i dont have a solution chaps. im just saying il be glad when hes gone because hes been a disaster.

Please clarify WHY he's been a disaster. Is it because he signed a player who had an agreement to go back to another club when returning from rugby union and caused a long term financial hamstringing of the club and lead to the loss of several of our top stars due to lack of funds to give them improved deals or allowed them to play in their prefered position?
Oh wait, that was Caisley who turned tail and ran for the hills when it became clear the club were going to get screwed on the deal.

Hood has taken a club that was circling the drain financially and turned us round to where we might not be making huge profits but at least we're not reliant on the largesse of a chairman to survive (something pointed out on the rfl's licence summaries about several other clubs in SL). That's something that's been long discussed on here.

There was also the reshuffle of the board earlier this year, which several people have forgotten about or seemed to. It was something that needed doing as stream lined several board room process, not least of which was signings which I believe had in the past caused us to miss out on players due to not all the board being available for meetings or to give their vote to agree on the signing of players.

I personally don't think Peter Hood should go at present because there is simply NO-ONE around at present to replace him with. IF, and it's a large if. In fact, if you got a moment, it's a twelve-storey if with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof, saying 'This Is a Large If' we manage to get a sugar daddy then at that point perhaps Hood should step down dependant on who the new boss fella was bringing in.

I know there are some on here who like to blame Peter Hood for our current situation, but really all he's to blame for is the fact we still have a club to support.

Trouble is, there are some who refuse to recognise the financial realities regardless. The type that if they had set their minds on the earth being flat, nothing whatsoever you could say or do or prove would shift them. Its like on the Sin Bin, where the ruling elite are consistently in denial of financial and other inconvenient truths that are staring them in the face. You waste your time trying to explain.

I really wish that, at some fans' forum, Hood could stand up and tell everyone exactly how it was and how it is. Without having to worry about non-disclosure agreements and privacy rules and causing problems for the RFL and heaven knows what other constraints including worrying about the effect his words might have on people dealing with the club. And in such a way that it was plain (even to the flat-earthers) that he was speaking the truth. Then at least folk might have a better understanding of where we are today, and of what mistakes CAN be laid at his door and that of the current board, and what for what issues they are blameless.

You could always email that as a question to Stuart Duffy.

I think, to be fair, most fans would be happy with the truth. It's the fact that a lot feel they getting the wool pulled over their eyes that's hurts.

Hold on

Caisley - solicitor who could read a legal contract. who could not read a balance sheet, or a rule book? he did some great things at bradford do not get me wrong but he got overexcited and did things too soon that were out of our budget.

Noble - encouraged to sign a player that would cause a mess. let us lose said players either because he was no good at nurturing kids or did not rate them.... bridge,atkins just two who did not get a chance under him. people forget the horrendous run that we went on before the incredible run to the 2005 final. what about mcnamara signing bai and mckenna because 2006 nobby had not got anything to replace all his escaping stars.... nobby could motivate established stars but could not see when to get rid or refresh his squad with youth. there will have been new coaches at at least four sl clubs why has he not taken one or been offered one? he needs money and lots of it. we had already won titles before he came and had players of the calibre of deacon,paul,peacock,fielden,lowes, forshaw, withers, anderson, mcdermott,pryce we were not lacking in talent when he took over.... vagana, hape and lesley were signings not without talent but pretty much established players. I do not doubt he still had work to do and did do some good things but he is part of the reason we are in a mess. He lacked the vision of a few years down the line and only concentrated on the now - harris is the greatest example of that.


Hood oh yeah lets blame it all on him.. he has tried to sign some potentially world class players bird, orford he has signed menzies and not broken the bank with these....

Dom, that's not a bad post mate.

I say I'd take issue with Caisley being able to read a contract - Mr Justice Gray showed him that in fact he could not, I suggest? So much that went tìts up here is down to that ruling - which, in short, was that a restraint of trade can be valid in certain circumstances. Knowing what we know now, it looks to me like Caisley bet the club on a pair of fives, and lost. And I disagree that Caisley could not read a balance sheet - I'm sure he can, and knew full well where we were heading.

Your last paragraph is quite telling though. Its not as if Hood has not tried to sign players to turn the club round. And at least we had the privilege of watching the Beaver in a Bulls shirt.

Hood's biggest mistake was not reacting quicker to the obvious signs that McNamara wasn't going to turn things around.

