I can't see what the problem is. He was only in prison for fraud. Not like he beat up a pensioner or anything .

Didn't Bradford get Ellery Hanley out of prison too? And if I recall that was for something worse than Raynor.

Should be an interesting one for you. It might come off. Good luck to you, if he still has his pace he will still be a dangerous player. Just don't give him the contract to supply your offices with ink cartridges .

IIRC didn't Raynor also get in trouble for assaulting a bouncer at a strip-club?

Not sure how I feel about this to be honest.

To be fair, he seemed to start the season well for Crusaders and a one year deal seems makes it seem like a decent enough risk. As has been said, he's not the youngest for a wing but still prbably good enough to tide us over for a year whilst we continue blooding the youngsters.

don't remember that. I remember Bailey and Walker doing something like that though.

Suspended sentence (not sure who or where), activated because of his later indiscretion.

Think that just about covers it. I don't think Walker and Bailey's attack was racially motivated.

Raynor seems to be a gamble worth taking to me. Reardon was another gamble that didn't pay off but which i supported, but that was on the basis that he had been one of the best attacking fullbacks in SL, and I still reckon if we had told him we believed he still was, and played him there, he could have done OK. Still, we'll never know, but playing him out on the wing was always a mystery to me, and maybe something which didn't do anything for either his confidence or his enthusiasm. He wasn't even a shadow of the player he used to be.

Whereas Raynor will definitely play in his position, he's a winger and that's that. Sheriffe has been unfairly maligned to a large extent on here, but if you want to analyse the merit of Raynor, even Rikki would probably privately agree that Raynor's credentials to play on the wing, even at 32, are several factors better than his.

na, just 2 morons with too much beer inside them. I reckon you could get a decent team out of all the players who have done time over the years.

rlDaily Mirror reportrl briefly summarising the "assault" charge at the time.

If Macca had made the signings Potter has, there'd be steam coming out of this forum. The only element that is making it palatable is the constant refrain "we've got to trust Potter". Of the 7 signed, 5 of them are punts.... I'd prefer to have put their salaries together and made one signing. If, so far we'd signed Elima, Hargreaves, L. Pryce, with news of a couple more to come, I'd have been chuffed. At the moment I'm just bemused. I can see why othe Bulls fans are cheesed off and why the top 5 Clubs this season must be confident of finishing above us again next season.

Are they? Or is it just you on a wind-up?

The team clearly needed a number of more experienced bodies. That is what has been signed. We all saw what happened when money went into a marquee player last year, with a very thin squad as a consequence.

And anyway, Bulls have got no God-given right to be in the top 5. Most Bulls fans (fekkwittry excepted) believe making it into the top 5 next year would be a big ask regardless of who we sign, given the major rebuilding.

Fair point that.

The biggest difference for me is that Macca signed "these sort of players" (if you assume they're the same sort) as the first choice for their position and with no backup. Like Sheriffe & Reardon for example who were clearly first choice wingers but didn't really have anyone else pressing them at the time, except for untested youngsters. Potter has signed these players aswell as others to compete for positions.

Every club who plays by the rules has a choice to make. You can either have superstars but no quality backup, or you can have more "average solid" type players in greater numbers, so that if injuries hit, it's not such a big thing.

Potter has clearly chosen the second option. Macca seemed to pick a mixture of the two where he put average players in key positions without backup (with obvious exceptions).

I think that's the main reason why I personally would consider this a better chance of success than Macca's efforts.


Then there's the obvious thing as well that people are giving a new coach a chance before criticising, in the same way you give a player a chance before condemning him. If Macca was still here and signing these players, nobody would have confidence he could bring the best out of them because of a poor track record in that field.

TBF they would probably hold that view even if we'd signed Leon, Lockyer and brought Sam back given the direction we've been heading in.

No one was fuming when Macca signed Sherriffe or Reardon or Worrincy IIRC, plenty of slightly underwhelmed responses but hoping the coach can bring him on, worth a punt type signings. In hindsight that was wrong, now we have a new coach, hoping he can bring on some new squad/punt players and signings. The difference is at this stage we know Macca probably wouldn't get the best out of Ainscough, Ah Van, Raynor etc, but Potter [imight[/i so there is no valid case as we stand today to not trust the judgement of Potter at this moment regarding squad signings and punts.

So yes if Macca made these sigings today after underperforming for years then yes we probably would be upset, but its not Macca making the signings, its Potter, so we're not...(mostly at least)