Must admit my appetite has been far from whetted since that statement, Elima maybe excepted.

I have always assumed that the club were fairly sure of re-signing Leon Pryce for this season - until Stains found out (a lot earlier than it became general public knowledge, as I understand from the Twitterati) that Eastmond was off to the Dark Side. And that therefore both the gaping hole in the halves and the salary cap underspend can be attributed at least in part to that. Maybe one day we will find out for sure.

Having a reasonable idea of the real tale regarding He-Who-We-Do-Not-Name, it does seem clear we were not in a position to be seen to be seeking a new #7 until after 1 November, so I've always assumed that that is the other factor explaining both. I doubt it will ever be appropriate for the full tale on that one to come out though.

If I am right on both, then I guess there is a limit to what he actually COULD say on the half-back front?

Given that Potter was involved, or at least was fully consulted, on every new signing or re-signing after his appointment was announced (and it looks like we saw that in a re-signing that ended up in a resigning after Potter HAD been consulted, if I understand it right) then presumably any responsibility for the squad Potter "inherited" must predate that point, and therefore be largely limited to those players retained from that era?

Quotes like that always come back and bite you on the backside.

Have you seen the marks?

I'd guess that few actually expected genuine 'world class' players to arrive. Why would the greats of the game come to a club in our position when they could join a club where they might win something? Sadly we are no longer an attraction for this calibre of player. I suspect the club thought the players brought in would take us to the position of being an attraction for those 'world class' signings, but it's impossible to argue the point as we've hardly had a representative side on the field all season.

The halfback problem, as you must surely recognise, is the legacy of Matt Orford's departure. [iIf[/i he'd been honest about his intentions when he left for Australia in May last season we [icould[/i have had another half signed much earlier, but as he was still denying that he (or his agent)was selling his services around the NRL, certainly up to November and was therefore still on our books (both for the cap and overseas register) which made it difficult to bring in anyone else. He could, after all have just changed his mind and come back with two years left on his contract.

From Twitter:

BullsMedia: Might get a couple back this week!

Any idea who's set to return?

Herbert is probably one.

Addy could be one. Wouldn't get too excited if it is although he might add a bit of creativity if played at loose.

Sykes possibly?

With regards the "Star signings"- There might not have been the big name as such, but a few looked like cracking deals. Ah Van had the Hape feeling to him, no-one anticipated Hargreaves would join us and that seemed a fantastic bit of business. I'd add Ainscough and Elima to the deals that made me think we had to crack on from the disaster that was last year.

But signings like Sibbit, Raynor and Walker seemed like we'd got them because they were availible. Unlike others, I'd leave the jury still out on Briggs and Herbert. Both young players and not proven themselves as good or bad signings yet.

It was rumoured Orford was unhappy before he got the injury at magic weekend. Absolutly he should have just been up front then. There might be procedure to follow, but we need to ensure a player can't ever get a wage from us to lie on a beach in Aus while his agent gets the best deal possible for him again.

I don' t recognise the half back problems as solely the legacy of Matt Orford but the legacy of not developing/recruiting enough half back options. Leeds have 3, Wigan 4 with 1 on loan, Hudds have the luxury of converting a half back to hooker to accommodate Brough, even Wakey have lost 2 halves this season and still have 2. The Bulls started 2010 with 1 half back and by May we had none. That we had no half backs at the club on the first day of pre-season is a Jaw dropping failure of forward planning and recruitment/development for a Super League club. The Pryce scenario was always fraught as he was contracted to Saints and we knew this. We need to stop accepting failure as some sort of fait accompli. Other clubs recruited halves, we didn't. It's simply about judgement and nothing is gained by excusing the most basic mistakes!

So why make such a big deal about the signings like the club did. We all know why to try and cover up the mess of what last season was. IMO it's a common club ploy especially at the forums to try and deflect attention away from the problems at hand. Its gone past the stage now where they can keep trotting these lines out as they say talk is cheap time to back up the talk.

I don't care what anybody says, it is no "excuse" to point out that we simply could not sign a top class (and therefore highly expensive) scrum half before Orford decided he was not coming back, as we could hardly pay for two quality starting scrum halves, one of whom would always be in the stiffs, this is a simple fact. Even if we could afford to budget for 2011 on the basis of the salaries of TWO high class 7s - what would that do to the figures?

At the same time, the stand off position is a different kettle of fish. Fair enough we might have been hoping for Pryce, but like Godot, how long do you wait before you decide that we simply cannot compete with Sykes at 6. And i am not a Sykes knocker, fair play he will have a go wherever asked, but in terms of an aspiring SL challenger you just can't get away with that.

Taken as a whole, the shortage of halfbacks and cover for halfbacks has been a hot topic on here for a long time, and Awford aside, we have simply failed to come up with enough, or good enough alternatives at half back. It isn't as if the lack of cover hasn't been plain as a pikestaff, Awford or no. As those roles are so key for getting the team around the pitch, it must be at least a very significant factor in our descent into the cellar.

Back to the topic, Just seen the Bulls are 66/1 to lift the challenge cup. If you don't understand betting, this means if you put a tenner on us to do it, you lose ten pounds

Only 40/1 on Betfair at the mo. Is it better to lose £1 at 66/1 than £1 at 40/1?

Sprained hamstring that's a first .