Go get them from Companies House. They were filed end October, when due.

But you know full well such a figure does not appear in a set of statutory accounts.

One thing I can assure you of though - the Bulls are very heavily concentrating on youth development under McNamara and Hood. Probably as much as any club in the competition, I suspect. They have to, since otherwise you end up with a team of middling journeymen like had to be the case in the inherited situation after Caisley and Noble left, and after we had lost over half of the academy & home-grown.

Bulls have done pretty good in bring forwards through the ranks - we have two more Burgesses going full-time this coming season, for example, and it is likely the RAB supporters group will be sponsoring them - but less so in the backs and especially in the halves. This signing plugs a serious medium-term weakness until the club is hopefully able to develop the successor internally.

I also think you will find the Bulls will have one of the youngest teams in the competition next year, and e.g. fewer overseas players than Leeds for one.

People are concentrating on a headline figure quoted in the Aussie media, the accuracy or otherwise of which no-one is in a position to check. Maybe if they had access to the true gross value of some of the packages elsewhere they would be less surprised.

It has always been this way.

The clubs wanted 30 league games a year in the old days, surprise, surpirise we are just about back to that again.

The clubs are right behind ideas to strengthen the international squad... as long as it doesn't mean their players playing. (Note the number of injuries when it comes around to mid-season 'origin', games against france, etc).

The fact is that the game in this country just is not on the same footing as in AUS... they have their pick of athletes (like soccer here) on top of the best what would here be called Kolpacks (sp?). Yet they just convert them to AUS or NZ players when it suits them.

Burgii.

Burgessii, please!

I don't usually approve of SL clubs bringing in 30 + Aussies on pension top-up's, but given the situation at Bradford then I think it is very much a risk worth taking, even if he did have a poor 2009 in the NRL. If his heart is in it he'll still be a cut above the other 7's in Super League, the only worry is whether the rest of our backs are capable of benefiting from him.

I'm not sure that he will. He will be 32 soon after SL kick off, 35 going on 36 when his very welathy SL contract runs out, he is coming off the back of a poor year and to me he looked like he was worn out and due for retirement. The fact he may b a cut above is very telling on the quality level of SL.

Whoopie do another oap to collect money and 870k of it as well

I guess they will run with the story of how.... yawn....he will bring on the other players

tyrer was out on loan last season at celtic,mostly in the reserves,so soliola is not the reason for him being at salford.
saints have one of the best youth policys in the league.if you are going to have a pop at it back it up with some hard facts.
4 england players,3 from junior ranks
3 man of steel winners,all from junior ranks
scott moore recalled from loan because he is good enough.if tyrer proves to be good enough,he too will return

Indeed it is.

Unfortunately, I certainly can't think of a real top quality scrum half currently playing in Super League.

Huge amount of money to spend on one player and a very lengthy contract to be giving someone who is 32. A big name player, but many say he has had a poor season in the NRL and is way past his best. Time will tell if this will be a good signing.

Bradford have released/sold some big name players - Newton, Morrison, Deacon, Burgess, Tadulala etc and I have to be honest, some of their signings don't fill me with any confidence they will change Bradford's fortunes.

Good luck to them though - I hope they can rebuild as a club.

You're being too defensive. I personally criticised the Gidley re-signing for exactly the same reason. Saints are going through a transition, and are unlikely to win anything next year. So why not take a chance bringing through some of the younger players, rather than spend the cash on Gidley in an attempt to finish as slightly higher losers than otherwise ?

I'm not having a dig at Bradford for club's sake. I'm having a dig at the mentality which sees this happen year on year on year at all SL clubs. The whole point about licensing was to give people a chance to build and develop. It was precisely to stop signings like Gidley and Orford - Aussies at the tail-end of their careers who take large amounts of cash from the game and prevent young English players getting game time.

Fact is the club lack any young halfbacks ready for the step up so they had to buy overseas. You can't always buy British, as you know the game as a whole over here has a problem in producing enough quality players and the Bulls needed a halfback now. The Bulls have made huge efforts to get their junior side back on track and are making headway but it takes years to reap the rewards. As it is James Donaldson and Elliott Whitehead made their debuts last year and look good. There'll be more next season.

I agree entirely.

Things are getting better. Both Saints and Leeds have very progressive youth policies. Bradford are trying, but lag behind.

I think if you're successful it easier to attracted the best youth talent when you have a successful club.

Bradford are in a bit of a downward spiral at the moment and need to do something to pull themselves out of it. They can no longer compete with clubs like Warrington, who can afford to pay large transfer fees for players like Myler.

I'm sure that if Bradford had the money or were successful they would be in for players like Tomkins, Myler or Eastmond.

I'm not over the moon about Orford's signing. However, there's no youth team player breaking through in the halves, so the only alternative would be to buy a British player they would attracted, like Long, stick with Deacon or sign an overseas players.

I hope it's a stop-gap signing for a couple of years until we produce a home-grown product ourselves.