. He's done OK. It's just that Semi is a better player.

So you wouldn't want Leon back then.
2 or 3 years ago maybe, but at the moment I'm still unconvinced about the impact this signing will have.
Sorry but Hicks is the far better player but each to our own.

Leon is 26 and (AFAIK) not Antipodean, but anyway who was discussing whether or not whoever would have whoever back or not?


Who cares if you're 'unconvinced'? Anyone can choose to comment only with the benefit of hindsight, like you, but what is the point? Menzies "2 or 3 years ago"? If you [ireally[/i think he's been past it for 2 years then with all due respect you have the rugby knowledge of a roasted peanut.


He isn't, but at least you agree that was one bad example by you.

What's being Antipodean got to do with anything you stated that 27 was past it. All i did was highlight the fact Leon is only two months younger than Whatuira so must be past it too.

Sorry but aren't you commenting with hindsight just because Menzies looks OK at Manly doesn't me he will be here.
Sorry your talking pap.

You used "past it", I did not. Don't make things up. It makes you sound even battier.

What being Antipodean has to do with it is that the Bulls are regularly criticized for recruiting Antipodeans esp. NZ players yet when it suits the same critics call them for [inot[/i going for every Antipodean player that breathes, and "letting" someone else sign some of them.

You're awfully confused about the hindsight point. If I talk about Menzies as a true legend of the game (which he is) how the fu.ck [icould [/ihe (or anyone) be, except "with hindsight"? Have you lost the plot totally?

Talking pap? You are the self-appointed expert in that.