You can most certainly accuse Hood and McNamara of the total opposite they forgot about the now by focusing too much on the junior development at the expense of the first team.

The thing is, what does Peter Hood know about rugby league junior development? This is not a knock on the man, but his job is the running of the club. He and the board hire the coaches and the scouts to find and develop these players and as such would be reliant on those coaches to provide reports on how these players are developing and if they should be retained or released.

However, he did give McNamara a little too long once it was obvious he was not the man needed to rebuild the team.
But he was being pushed as the best young British coach when he was Noble's assistant and given there was some kind of falling out between Noble and the board meaning Noble was leaving AND that other clubs were sniffing round McNamara, the board moved in what could be considered a sensible move at the time. They offered the "best young British coach" a long term deal. This meant they were supposed to be getting someone who could continue the clubs tradition of winning silverware AND implement the rebuilding of the youth development programme that was needed for the new home grown rules.

However as the old saying goes; hindsight is 20/20

Sorry adey - meant could not read a legal contract.

.... As for Hood - he did try and invest in the first team as instructed. things could have been very different without injuries or red tape proceedings. I think Mcnamara would have been in a very different situation with either Bird or Orford fully fit for a year. Problem for me was too much was invested in these as our only plan for the season.

Todd carney - available possibly not getting a visa, hood or potter go for him we are getting a good player who needs some tlc and could turn out to be a masterstroke. We do not go for him and sombody else manages to get a visa we will hear everyone saying why didnt we make a move? lessons of previous failures showing more than a little reluctance?? also if we did get him fans would be calling it a shortsighted and last minute move that is not necessary given our abundance of halves for next year. SO not saying we could or should get him just showing how little things can have negative effects - and being a chairman/coach is not as plain sailing.

Good post mate, much to think about there.

On the question of Nobby, I feel he was brilliant at what he did, more or less as you outlined, and his record is outstanding as a coach at Odsal. To be honest I'm not sure [iexactly[/i how much he was personally to blame for Harrisgate, (he wouldn't be the first coach to be presented with a fait accompli, by a board, say) though he obviously was party to the deal. I think also your two examples of Bridge and Atkins are a tad unfair; Chris Bridge left IIRC not for playing reasons, but disciplinary ones, and was given more than one chance, according to reports at the time, whilst Ryan was way back in the pecking order when he left, and to be honest, I doubt more than one in a hundred would have put him in the first team at the time.

Not quite sure what you may be alluding to with "very much the opposite" but I don't think you mean an announcement about NOT signing a marquee player?

However (and quite probably unrelated to your post) I'm beginning to think that a period of administration may not be a bad thing. It would certainly sort out any disparate owbership issues and if things go well the worst that happens is we start next season on minus 4 points (probably more like minus 8 because it is Bradford after all).

Wakefield don't seem to have been harmed by it and are in a much stronger position because of it.

You have to be (or to be likely to become) insolvent to have the administration route open to you, though. That would mean we would have to be in a considerably worse financial situation than most people believe or assume?

I know several people have raised the question, and their points are valid as far as they go. But I'm not sure its a good idea debating the implications of administration over-much on here at this time? Unless it ever became clear it was a serious possibility - as it did at Wakey, when their forum went into overdrive on the subject. (And, sadly, relatively few of those contributing to the debate had much knowledge of the subject so a load of nonsense was talked in amongst the facts). It sends out some very negative signals surely, at a time when that is the last thing we want?

One point that I do think needs making though, is that in any administration there are invariably lots of small local businesses and others who don't get paid at least part of what they are owed. I'm not sure that would be a very good thing? And I would expect our agreement for the long lease with the council - as well as those for other public and private funding streams - to become void in the event of an act of insolvency. Newbullsco could well find itself having to cut a deal, at short order and from a position of serious income stream weakness, with the owners of Valley Parade.

to be honest the only realistic options of improving have been taken. Our training facilities are good providing comfort for the families of juniors which is often overlooked.we have put steps in place to develop our youth.we may not get the program perfect initially but we are developing from within which is what wigan saints and leeds have been doing for years.that is what will help us survive we are lucky in some ways that fans remember the good times which were good -?now it is upto uthe club to develop a policy of bringing through the youth and giving us chance in the future for inevitable player losses and less need for outsiders who do not understand the family culture.it is difficult thouggh as leedss have found as to when you evolve your team.