That's what I mean. Just as it is still a rumour. The line of 'considerable interest' has been around for months

From his twitter account just now -

"Paper talk nowa days, lol love to no who's writes these things"

Yes it's no secret that Warrington want John Bateman and it's also no secret that Bateman's agents are the Clarke brothers.

Hence Phil using Sky Sports to inflate the contract value - although John's performances have seemingly done that without the need for Phil to compare John to a young Andy Farrell.

The problem with selling yet another crown in our jewels is obvious - it disengages the clubs core support.

Although I'd ask everyone to think about this:

"If selling John Bateman to Warrington for the rumoured £250,000+ secured the long term future of the club while categorically meaning the club also avoided administration, could you live with such a decision to sell John Bateman?"

Heartbreakingly I could live with such a decision.

I will be gutted if we let this guy go its mad we should be making room for our young guns these are the future of the club and the ones that will take us back to our glory days. This lad could easily be the next Andy farrell if we give him time and dont rush him. The bradford board want if they let him go to another club. the last thing we want to be is second fiddle or a feeder club to the money clubs. If we turn into that we will never rise to the top again. Wigan are a club who were at the bottom when Noble joined but with the increase in home grown talent and keeping there young talent they rose to the top again, Bradford need to do the same.

Bateman's Twitter puts it all to rest.

The only 'vultures' that are circling are the press. But, like Bullseye mentions, Hood's communication skills are appalling, if indeed the comments have been made recently.

It would have to be explained in those terms, which unfortunately would lead to a situation where the club have something to say and we'd have something new from those shysters to not believe.

Sounds quite simple to me? Hood is telegraphing that for the club to survive without the required level of outside investment, Bateman will have to be sold. He's basically challenging Caisley to come up with the necessary investment so that sale can be avoided?

Incidentally, if you were Bateman's agent (Phil Clarke's brother), you would be grossly negligent IMO if you did not advise your client to hold off signing any contract with ANYBODY right now. His value - for an extended Bulls contract or to Davy or Moran and their bottomless pockets and boundless munificence, will likely only keep on increasing. The longer you leave it, the more he is likely to be able to command, whoever he plays for. And you would DEFINITELY not want him to be coerced into being part of a forced sale?

Any bid from Warrington I would imagine is for next year onwards or at least a loan back agreement. This year, I believe we are at full cap already but could be wrong. Huddersfield too if you believe the Lunt scenario was to make cap space available.

See Adeybulls post above for the reason Peter Hood is making all this enter the public domain.

Although the club have stated that £1,000,000 needs to be found by the end of May in order for Bradford Bulls to continue as a entity, in Peter Hoods first interview on the financial plight - he did state that £800,000 would be enough to see the club steady the ship through the rough waters.

Now you do the maths:
£520,000 raised via pledges and fundraising leaving £280,000 to find should no investment be forthcoming.

Administration or sell John Bateman is what Peter Hood is basically telling us.

Er, the last person who speaks to Peter Hood writes these things John. First Wilson in The Guardian and now The Sun.

I have to agree regarding the lunt scenario. the reason for the Moore purchase must of been to make space on the cap system. I could not imagine Hudds would have the space available for bateman unless the throw in a house and car

I've seen it. The simple fact is that if Peter Hood said "Hello, I'm Peter Hood" I'd call him a fscking liar. I'm not making a comment on the Bateman situation, here or in my previous post. I'm just saying that no matter what they say now, nor how many people with an inside track help in the explaining, literally nobody will believe them.