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.

That'll teach him to believe some of the posters on here.

On a positive note, my under 8's team were awesome!

Olivier Elima, Pat Ah Van and Tom Burgess handed out the awards at our prsentation night a couple of months ago and they seemed to remember the kids, as they were watching the game with interest when the Bulls players came out for a stroll on the field before they got stripped.

He did turn it around, he turned it around into reverse.

In many businesses, EXPERTS are brought it in to turn around the balance sheet or stop companies losing as much money. In almost all these situations, the number one criteria the person responsible for the changes is judged is the financial state of the company moving forward. Peter Hood has achieved this having been restricted massiveley by the contracts in place and legal action over issues that took place before his time.

RE macca, the Bulls had a coach who was widely regarded to have a lot of potential, but more importantly will have known and accepted the restraints and problems he had to deal with. Like it or not, there wont have been a line of established coaches who wanted to oversee the transition the bulls had to undertake to remain a going concern. the fact that he has then managed to attract a coach of potters pedigree, and players such as orford and menzies is a major achievement imo.

when you look at some of the players we have attracted, i think we have done well. Le strange and kearney and top drawer players who have worked out. Menzies was exceptional here so must be classed as a good piece of work. The others were V unlucky not to work out. Hall was v good and has been awesome back in the NRL. Orford was a world class HB who a number of clubs would have loved to have signed. We also agreed terms with Bird, who is world class also. not bad for a club with out finances.

the bulls have had to scrape their way out of a dire financial position to where they are now, and that is a club with good facitilies and some promising youngsters. we now have a platform to build on and the next stage wont come easy given our lack of a big money backer.

That looks like the sort of post I normally write...!

Re bringing in Experts (your first point) I think that was what Gareth Davies was brought in to do. I know they put together a pretty detailed business and financial plan. I suspect that a few people were not at all happy with some of the inconvenient financial truths that that plan brought out, and I suspect Brian Noble may have been one of them.

Biggest mistake the club made was Nobby not playing Pryce at Stand-Off when he asked to play there.

its easy to say that in hindsight, but noble was hugely sucessful and had earned the right to back his decisions. he decided that pryce wasnt the best standoff at the club, having not played the position since he was 16?? in that case, do you really assure him of it when you dont think hes the best person for the role