Sounds better than "treated like crap".

As I suggested earlier, I firmly believe that some people within the halls of "HQ" were secretly hoping for a failure from England so that they could blame the "convert". He was a dead man walking from the start and I am not surprised he has gone back to a game and a team where he is appreciated and adored.

Sam Burgess did not cost England a shot at the RUWC whatsoever. It was caused by a mixture of arrogance, bad decision making and pre-historic tactics that tend to avoid doing the things that often helps win games of rugby - scoring tries.

Despite playing all the meaningful games at home, they lost two out of three (scoring a massive 2 tries in the process against the bigger nations of Australia and Wales) and, quite frankly, are nowhere near as good as they think they are.

Every tournament with an England team (in any sport) is the same. They get over-hyped by the media, balls it up, then the same media point the finger of blame at someone in order to "save face." Burgess was the obvious and easiest target as he was not an Old Etonian.

He is absolutely spot on. England Rugby Union have always been an utterly loathsome organisation. This is an association that continued to make a drug supplier their captain and still employ him in some capacity. They look after their own and seem to have deep suspicion of all "incomers".

Unions' loss is Leagues' gain.

Unsurprisingly, it hasn't taken Sam long to start to reveal what we all knew:

Don't sell the game short it's quite big in Auckland as well! Though admitted last season the Warriors and Sam -" I will stand around at the back" Tompkins did not set the world on fire, but the Kiwi's stuffing the Aussies this year was major news. I watched most of the RUWC matches mainly as it is against the law not to in NZ and did think most of the 2nd tier nations would be more suited to playing RL - especially the Japanese and the Islanders. Interestingly apart from celebrating the AB's win down here the main talk was if the Springboks had gone all Hansie Cronje in their first match?

"A bomb placed under the West Stand at Twickenham would set back the cause of British fascism by 50 years" - Philip Toynbee.

When I read his column in the Mail and he mentioned ex-players having 'agendas' I thought what an odd turn of phrase. As if they wanted him and England to do badly rather than them pointing out the absurdity of picking him in the first place. I got the weirdest feeling of deja vu. Like I was on this board 6 years ago when anyone who suggested the club was a plane crash waiting to happen was judged to be part of conspiracy with Chris Caisley in an 'agenda' to destroy the club.

WTF? You just made that up! Plus, Caisley didn't need an agenda, as ultimately signing Harris did the job all by itself.

Well, it definitely didn't help our cause, though I confess I have CC down as delusional, rather than having any particular 'agenda'.

Mistakes, like spending on the basis that bigger names in the side would inevitably lead to ever bigger crowds and increasing income, and then, [iblaming the people[/i for not turning up to make his dream a reality, did it for me.

Which bit? Sam Burgess in the Mail? People from within the club acting through one particular poster on this board to smear/silence any criticism by fictitious associations with the 'Dark Knight'?

Figures on Harris were published and were nothing like those which were touted on here, which of course was all part of it.

The is one Teflon Coated Tube still at the club who regularly used his Reading based poisoned dwarf to come on here and shout anyone down who dared speak out about the club in any way shape or form.

This is a guy who quite happily duped some of the clubs' most loyal supporters over signings and through his mouthpiece encouraged myself (who has openly admitted to suffer from depression) to go away and commit suicide.

Yet still he sits and steals a wage from a club who have been in almost terminal decline whilst he has been in his role.

I find it curious that people want to "hide the truth". Obviously they must be doing something wrong therefore.

However, as I have oft alluded to, there have been too many people who masquerade as fans "of high standing" that, instead of using their "influence" to speak out about the lies and mismanagement over the years, preferred to come on to board like this and stop people from stating the bloody obvious. I have always found it curious that myself, based here in Central Scotland, could see what was going on when others, who were happy to tell all how "respected" they were and were always at club events etc. appeared to be blissfully ignorant of it all. This kinda suggests that they either,

a. knew absolutely sod all despite conning people into trusting them
b. were so pre-occupied with brown-tongueing the establishment that they did their dirty work for them on here, or
c. were just blatantly telling lies.

Sad really.

I find the idea of adults on this little forum feeling that any one poster could "silence" them quaintly ridiculous. How old are these victims - 12? What a load of tosh. People say what they think, and one problem on here is some convince themselves that if they don't like X, then there must be a conspiracy to push X.

I neither know nor care if anyone acts "from within the club" or from without fscking Pluto, they are just another poster, and surely you can engage in debate with anyone whoever they are and whatever their motivation? You might be Putin's plant or Nigel Wood's mouthpiece, what difference does it make if we are discussing any given thing?

And if the club - or any club - wanted to have a voice on a forum focussed on, er, that club, what the hell is wrong with that? If they wanted to do so by anonymous proxy, again - so what? Are you saying that any views by or on behalf of the actual Bradford Bulls club and management should be banned from the Bradford Bulls forum? That's weird.

Also, what is your point on the Harris figures? And what are they"nothing like"? I don't get it. My point was that basically Caisley got Harris to get one over Hetherington, it spectacularly backfired both internally due to the strife it caused plus Harris whilst OK wasn't actually that good any more, and went even more seriously wrong at the point when for reasons that have never been made public the Bulls suddenly decided to cave, and pay a huge amount of damages to Leeds, over several season, which btw was all paid in full in hard cash, plus similar sums for legal costs. Shortly after completing these payments we went tits. Had we not done in all that cash in cold blood, maybe we wouldn't have gone tits, who knows.

I don't see any problem in people from the club coming onto the board, either incognito or as 'Bulls Official' or even a club spokesperson under their own name. I think it would be daft, not to at least read what people are saying, and to correct some of the rubbish spouted. Though, of course, you could hardly do that anonymously.