The other side to this is that if a club signs a player who performs above expectation his image attains a value. Rangi Chase would be an example at a club without a sugar daddy. Whilst the points about virtuous and vicious cycles are valid it remains the case that I cannot think of one player signed in the last 5/6 years whose 'image value' could be said to have increased whilst at the Bulls.



A further point is that image rights deals are surely traceable by the RFL and HMRC. If the players image was used to sell cars for instance, then it would be a simple matter to ascertain if the figure was out of keeping with other similar deals. I'm not arguing that this isn't a benefit but that the scale of benefit to a particular club needs to be kept in perspective. I've found no evidence of the 'French RL players don't pay tax' thesis.



The final and for me, key point is why when despite being years into a long and painful decline during which we astonishingly still get 10000 season ticket holders are we absolutely untouchable to the type of person(s) who routinely queue up to buy smaller, less well supported and hugely less successful clubs? There was a point on sunday afternoon when I felt the RFL deal to buy Odsal was a bad thing if only because it has underwritten more of the dreadful same. At the fans forum Paul Medley suggested we are being outbid for young talent by teams like Wakefield.



The tension here is between the management of the club and the ownership of the club and I'm not sure where theories on how other clubs circumvent the cap, as thorough and well explained as yours always are, really take us.

Shad Royston & Nick Scruton are 2 off top of my head. not to mention all the youngsters who nobody knew when we signed em

They've signed third party image rights deals have they?

You said you can't think of a player whose image value could have increased.



You didn't say you cant think of one who signed third party image right deals.



If you meant that, than fair enough. Put what you mean in future.

I think you are where we were last year with Morgan. We drew 36 all with a full strength saints with no halfbacks and no hookers for the last 10 minutes but when asked his thoughts on the game Sandercock went straight in with disappointment in the decision making in the last 5 minutes and if we defend like that next week wire will put 70 on us! I like the cut of his jib.

Hull made the top 8 last year, so lets take your plan of been "realistic" and not bothering to pur a performance up and getting hammered 50+ points against the top teams. So lets write off Warrington, Wigan, Catalans, Leeds, Huddersfield & Saints. So we are left with Widnes, Salford, London, Hull KR, Hull FC, Wakefield & Castleford. play each of them teams twice thats 14 games. We have to win all but one of them games to make the play offs. Thats not going to happen. If we were to win 10 of them games it would be an exceptional achievemnt. That means we have to beat the top teams if we want to make the play offs.

again, being realistic, its no surprise we lost to Wigan on the 3rd game of the season.



did you think we would win?



I expect the team to perform better against the big teams, but i'm prepared to let them get used to each other before branding the season a failure (after round 3).



Some fans expect us to sign class players and then finish top - lets not get carried away!



Look at the fixtures, our first 4 home games couldn't have been much harder. Let the players find some form, then we will see them competing with the top teams. Calling for potters head after round 3 just seems a little premature.

But like somebody said on another thread i think,



Its not potters fault with all the errors that are being made on the field and the penalties the players give away which leads to losing field position, you cant blame potter for:- tackling players in the air, holding down, knock ons, forward passes. not finding touch with a penalty or infact when a player gets injured,



Yes potter may of had a game plan but when a PLAYER misses a tackle and other players have to compensate for this it leave gaps ie. Crookes coming accross to stop richards then the ball being passed back over where crookes was no where to be seen,



Personally and this is only my OPINION but wigan made us look that bad cos on the day they really were that good, wigan are a fast team and have learnt how to have a fast play the ball and that is what run us ragged from breaking the line and us having to compensate out of position.



If that makes sense ha

[size=150ex·cuse/[/sizeikˈskyo͞oz/Verb: Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.



Noun: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.



[size=150clutching at straws [/size Out of desparation, the act of reaching or stretching for a solution, no matter how irrational or inconsequential. Literally - a drowning person who, unable to find any substantial floatation immediately at had, attempts to save himself from certain death by grabbing hold of a few stray pieces of straw floating on the water within arm's length.

I think it's fair to say that very few RL players have much value in term of 'image rights', but that is only of concern if the contract is a genuine commercial one. If, on the other hand, it is just a mechanism for a rich owner/backer to pay more money to a star player then the actual value of the rights is immaterial.



Of course, I go along with Adeybull that obviously, no-one involved in [iany[/i RL club would ever do such a thing.

I'm sure it goes off to a certain extent & I'm not particularly bothered if it brings in some top talent & stops them buggering off to yawnion. I can't decide whether the objections are to the principle of brown envelope payments or the fact that some directors don't have the rich friends who will make the payments for them.

I agree but as TT infers it is the role of management and directors to market the club and an association with it to the 'right' people.



I'm not suggesting it's a level playing but rather feel the debate should be more focussed on the reasons a club with all the advantages of the Bulls should be disadvantaged by the situation Adey has previously outlined rather than being able to benefit from it. There's another Andy Wilson piece in The Guardian basically asking how a club like ours can languish in the manner it is doing when to all intents and purposes it is as big a club as Leeds. I think it's time to look past the coach and salary cap and face up to the fact that the Bulls are a failing organisation because of fundamental issues in its boardroom and shareholding.