Some interesting comments from Danny Lockwood in his editorial this week;

[i"Could you run a Super League club if your players wage bill was paid? I reckon I could. But then again I wouldn't waste stupid money on top of that, which the Bulls have - they're (almost) the sports biggest total spenders. They should have Viv 'Spend, Spend, Spend' Nicholson on the board.

You wouldn't believe what some of their staff are on. I couldn't when I was told last week via someone who'd seen the books"[/i

It breaks my heart to think we've been overpaying the dross we've had to watch play the last 3 years!

Still want to trust the current BoD with our future, not for me thanks!!

I read that to mean non playing staff as he makes a point about the salary cap being just slighty more than the rfl hand out in another paragraph.

Wasn't it reported that Sykes was one of the clubs top earners when the loan to Wakey hit the press?

Also remember been told a while back that a couple of old boys are on a lot more than they're worth (my presumption was Sykes & Platt but have no proof of this)

In a pre-pack could we negotiate more realistic terms/ drop players we no longer require without having to pay? Though I'd suspect the RFL wouldn't look to kindly to this when the phoenix company comes looking for a SL licence.

If anyone is happy to put faith in an editorial which admits is based only on
something the guy was supposedly told, from "someone who has seen the books" which I presume alludes to Caisley but who knows, since who else could have "seen the books" and be prepared to make statements like that - well good luck. And there is nothing whatsoever posted in substantiation, so at best it can only be hearsay and at worst defamatory. It is anyway worded so it could mean almost anything.

And of course, if anyone DID say anything, they would be in clear breach of duty of confidentiality or any non-disclosure agreements, whatever might actually have been said. Nice.

Funnily enough, though, Lockwood has shown himself to be either a total liar, or a total incompetent. All you have to do is to get the accounts of other big SL clubs to give the lie to the (almost) biggest spenders statement. Every club filing "full accounts" shows total payroll costs and total overall costs. Remember of course that many clubs have a separate stadium operating company, so a lot of costs are in that company instead. So you need to add the whole picture together. Yet his factually-incorrect statement has clearly hit pay-dirt, hasn't it?

I gather his rag has been running propaganda for the anti-Hood camp from the start, same way as Martyn Sadler's paper has been considerably more sympathetic. That of course is their choice - provided they steer clear of libel - but that does not mean readers should take everything they read as gospel?

The back office team are on a lot, all these people that go out to schools and work with kids etc. If you ask me we pay too much in wages to peoiple not critical to the playing & coaching staff.

We have far too many staff on the development and community team. thats where a lot of the wages are.

Don't buy League Weekly for the simple fact that Lockwood is involved.

you got a source for " the back office team are on alot"?

I believe part of the francise is junior and community development hence you need these people - its not just the Bulls its every SL club

^^^this

1 - the development & community team - these would be the people employed by the Bradford Bulls Foundation, would they? A separate, registered charity? And where as I understand it external funding has been obtained to help finance them? An area the club was forced to cut back heavily on from 2005, to the almost universal complaint of most fans?

2 - the rest of the "back office" staff - these are pretty well all listed on the Bulls website "who's who". Can I suggest you list them all out on here, specify what their salaries are, and list which positions you would either cut or reduce the salaries of, and why? With explanation of how the woprk would be re-distributed?

Speaking of the Bulls Foundation and its staff, this is from the website"The Bradford Bulls Foundation is the charitable trust for the Bradford Bulls Rugby League team (Charity Number 110660icon_cool.gif

The Foundation currently employs 8 full time members of staff, 1 part time staff and 9 apprentices. The Foundation delivers services to over 50,000 adults, children and young people per annum working in 6 keys areas;

1. Sport
2. Health
3. Heritage
4. Education
5. Social Inclusion
6. Arts/Culture

Key groups that benefit from these services are Primary Schools, Secondary Schools, Special Schools including SILC's and PRU's and Local Amateur Rugby League Clubs as well as partnerships with other charities such as Marie Curie, Action for Children and the Rugby League Foundation.

Through its activities, the Foundation explores new ways of supporting learning development and education regardless of age and gender; promotes health and welfare, encourages social inclusion and cohesion, embraces and celebrates diverse communities, whilst in the process, maximizes opportunities to champion citizenship and the region, whilst growing civic pride in the City of Bradford."[/i

Would you like to help us by scheduling out how much of the staff costs is actually paid by the club and not from external sources that would not be available to the club? So we can better judge just how big a waste of money it all is? Note that the Foundation is a separate legal entity, distinct from the club, and its results are not consolidated into the group results.

Are you going to qualify this like you did with the new chairman & sponsor topic?

Not forgetting this nugget from the T&A thread...

You really are an utter tit. It takes some doing for a poster to be so utterly devoid of even a sliver of merit as to be dumped in my dustbin, so congratulations and welcome to the no. 3 slot.

Isn't interesting that when certain people tell other certain people things they don'want to stand behind in public but wish to be placed on this message board it is presented as the self evident truth, and not a highy dubious, thoroughly well spun version of events.

Yet when other certain people like Lockwood, and other posters on here are told things they are 'liars', 'incompetents', in 'breach of confidentiality and non disclosure agreements'. There views are 'anti-Hood propaganda'. Quite why Danny Lockwood is a pro-Caisley, anti- Hood propagandist is anyone's guess but never mind, as apparently he's joined the likes of the T and A and Gerry Sutcliffe in a conspiracy against Peter Hood.

maybe the wrong thread but just wanted to say on the playing field bradford are looking good, you have hit some good form, hope all goes well for the future

MB: you nailed your colours to the mast a bit ago, once you decided to back Caisley, not administration as you had been doing in preference to either - despite it merely exchanging one disgruntled minority with another, and not solving the problem you had rightly complained about for ages. I would therefore fully expect you to say that - you are entitled to hold strongly partisan views and express them, if it is your wish; the same way as the rest of us are, and will.

One little difference though between the contrasting examples you quoted: Lockwood made his comments in an editorial in a widely-read (in the game) publication. Sutcliffe's comments were widely reported in a major regional newspaper, and were picked up elsewhere in the published media. Bit of a difference, particularly in the likely impact, compared with individuals posting comments on internet message forums?