Didn't we learn last time with Jeffries that 'home' is, in fact, Bradford?

I thought at the time that giving him a three year contract was a poor decision.

$75k is an awful lot of money bennie - go on, you know you want it !! Bye!

Trinity to the Sharkies, his ambition holds no bounds.

Yeah i agree. Is he the replacement for trent barret or could we swap.

BJ is as good as the team he plays around.

Which isn't the kind of player Trinity require. They need a half who can make something happen rather than one who benefits from others skill. The Brough-Jeffries combo was ideal, Brough's departure saw the return of the Jeffries of old.

Correct. Jeffries without Brough is a player lacking in confidence.

Which is not bj's fault. Had we kept brough it wouldve been no suprise to see bj have his best season in sl.

So BJ/Cooke/Obst are all players who need others 'better' around them to get the best out of them.

Not convinced.

It's clear to see we need a 'Brough' style player to get us round the park. Our budget struggles to get 'that' player to come to Belle Vue.

Here's a suggestion -

Get rid of 'these' players who need a 'better' player to guide them (ie) the trio above, get ONE class player in and play them with a promising youngster.

That way we wouldn't have lots of mediocre on the pitch, all at the same time, looking for direction.

At least that 'one' class player would get more bums on seats.

Would agree with that, in an ideal world i'd like to see Wildie paired with an experienced half next season. Maloney looks like he would fit the bill if the rumours are true.

We had 'that' player and the powers that be decided to let him go.

Trinity budget could not retain that player. Personally I thought it would back fire to let Brough go as it did when Ellis was sold, however, he would've been gone next season leaving Trinity with the same problem.

Indeed. We have followed up our best 2 seasons in SL by selling our best player the season after. In both cases I reckon we would have been better sitting it out and letting them go for nothing when their contracts ran out as the money/deals we got did little to enhance the team.

So according to you then the club would not have gone out and tried to address the problem in the close season, as against trying to fill a void when at that particular time there was nobody available

Not sure Francis would come back after not getting paid last time.

Thats good news then.

I think it seems obvious at this point that letting Brough go after only a few games was a appalling mistake. What ever money we got for him,we must have lost in the drop in attendance during the rest of the season due to our poor form,if he was here during that time I would bet that a lot of those close games we lost,we would have won more of them. Also he would of given us better starts in games and kept us in them for longer which we have lacked big time since he's gone.At the time he went, it was impossible to find a like for like replacement,if we'd have left it to the end of this season we could have off loaded his wages and let him go where he wanted as well as having all off season to find a replacement.

in that case i wish to god Leeds Sts or Wigan would sign him

and do you know what he would do bugger all because he aint good enough

I couldn't understand why we re-signed him either, but with DB he was good. More than good, in fact. It's obvious that he won't be the dominant partner in a half back partnership, and we don't have that domiannt partner at the moment, so of course he's gonna look crap.

to be fair thats not a great salary for Sydney! and I bet he is on a fair bit more at Trinity!

also his mate (some mate) doesnt think he would hack it in the NRL... IMO I think there are loads of UK based players who... with the right coaching and fitness... would go just fine over here!


somehow I cant see him in a [isharkies [/ishirt though

ps... my boys will be at Shark Park on saturday night doing a junior (under 15) league sprint relay.... means I will have to stay until after half time this week at least... not like the last game against Manly when a 38 - 0 half time score and temperatures hovering around freezing drove us out early!!!

Sorry!

Too much common sense in that post, I'm off for a lay down!

I tried to convince myself of the logic of selling Brough at the time. I have to agree now it was the wrong option, and it shouldn't have taken hindsight to see that. He was the beating heart of the team and it is hard not to see the poor performances since as being primarily down to this deal. Any savings or cash made on the deal must surely have been lost in the lower attendances alone, whilst the various off field bad news stories would stick a lot less if we were showing a little more on the pitch.

... and the money he made from playing in the latest Shrek film must have surely helped him financially

It was a disastrous decision to sell Brough at that point in the season. It was pointed out at the time that the money generated by selling him in the short term would be lost by falling crowds further down the line. The team was built round him, BJ was signed to compliment his style of play.