That would be a dissaster Adey as i think that the RFL's agenda on franchises will possibly deem it almost impossible for clubs outside of the elite division at that time to get back in.

Agreed. If we lose the franchise its a one way ticket to oblivion.

Can't be allowed to happen.

Thanks for saving me time, as my post was going to be just about the same as that

So no mention of the decision to award Steve MacNamara a 4 1/2 year contract or any number of dumbfounding decisions on player recruitment and retention that the board, minus Chris Caisley, sanctioned in the last 5 years? The failure to sack Steve Macnamara 2 years after he was clearly not up to the job? The near constant spinning of information through unofficial channels so that figures like £3 million become accepted fact? The story about the club going bust but spending £100,000 on Solomona + Brett Ferres despite the club's policy of focussing youth? The loss of the world's best young forward because he couldn't get out of Odsal quick enough? The signings of Feather, Orford, Sykes, Glenn ? The utter capitulation in the face of Orford's agent? I could go on and on and on.

Why no mention of any of these decisions? How on earth is it Brian Noble's responsibility to balance the books of Bradford Bulls Ltd? It's an absurd charge to hold him responsible after all that has been totally ballsed up since he left? Was he the accountant? He was a good, hard working player who captained GB and never let us down and he is the club's most successful ever coach with the budget he was given which I would very much doubt was any different to Leeds, Wigan, Saints at the time. Your undermining of his achievements at the club is out of order and plain wrong.

I can't leave that as it stands, since I have to take issue with what you say. So I'll spend probably ten times as long on a reply as I spent on the original, quick post, which was in response to what seemed a genuine question about why the club had fallen so far so quickly. Readers who are understandably more concerned with how the hell we get out of the hole than how we got INTO it can skip this post.

OK. In no particular order. Do you know the full facts about what happened with Orford? if you know less than I do, then your statement about THAT is out of order and plain wrong.

Do you know how much it would have cost to sack MacNamara with two years left to go on his contract? And whether the club could have afforded it? If not, then you are as much out of order as you accuse me of being. I have argued repeatedly over the years not that Macca was a good coach and should be retained for that reason (I always said others were far better able to judge his coaching ability than me) but that the financial state of the club meant carrying effectively two head coach costs for two years could only come out of the playing staff budget. So it was the financial position that administration inherited that was the real issue. that was why I made no specific mention of the coach who succeeded Noble - and also since none of us will know the extent to which his failure (big time) at this club was down to his own inability or down to the wider financial problems - or, as I suspect, a mixture of both?

The board trusted MacNamara in his judgement regarding which players to sign. I know - from ftf discussion - that there was recognition towards the end that his judgement seemed to have been too often in error, especially over the likes of Sherriffe. But would we have been in the position we were in, and with the coach we had, if the financial situation was not so dire? Again, I blame the financial situation the club faced, and had to deal with, as being the underlying cause of much of the recent difficulties. I COULD have listed a whole stream of examples of WHY that financial situation so adversely affected the club, rather than what I saw as just some fundamental ones, and had I done so then I would certainly have stated the same point as you - albeit offering the board at least some excuse.

the £3+m figure? Er...that was quoted officially by Hood and widely reported in the media and never challenged or contested by Leeds Rugby Ltd. Which, given Leeds had recently retracted a statement by Hetherington that was otherwise libelous (the "coherse" affair) would surely have been open invitation to Leeds to demand retraction for defamation had it not been true? Given how badly if reflected on Leeds in the eyes of most non-partisan observers? I have anyway learnt enough about this affair over the years to have little cause to doubt the numbers.

