So why did the club tell every thing financially is rosy at the fans forum like wise we was a senior member of the club telling supporters the exact same thing before the Huddersfield game. IMO the club needs to be more transparent with whats going on. It wouldn't excuse the performances of late but people may be more willing to accept it better if they know more of whats happening.

Er...I refer the honourable gentleman to the issue I have raised several times earlier!

There has to be a balance struck between providing realistic information and what makes sense commercially. As I said in an earlier post though, I think the club would benefit on balance by being a bit more candid with the fans.

I guess also that the club will now have a better idea of the likely attendances and income streams now the season has started. I also suspect that, like most businesses, the club realises the recession is going to be far far worse than originally expected and than most people still appreciate (I still doubt that more than a few percent of the population yet realise just how seriously our economy has been damaged, and for at least a generation). That's all conjecture on my part though.

The phrase "financially everything is rosy" was never used at the meeting.

Anyway since the meeting we have had the biggest finacial crisis since the last depression, and while I suppose it's possible, I don't think either McNamara nor Hood could either be blamed for it, nor could they have been expected to predict it. It's bound to hit all clubs hard.

I never said it had been used.

Yes you did.

No I didn't say that exact phrase had been said. I used it cover a few points that had been said to convey that message that indeeded everything was rosy.

Which one? Where we lost by a point?
I'd call the biggest collapse in super league history a pretty poor 2nd half.

It could back the arguement that Mcnarama hasn't won a "big" game yet.

Still speculation

Nobody is disputing the facts, including that Wigan got on a fantastic roll that we couldn't (quite) stop, and eneded up losing a match we should never have lost.

What is just weird though is to compare it with the abomination at the JJB. In the play-off game we played some absolutely fantastic stuff and looked like, and for a time were, playing Wigan off the park. So how can that possibly be validly compared with a performance like last weekend's? It deserves a mention in the book, of course, but not in the chapter of performances devoid of merit. The only connection is that Wigan won both, and there the similarity ends.

Ah. So you're not denying that you said they [isaid[/i everything is financially rosy, you are saying that you didn't [imean[/i to say that they said that, but meant that they [iconveyed the message[/i that everything is financially rosy.

You might not have meant it, but why deny you said it?

I'm sure there is some important difference between them actually [isaying[/i that everything is financially rosy and them [iconveying the message[/i that everything is financially rosy, but it just escapes me for the moment. Would you mind refreshing my memory and explain the point of the distinction?

IMO the first half was Harris's best performance for the Bulls.

May have been. Harris gave it to them good, but then they handed our Harrises to us in the second half

Of course. Silly of anyone to get that impression.