rlUpdaterl

An update that was posted 6 pages back


But I appreciate unless you were online at the time, you won't have seen it due to the 6 pages of discussion that followed. I certainly wouldn't have gone back and read it all!

Yay, looks like once again the Bradford board fail in on field matters. it's all very well saying we're financially stable. But how long will that state of afairs continue if we have another season like this one and keep getting rid of our star names?

the board should have been all over this story. head off the press, put your own spin on things. accentuate the positives and push the negatives to the side.

but once again the silence from Odsal is deafening and speaks far more than the board ever will

If this has been mentioned elsewhere, I apologise as there is a lot to get through but I seem to remember af trying to tell us all how Burgess wanted to stay with the Bulls, primarily because of a certain Mr S McNamara. How does this theory work now then?

But what can you say to this?
"Yes we're selling one of our brightest stars, who doesn't want to stay here, and we've got nothing to announce because we haven't got any replacement let alone a suitable one"

They will only start commenting once they've got something positive to say and I'd say that will be multiple signings rather than just announcing a straight replacement for Sam who'll obviously be directly compared and probably found wanting.

If Sam goes the only way this can be a step forward is if whatever fee we get is used to address the obvious weakness' in the squad and that doesn't mean stockpiling fullbacks.

Knowing the board we'll get Fielden and it will be spun as the "returning hero"

We are a bit like Arsenal who pretty much have to sell a big name each year in order to balance the books. It is just a shame that they got a smashing big arena to play at for their outlay and we still have nothing more than a pile of plans and paperwork and a team in complete decline.

What's worrying me a little is the "balance" of the squad for next year.

Macca will have planned for Burgess to be still around in 2010 and thus has not been on the look out for a front rower. Now we're looking as though he's on his way and we're probably hanging fire on signing overseas backs as he sees the Burgess replacement as a bigger issue.

We have two overseas spots available, both of which were looking as though were going to go on backs Kearney and possibly Walker - now we've probably got to ditch one of those to obtain a replacement for Sam - possibly Moi Moi as there are no suitable UK players available - please nobody say Paul King!

If we do receive a fee, who can we spend this on? Danny Brough could be an option but personally I don't see it happening. Shenton wasn't interested last time around and possible targets Myler and Atkins have already jumped ship to Wire.

Add to this we're probably losing Semi to Union and we will be VERY light in the backs department.

Halley, Sheriffe, Platt, Nero, Sykes and Deacon - and I think that's it for recognised first teamers - Crookes has not established himself in the main squad yet and he has just been out for a season with injury.

OK we'll have some salary cap to play with but there's not too many quality players around for us to chase who are UK fed trained.

Souths have got a coaching vacancy haven't they?

Problem solved.

I can't see the club being stupid enough to go into the 2010 season with the backs currently contracted to the club and no new signings. That'd leave us with only 6 backs who've made SL appearances in double figures.

Clearly, we need replacements for Jeffries and Tadulala (if he goes). But that would only leave us as strong as we were last year (which wasn't strong enough).

In the forwards we've already replaced Morrision and Newton. Obviously the club see Olbison or Whitehead covering Cook's loss. Less obvious is who we've gone for to replace Solomona, the lack of gamebreakers in the side now is a major issue.

As for Burgess, that's the elephant in the room. If he goes before 2010 then we're a prop down and simply promoting Crossley won't be good enough.

So far I'm not liking how things are shaping up but we'll have to see how things pan out in the coming weeks.

No, John Lang is head coach now.

I would suggest that it would more than likley have been Burgess, when we signed Glenn Hall, but that now looks to be in jeapordy.

Would you rather see us sign a few bog standards like Paul King as an example and attempt to sure up the expected hole left by Burgess' departure, or would you prefer us to head into the season a little bit light on experience knowing it would force our hand into blooding some youngsters?

Sadly I do not think that they are that desperate.

If we do sign players like King it'd show how much the club has been wrong footed in its planning by Burgess leaving given that they'd be forced to choose between players who may not be ready or players who aren't of suffcient quality.

I'd rather see us sign a top quality replacement for Burgess. If that's not possible due to players being unavailabe it's a more difficult question.

On the one hand signing players like King would provide some depth to the squad. Blooding the youngsters is ok but there often comes a point where they need a rest and we need to be careful we don't burn them out or expose them to being in a poor side too much. The likes of Lilycrop, the twins and co are the club's big hope for the future. If we ruin them too early we blow the whole project.

Losing Burgess is a bigger blow than losing Vainikolo, Hape, or Fielden. We got the best years out of those players whereas Burgess is just beginning his career. I can't help but wonder if he'd be so keen to leave us if we we're contesting finals.

It just goes to show how important it is to have the right balance between bringing through the young players and having a some good senior players. At the moment we run the risk of being exposed because that balance has been skewed in the favour of longer term planning.

In answer to the question I'd say it depends on the sort of players we can bring in. If it's players like King then I don't like it but I'd say we have little option given the danger to promoting a bunch of kids too early. Ideally they'd get the first opportunity with the "Kings" as back up.