We did not sign Brett Ferres. He was one of our youngsters who we managed to lose. Like a load of others, including Atkins and Reardon that happened under Noble, and too many since that SEEMED to be down to lack of money OR dumb signing decisions or both. IMO one of the most serious problems of the post-Noble era was our seeming inability to hold on to our upcoming backs in the face of offers from big-monies sugar-daddied clubs, and for whatever other reasons. I made this point in another thread the other day. When writing the comments that seem to have so upset you (and they were written as I said quickly and with no intent to be a blow-by-blow synopsis of the club's downfall) I mentally (again) attributed this big problem to lack of money. There may have been other reasons - I don't know and I doubt you do fully either - which, had I wanted to spend longer on my reply to the poster, I would have flagged up as an ancillary cause of us being where we are today.

Signing Solomona? Yes, with hindsight a huge disappointment. The guy appeared - like so many others - not to really want to be here. But that is with the benefit of hindsight. I recall at the time teh signing was almost universally applauded, and the RL Hacks almost to a man picked him out as a marquee signing for us that ought to make the world of difference. Would you not have us sign ANY senior players with clear ability as he had showed? Hindsight is all very well - we can all do that.

Regarding losing Burgess, if he could not wait to get out of Odsal quick enough why did he not go sign for Wire or Hudds or someone else seemingly with megabucks to spend? When instead he signed for Souths on what he suggested at the time was hardly a massively-better package than he could have commanded in the UK? No, he went because he had the opportunity of a lifetime, and took it! And was dead dead right to do so IMO - who could blame him for not? And, in the face of that, what would YOU have done? Forced him to see out the last year of his contract (and receive no transfer fee?)? Somehow found so much money to pay him that he could not afford to follow the lifetime's opportunity? Come ON now!

We can all point to what we may regard as poor signings, without crediting those that turned out better than expected. That is as out of order and plain wrong as what you accuse me of. Orford was a disaster with hindsight (albeit minor compared to Harris), but who could have known that at the time? Most of us were pretty excited at the signing. It is downright disingenuous to beat the club over it with the benefit only of hindsight.

Equally, how could anyone have known that Hall would not work out? It SEEMS much was down to the personal tragedy that befell just before he moved here. Recognise it did not work out by all means, but again it is disingenuous to beat the board up over a signing that again most people were content with at the time.

Feather I never expected to work out - too soft. Although he did better after he left us. Not a signing I would have made, but signing mistakes get made. There were worse ones than that made. By all clubs.

Sykes - the guy holds his hands up to play wherever they tell him to. Not the best player we have, but one that adds to our options. IMO he is the latest scapegoat, and not entirely justified. You clearly think otherwise.

Why no mention of the above? Either because I do not agree, or because I saw a more deep-rooted underlying cause, or because I wrote my reply quickly and late at night. And in a lot less time than this reply is taking. That is why.

In the same way, I never mentioned the oft-reported comments that Noble "lost the plot" second half of his last full season, hence our performances deteriorating, and that it was MacNamara who had to step in and motivate the players so we got to OT. If he DID (and I have been told that but have no direct proof) then I always attributed it to him being told that he would have a lot less funds to utilise in future than he had been used to. And so at least explaining if not justifying what happened. I did not mention it because it - like some of YOUR points - if true it seemed to me to be detail and symptoms not underlying cause.

Where did I say I hold him repsonsible for all that has gone wrong since? Or seek to undermine his achievements? All I said was that we had a head coach who bought success by spending (and I stated it was backed by the Chairman) beyond our means. You cannot argue that, with a team full of internationals, we must have bought a lot of that success? Same way as the sugar-daddied clubs have been doing in recent years? He spent the budget he was given; the fault with giving him a budget seemingly beyond the club's means lies eleswhere. It is my opinion that Noble is a very effective coach when he has a first-rate squad of players at his disposal, and I yield to no-one in saluting his fantastic achievements whilst our Head Coach and in that environment. I fear he would NOT be effective when the pursestrings - and the for the support functions not just the playing staff - are tight, and the club is no longer a big attraction for top players. For that, you'd be better off with a John Kear-type IMO. And that, plus the previous point, is why I would not want him back now as Head Coach - I just do not think it would work. Although yes, in fairness, as yet we do not seem to have found any solution that DOES.

