Relying on marquee signings and quality players coming in doesn't make a sound financial plan - many years ago, I attended a forum with McManus who told us saints planned for either a quarter final challenge cup appearance, or one game in the playoffs, and that's all they allowed themselves to forecast when trying to budget. (Whether this is still true I have no idea, but the point of not relying on fair weather supporters stand).

Also, Bradford, like everyone else, had to play within the salary cap, so if they were unable to attract the calibre of player, then it is still the boards fault for what happened - as they were responsible ultimately for player recruitment.

Genuine question, if the marquee signings were the only reason for attendances, would producing talent instead of signing it also meant the attendances would of gone down? (Since an academy lad can hardly be called a marquee signing) or is it more to do with needing glory hunter supporters to bolster numbers?

The point about Orford being a marquee signing was not saying Bradford were relying on such a player to bring people to watch. It was more that he was on a bring chunk of wage and took up an overseas spot. Had he been honest with the club and asked for a release, Bradford could have used the money he was paid more profitably.

As for the stuff about McManus planning for Saints, Peter Hood when in charge was often quoted as saying the club's target was of a similar level.

And you say glory hunter supporters bolstering numbers like it's some how a bad thing. Man Utd, Real Madrid and other football clubs of their ilk have vast incomes from people who've never even been near their stadia. Given the financial situation of most of SL, how can you justify slating any fan who turns up and pays money into a club by referring to them as glory supporters?

As for producing talent, it's not the production that's as important as the retention.

Hang on, did Matt Orford get injured while a contracted Bulls player? ,did Matt Orford play for any other club while being a contracted Bulls player?

If the answers are, yes and no, then what did you expect him to do?

I genuinely dont know the answers

1. Yes it is
2. What Agenda would that be?

I fail to see how questioning the continued financial malaise at the Bulls and the refusal to cut cloth accordingly is suiting any agenda. It is indicative of the precious nature of some fans of the Iconic Bulls that they refuse to answer a straight question and instead smear and muddy the waters.

There were widespread rumours that he wasn't intending to return yet the Bulls obviously couldn't do anything about signing a replacement when the player himself said nothing to them about leaving and so far as the club was concerned therefore he'd be back.

We expected him to either honour the terms of the contract for which he had been and was drawing a big fookoff wage, as until early October 2010 he himself insisted he was going to do. Or if he was never coming back, as seemed to be common knowledge in various Australian quarters, the to have said so and then the Bulls would both have saved a shedload of money paid to him and had more time to be in the market for another marquee player.

It turned out that indeed he wasn't coming back and indeed he had got himself fixed up with another team in Aus. Which happened to be one of the two clubs he had been strongly linked with. Given the circumstances the Bulls felt they had no choice but to tear up his contract and take it on the chin. Canberra didn't even pay a cent by way of transfer fee even though Awford still had 2 years to run on his contract (although it was suggested that he agreed to give up "part" of the "money he was owed" by the Bulls.

It could, of course, I entirely accept, be a complete and utter coincidence that half of Australia seemed to think he was not coming back and was getting himself fixed up with another club, and just such a thing came to pass. On 7/10/2010 there were PA reports that "Canberra are known to be chasing his services" (and by early September 2010 if you looked at the Canberra forum they all thought it was already a done deal) but relying on what Awford was still telling them, the Bulls publicly fielded the rumours by stating

They could all have just made a lucky guess.

Ten days later, on 17/10/2010 the Bulls released a statementBulls chairman Peter Hood said

This clearly suggests that the reasons, while unknown to the club when they agreed to him returning to Aus, did exist at that time. It seems clear, too, that these reasons continued to exist on 7/10/2010, several months later, yet at which time Awford was still seemingly reassuring the Bulls that he was coming back and nothing had changed.

If - as we must accept - there were these confidential but "valid" reasons at the time he left the UK as to why he couldn't or wouldn't come back, I'd have expected him to maybe mention it to his employers. Wouldn't you? And that when he was having negotiations with Canberra he might have mentioned that too.

so one player is responsible for bringing the Iconic bulls to their knees?

Have I missed something here? Orford left. Bulls were unable to recruit a suitable replacement? So did they save his 'substantial' salary the following year? If not, then who's fault was the recruitment/youth policy at the time? Surely it's sits with the Directors still?

As I said, I wasnt really paying attention at the time, but from what has been posted this is how I understand it, the Bulls sign MO on a 3 year deal, he gets injured and requests to return home for an operation ( but secretly he doesnt fancy Yorkshire or the UK anymore ) , he takes the Bulls money for the year of his recuperation while looking for a deal back home

He gets a deal sorted and the Bulls and him agree a settlement

The Bulls end up having to pay an injured player for 12 months ish

Happy for anybody to alter these details

like inviting a vampire into your home that is......

