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

Yeah and Harris was so much better for us -_-
If Pryce had been given a chance at SO then chances are he would have stayed, Him and Deacon would have been awesome for us over the years.

I don't think it is hindsight though, we won a WCC with Pryce at stand off when he was outstanding. Iestyn was a good player for us but its the knock on effects that make it a bad decision.

We also won WCCs with either/both Karl Pryce at stand off didnt we??

And Karl Pratt for a Grand final

It wasn't a bad decision when we won the SL GF. Not all players get to play where they want and get paid what they want. It just so happens Pryce and Peacock took their bat and ball home. Regardless of them leaving, IMO we would never have found ourselves in the position we do now had remained and had not been driven out.

It was Mr Davies who made all the academy part time. That was one of his first acts when he got the job.

So you know this as absolute fact do you or is it just wild conjecture on your part.

Well I'd not say Peacock took his bat and ball home. He was current MOS, the leader of our pack and massive player for us. So he went to Chris Caisley and said "I'd like an improved deal that matches my ability". He was told no. But with a more colourful turn of phrase. So when Leeds came in and said "we'll offer you that deal" he took it. And I don't blame him.

Pryce was in a similar situation. Looking back, I'd rather we'd kept Peacock and Pryce than ever signed Harris.

He got a whinge on coz he didnt get what he wanted and you know it.