But you are attributing to me things I never said, and THAT is out of order and just plain wrong.

I won't get into debates about the budget Noble had to work with, and how it compared to other clubs. I recall commentators in 2003 (in particular) posing the question how Bradford managed to afford a team full of internationals like we did, but that is a debate best not carried out on an internet forum.

The reasons for our decline in recent years will always be a matter of personal opinion. You clearly have different opinions to me, and in the past have come across as very close indeed to the Caisley camp - same way as the poster "Duckett" on the T&A, for example. it is of course your right and prerogative to express those opinions, although I would prefer you not to ascribe to me things I never said. And if you choose to use hindsight to justify your stance, as you have done above, I cannot complain - since my views on why it all went wrong were formed largely with the benefit of hindsight too (although the worrying financial signs were very apparent from the first accounts after our return to Odsal).

I would HOPE we all have the same aspiration for the future - a renaissance for the club on the sort of scale that was achieved under Caisley at the start of SL (which massive achivement has been, like those of so many other visionaries and leaders, overshadowed by the subsequent failure). The fact that things look pretty gloomy right now unfortunately only encourages people to spend too much time debating why it went wrong in the first place. I so hope it will not be long before we can recapture the optimism and buzz that were there a few months ago - and I am sure you do too?

Given that I agree with most of your post, I would like to pick you up on a point of information, before someone else does so as part of an intended demolition job. Ferres did not leave under Noble, but under MacNamara, as part of the Solomona deal. And Atkins' departure straddled the reign of the two. He was loaned to Wakefield under Noble, and the loan was made permanent under MacNamara.

The continued use of the term 'bought' in reference to the clubs success under Noble is a clear and purposeful attempt to smear his achievements. At best it suggests they were not earned on the pitch of play and at worst it suggests corruption. This is unfair and incorrect.

Returning to your original post. What does this paragraph actually mean?
'Chairman and head coach went. A lot still to be said about that time, but from the things I hear and saw there is no way I would ever want either back. And go ask yourself why Fielden really went? One day it will come out in the autobiographies.'

To refer to the cost of sacking Macnamara whilst not accepting that the board's decision to give him a 4 1/2 year deal was extraordinary and disastrous is, in my view, more than just a simple omission.

'We did not sign Brett Ferres. He was one of our youngsters who we managed to lose.' This is plain wrong. He was used in the deal to get Solomona after stating he didn't want to leave.

I've never heard Hood make a statement in the media stating that the Harris affair cost the club £3 million but if he has I'll accept it. Despite this we have spent the full salary cap in all but one of the years SM was coach.

On Burgess, I have no doubt that he been at Wigan, Leeds, saints he would have waited until later in his career to pursue a career in Australia.

I don't know precisely what happened in the Orford affair because it is covered by a confidentiality clause in order to prevent the fans from knowing exactly what happened. That kind of makes the point I'm afraid.

We've already debated the 'sugar daddy' issue before but it remains my view that the reason we don't have one is that the club is not, and never has been up for sale.

As per usual when you are challenged on your official history you return to this paranoid nonsense of who is close to which camp. For your information I've never met Chris Caisley in my life. Many of the points you make are salient and correct. However, by not making one single reference to the decisions of the administration post-Caisley. you absolve the current BOD for a series of decisions which have been extremely poor.
In doing so, a more cynical person would suggest you are the unofficial means by which the current administration tells the supporters what it is not prepared to say publicly.

I think all players do in training, is run at pads, i genually think all they do is what they do in the warm up before a game.

Yes indeed, I'm sure that's all Potter has them doing all day

Do you believe that all the squads of the clubs who spend the full salary cap cost the same? Because I don't.



I don't care where he had been playing, if Russell Crowe had turned up and offered him a once in a lifetime opportunity to move in Australia he'd have taken it.



And you assume it is the club who put in this confidentiality clause? Couldn't possibly have been put in by the other side?

I'll spend more time addressing your points for the same reason I did previously. Those not bothered please skip.