He Bulls would have had to pay him anyway until he left.

Maybe he did them a favour by saving them an massive wedge of Salary or two years?

Please don't bite the children.

What people also seem to forget is the time frame for Bradford going in to Admin. They did have problems, but nothing immediate until the problems with the bank caused a huge cash flow issue (as any one with half a brain will tell you Debt itself wont kill you, Cash is king) and Bradford went into administration from there. It may be an unwelcome fact for those simply looking to kick Bradford when they are down and have their usual bash at the RFL but Bradford went in to Administration on the 26th June. Their Ideas that Bradford could just get rid of all their players, or the RFL could have kicked them out, or replaced them are im afraid simply nonsense. We were 4 months in to a season.

By the time the next season had come around, Bradford had a new owner who could take them through the season (and before the RFL and Bradford Bashers want to jump on Omar Kahn, Bradford did get through the season with a better side and far better attendance than any of the clubs who could have replaced them. Christ Fev’s ground couldn’t even hold Bradfords average attendance last year) The mistakes made by Omar Kahn who seemed to have mistook the size of the job, were compounded by the disastrous decision to take some of their funding, and have left us in the position now. Where even with these financial issues, Bradford will still put out a better side, in front of more fans, than team in the lower leagues could hope to.

In their rush to see some kind of painful atonement from Bradford, where they want to see Bradford crucified to take away the sins of SL, certain people seem to have forgotten that Swapping Bradford and Fev or Halifax may very well have seen us with a bankrupt Bradford, and a Bankrupt fev/Halifax (especially considering how monumentally poor Halifax’s plan for SL was. Where a Bradford plan which clearly failed was independently judged not only massively better than Halifax’s, but where KPMG and the RFL felt the need to comment on how poor Halifax’s was)

There seems to be some sort of dissonance at work here, whereby people are wanting to castigate Bradford for putting on the field performance so high on their list, whilst also wanting to castigate the RFL for providing a system where they didn’t have to.

Its either one or the other really isn’t it. Either the on-field performance is the most important and deciding factor of everything Rugby League and the Bradford ‘business plan’ wasn’t only the right one but absolutely necessary, or Bradford should have pared back spending on players temporarily (and I would still argue it is a bit naïve to only look at one source of outgoings as the one to cut. Bradford could be closer to sustainable spending £1.4m on salaries than £1m because there is a correlation between the outgoings here and income) and the RFL should be praised for creating a system which gave them the time and space to do so.

It also interesting that people are looking to frame the RFL acceptance of Bradfords business plan as the RFL’s guarantee that it would definitely, definitely work. Obviously it was never such, but it does give some an invented stick to beat the RFL with. One of the problems with the licensing was that they picked the number and then the clubs. This left them picking the best 14 clubs. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption that Bradford were a better bet than either Fev or Fax. They were still a bet, and being a better bet than Fev or Fax does not make them a good bet. (there is also the matter of Bradfords licence being a B, which makes it somehow worse that they failed. Which ignores that the licences weren’t simply a business plan, but a whole heap of other stuff at which Bradford were clearly succeeding)

They would have had him though wouldn’t they.

We need to stop just thinking of players as a cost. They are our raw materials. They are what we create our product with.

As you must know, the question is facile, since who can ever know who may or may not have been recruitable / affordable from the early summer onwards had the Bulls been in the market same as everybody else? It does seem banal to state the options would have been much greater between July, August and September than how they stood as at 21st October, but maybe that truism didn't register with you.


Another nonsensical question. It is not about saving salaries but spending them wisely and effectively. But maybe paying someone who it turns out has no intention of ever coming back to the UK their substantial salary, whilst the best of the available halfbacks are signed by competing clubs, is a good use of money in your book?

And no, the Bulls didn't save his substantial salary the following year either, as it happens. The actual figures were never released but all that was said was that Awford had agreed to forego "some of" his remaining contractual pay to sweeten the transfer, (as Canberra refused to pay a transfer fee) which means the Bulls still had to pay yet more money to him even if not the full contract amount. And even the reduced sum didn't represent any "saving" as clearly him being under contract for another 2 years, under any normal circumstances we should have had a decent sized transfer fee for someone who was touting himself around as a marquee halfback. As opposed to £0.


Three nonsensical questions in one post. Well done.

First, how can a recruitment policy be "a fault"?

Second, what has "youth" policy to do with it? Do you think Awford was an academy lad or something?

Finally, until Awford said he was out of here, there wasn't a quota spot free.