Please don't accuse me of something I have stated is not what I said and is certainly not what I meant. What part of "I yield to no-one..." is hard to understand? Yet we enjoyed the success we did because we had the best team in the competition - nearly all internationals for one spell. How did we do that We bought in talent and ability. Bought in rather than developed in-house, in the main, although we WERE very successful at bringing in players with great potential. In those days we clearly had the money to do that. Or the means to secure outside funding for players. Like most clubs who are serially successful in most sports, we were able to buy success. And that includes coaching staff! I am sure Noble cost much more than McNamara, for example. We were able to pay for talent there too! And in the support functions. BUT we were buying that success - for heaven's sake surely even the most ardent Noble admirer would not claim that it was only Noble's coaching that made the difference? And not money?

As for your introduction of the term "corruption", well that is twice now in one paragraph that you have sought to defame me. I neither said nor implied any such thing.



I already mentioned one of the things I had heard, re Noble, and I explained another - regarding where I judged his skill set to be. I have heard a number of other things (not re Noble) that I cannot debate on here either without clear proof or because no good would be done by it. Including regarding the Harris debacle. And re Fielden, conventional wisdom is that he he left because he no longer wanted to play for us and was attracted by a lot more money. I have long felt this could be less than fair to Fielden, since I have strong suspicions (shall we say?) that the club needed the cash, and quickly. But, as I said, we will likely have to await the autobiographies, since (for my own part at least) I have not been able to get to the bottom of all that went on in that few weeks, and I some of my own guesses could well be wide of the mark.



Hold on. The board gave him that contract 2 1/2 years before you say he should have been sacked. The awarding of the contract was a judgment call by the board, that that with hindsight looked to have proved a poor one. And the board may well have worked that out after 2 1/2 years. But that is something totally different to my point, which is that - (assuming) having recognised 2 1/2 years later that you got the call wrong, where was the money to come from to pay him off? Your point relies on the benefit of hindsight; mine just a recognition of what I believe were commercial realities. You again seem to be choosing to read far more into what I said (or did not say) than is there.



Someone who I regard as a totally fair and reasonable poster has already pointed out my memory failure here. I actually mentioned Ferres because your post read as if we had signed him as well as Solomona! But, having cleared that up, I was actually being critical of the club for letting a potentially talented youngster go! As indeed I made pretty clear elsewhere that I was regarding all the other young backs we have failed to retain. Regardless of fault. And indeed, was it not widely reported that Caisley offered Langley and Reardon to Wakey for Ellis, behind Noble's back, and Noble had to undo the damage that caused when he returned? The point I was trying to make was that losing young talent has not been the preserve just of the post-Caisley administration.



I'll leave it to the archivists on here to dig out the media articles - and the transcript from the fans forum at which IIRC it was first stated

You may have no doubt, but I suspect most reasonable observers would expect Sam to have done what he did regardless of club. The opportuniy hte had was simply too good to turn down IMO. In support of this, if you were correct how come we have not heard Sam slagging off Bradford since he went? Either officially or through the twittersphere or whatever?



I have to be careful with what I say here. Suffice it to say that to suggest that any confidentiality clause (you seem to know of one) in in Orford's release was put there solely to fool the fans is deluded IMO. For reasons I most definitely cannot go into - and that includes information that did NOT come from the club - I am quite satisfied that the club played hardball for as long as it could, but in the end took the only sensible decision for totally pragmatic and prudent reasons.



In that, you are therefore calling Hood a liar. Because he stated categorically in the media that the club would welcome a big outside investor, and that he was more than happy to pass over the (then) acting chairmanship. I have taken what Hood said at face value, you believe he lied. Only Hood and his colleagues know which of us is right.

And, for that matter, did Caisley himself not openly solicit an offer for his shares and outside investment?



Another of these irregular verbs, is it? "I express an opinion; you talk paranoid nonsense"? I have been careful not to accuse you of talking nonsense of any kind - strangely enough, even if I strongly disagree with you if its a view you hold then to dismiss it as nonsense is conceited at best.

You don't have to have met someone to be in their camp. I am regularly very close in views to one camp or another in matters of current affairs - even though I never met any of the participants. And indeed, I was a very strong supporter of Caisley myself (attracting no end of flak on internet forums for my sins) until some things came to light that left me feeling badly let down. I HAVE met Caisley btw, and been in formal meetings with him.



That was because, as I explained, rightly or wrongly I have attributed most of the the more recent problems to the severe financial constraints inherited. I have seen for myself Hood Duckett and Duffy working their balls off over recent years to try and keep the ship afloat. The contributions of those directors now retired from the Board I cannot speak for. What with hindsight appears to have been much the biggest mistake - not addressing the coaching issue far sooner - I have already expressed my views on. But bear in mind a well-received change of head coach seems to have made little difference so far - maybe we should attack the board again with hindsight?

I have already been critical of allowing promising youngsters to leave - but again I attribute much of that to financial constraints. And I think with some justification.



By which you mean that is what YOU are suggesting? Indeed, sometimes I will try and relay things as best I can I have been told or have learnt - as do others on here that club officials deem it OK to talk to. And if I say something that is way wrong on here, it is not unknown for a club official to put me right - sometimes quite unequivocally.

But most of what I have said is from my own observations or reflects the views I formed from all the different sources of information - especially matters financial where any skilled reader of a set of accounts would reach the same conclusions that I did. Other than at the fans forum, I have spoken or had email exchanges with club officials on at best a couple of of occasions this year.

Where I DO tend to pile in is where I believe - sometimes I know, but more often I believe - injustice is being done. And in doing so I risk my own credibility - with the club as well as with other readers - if I get it badly wrong. That is why I only express opinions on off-field matters when I I believe I know or have deduced enough of the facts to avoid doing so.

Anyone who knows me will attest that I am far too independently-minded and bolshy to be anyone's unthinking mouthpiece. And that if I ever find I have been lied to, then the trust is gone forever.

spot on Adeybull, and congratulations on not getting fed up with having to focus on raking up history rather than focusing on the future and how we get back to where we can and should be, step by step by step. The first one of which is to win the next three SL games. It should be apparent then who in the squad wants to put a full shift in on the pitch, and who needs moving on.

On the financial front, as it clearly is such an important aspect of recent history, if anybody has a set of the accounts over the last few years I will happily do a detailed analysis of them and publish my findings as a thread. the last seven or eight years worth should do it but as many as possible will do

See PM.

I think the term 'bought' would be viewed as a pejorative in any defamation case despite your attempted explanation.

I never accused Peter Hood of being a liar although you make a strong case for such a charge. According to your analysis the board didn't sack SM because they couldn't afford to pay the two years of his contract that sacking him would have demanded 2 1/2 years into his 4 1/2 year contract.However, during 2009 and even in early 2010 Peter Hood publicly backed SM and even stated that he would be offering SM an extension prior to SM accepting the England job. These are mutually exclusive positions you suggest Peter Hood occupied. Personally, I don't think Peter Hood lied. I don't believe they considered sacking him at all. In fact they backed his judgement with many further signings and this deserves to be called a profound error.

On the further point of 'sugar daddy' I refute the suggestion I called Peter Hood a liar. If I have a wheelbarrow for sale for £1million I still have a wheelbarrow for sale. That we haven't attracted an investor/buyer when clubs with fractions of our support base and success do attract such, is inexplicable and whether investors have been notionally sought or bids solicited is immaterial.

I'm pretty certain I've told you previously I had no associations with 'camps' or 'agendas' as you occasionally call dissenting views.

I accept the financial situation inherited by BOD was very poor with mounting losses. That it has been used as an explanation of every single poor decision since is, in my view, misleading and it is this I was seeking to correct in your original post.

Do top soccer clubs"buy" success by recruiting the best - and usually therefore amongst the most expensive - talent available? Of course they do. Did the Bulls "buy" success by doing likewise? If you look down the teamsheets of the early noughties, I suggest most people would say the same?

Indeed, that is exactly what many DID say - I recall any number of forum arguments with fans of other clubs who accused us of doing precisely that rather than developing our own talent. After we got past Pryce Fielden and Deacon we sort of ran out of players to counter the argument with, although we made at least a case for bringing in overseas players like Withers and Hape who whilst doubtless expensive at the time were "finds" when on cheaper packages.

It wasn't me who said the board wanted to sack Macca earlier but could not. I used your timings, and repeated what I said for much of that period at the time to those who wanted him sacked -to sack him could prove prohibitively expensive. I also said at the time that to recruit a (overseas) replacememt of the kind whose names were being bandied about by fans could likewise prove prohibitively expensive. And the two together possibly ruinous.

Hood never, IIRC, said specifically he would be offering Macca an extension? Indeed, according to Connor it was the fact that the club had NOT discussed extended terms with him that put us at serious risk (yes, he actually said and felt that at the time!) of losing him. It seemed pretty apparent to many of us at the time that the board were divided on the issue. And I Do know, from discussion and as I said earlier, that by the end the board had certainly realised that we had been spending a lot of money on some mediocre signings. I won't repeat on here specifics, but one or two others reading this will know what I refer to since they were there. I think there is now an understanding there that the coaching decision was proved a mistake, but also that it was not all Macca's fault.

But - and I come back to my original point! - I believe the decision to appoint a relatively inexperienced Macca instead of making an offer he could not refuse to an expensive antipodean was almost certainly driven by money. I am sure that, had the finances not been going into meltdown, once such would have been sought. So again - whilst it is quite clear to most people now, with hindsight, that the board made the wrong decision, I remain unmoved from my original assertion that the causative factor was lack of money! Which, again is why I cited that as the fundamental reason we fell from grace. Appointing a head coach who, in the event, did not seem up to the job was a symptom - albeit a pretty big one - not the cause.

And I have spent heaven knows how long now trying to get across why I said what I did in a simplistic post written in haste in the small hours to try and answer a question in as simple terms as I could! If you want to debate the definitions and attributions of symptoms and causes further, it won't be with me.

You said that in your opinion the club was not, and never had been, up for sale. I said that contradicted what Hood said publically. You have now changed your stance to argue (I think) that the club cannot have been up for sale because we never attracted a buyer??? I'll let the readers be the judge of that. And no, you did not expressly call Hood a liar - but what you said made it clear you believed him to be.

In fact, I will now qualify it with something I am surprised you did not throw back at me. In fact, technically and if being pedantic, you were right. What Hood asked for IIRC was someone to step in with a major investment. That MAY have led to an acquisition of a majority shareholding - and therefore the sale of the club by the selling shareholders - but it need not necessarily have done. Remember Hood is chair yet has only a small percentage of the shares, and an incoming investor need not necessarily have become the majority owner - although I think most folk would expect that to be the case. But anyway, its academic because - for whatever reason - the big benefactor did not appear.

On your last point -in fact I can't argue with that, and nor could any reasonable person. To seek to blame EVERY bad decision on the financial situation - directly or indirectly - is clearly not just misleading but absurd. And I have not sought to do so! And had you begun your original rebuttal of my post with those words, maybe we'd not have had such need to enter into War and Peace on here over it!

But I attributed the biggest of the wrong decisions (although pursuing the OSV may yet prove - again with hindsight - to be another such) primarily to the financial situation - although only the participants know the truth or otherwise in this. And used it to help explain the restrictions which affected some of the other decisions taken, such as losing the academy products, a point which in fact I first introduced. And that - again - was the reason I did not list what I saw as symptoms not causes in my original post that you took such exception to. And I stand by that.

And, since I am sure anyone who has made it this far must be bored to tears by now, I'll leave it at that and for to you to have the last word should you wish.