Why would anyone who does not support the club give up time/effort and money? The people who have taken over, just like the last board do it for the club and not to make money. Even a Bulls post administration would not be wortha great deal to anyone!!
Some of the criticism of the new BOD and Brian Noble is appaling.
Lets support the new guys from a perspective that they care and want the club to be successful.
Joined: Mar 05 2005 Posts: 3998 Location: 2.5 hrs North of Newcastle. 8 hrs South of Brisbane
juliebull wrote:Why would anyone who does not support the club give up time/effort and money? The people who have taken over, just like the last board do it for the club and not to make money. Even a Bulls post administration would not be wortha great deal to anyone!!
Some of the criticism of the new BOD and Brian Noble is appaling.
Lets support the new guys from a perspective that they care and want the club to be successful.
Unfortunately the "guys" are not new and are the same ones that left the Club in a financial mess in 2006
The phrase politically correct is in itself politcally incorrect so should be rephrased politically stupid!
If you like old type radio comedy/ dramas etc listen to //pumpkinfm.com/
Statistically speaking you have a better chance of getting dead the older you get!
Thank god only when you find a religion that passes the truth test!
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Gurus_Beard wrote:Splashing the cash may have had validity at Warrington and to a degree Huddersfield, but the youth production models at Leeds, Saints and even Wigan have greater context and application in modern sport.
They have, if you can keep your players. IMHO and despite the mauling McNamara and Potter (until recently) received, we have brought through and are bringing through a crop of youngsters to rival anybody. All other things being equal, we could have had, and given resources still could have, the makings of a bright future.
Gurus_Beard wrote:The caveat being a business structure with a balance of salary cap spend in sync with the bottom line isn't going to be too far away. How that translates into perceived success depends on how astute our player recruitment and retention is. It couldn't be much worse that recent years.
But we already know how to achieve success, we achieved success to rival anybody. The problem we had, and the problem Wigan et al will eventually face, is that your excellent squad will sooner or later fall into decline and you will fall from grace, and then you need to find a way to keep the pot boiling until your rebuilt squad can compete at the top again.
However you are vulnerable both to predators (cf Sam Burgess et al), young player assessment / management mistakes (cf Ryan Atkins, Chris Bridge et al) and experienced player mistakes (cf Menzies, Pryce, Peacock et al).
It is extremely hard to get near the top, and to be at the top or thereabouts, over a consistent period, is the hardest thing of all, but you can fall from grace badly in a minute, and we are the proof of that.
Oh, and it always helps if you don't discharge one barrel of your shotgun into each of your own feet.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Adeybull wrote:Another possibility that has been raised by several folk on the T&A in particular is that they seem to "knopw" or believe that the RFL does not deem Caisley to be a fit and proper person to run a SL club. Although several have stated this as if fact, I must admit I have never ever seen this referred to anywhere official - nor would I have expected to, even if it happened to have some legs. So those folk either have some inside/confidential information, or are just speculating or repeating gossip. I'll work on the assumption that it is the latter, unless it is ever shown to be otherwise. There is far too much dangerous gossip flaoting around as it is.
Surely they could only deem him to be "not a fit and proper person" on the basis of something in the public domain? Something for which his culpability has been independently established as fact. They would have to have an objective reason that could be applied to all SL owners.
His potential conflict of interest as an agent might be a factor but that's a different issue.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14145 Location: At the Gates of Delirium
Cibaman wrote:Surely they could only deem him to be "not a fit and proper person" on the basis of something in the public domain? Something for which his culpability has been independently established as fact. They would have to have an objective reason that could be applied to all SL owners.
His potential conflict of interest as an agent might be a factor but that's a different issue.
Given its the RFL, and the mysterious ways in which they work (or don't work...) who knows? Especially given we none of us know what really happened behind the scenes over Harrisgate. But, as I said, I'd not heard this before until several different people started referring to it, so there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more than hearsay/gossip/usual internet nonsense anyway. Certainly, I'm not aware of anything specific that could justify such a sanction, and I struggle to see how such a charge could justifiably be levelled at a practising lawyer anyway.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
Forgive me butting in without reading the recent few pages, but with what authority has CC ordered the 'independent' (yeah right) review - presumably as controlling shareholder/s? If he was judged 'not a fit & proper person' what is to stop him pulling the strings, as he is now, without having his name on the door?
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Adeybull wrote:Given its the RFL, and the mysterious ways in which they work (or don't work...) who knows? Especially given we none of us know what really happened behind the scenes over Harrisgate. But, as I said, I'd not heard this before until several different people started referring to it, so there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more than hearsay/gossip/usual internet nonsense anyway. Certainly, I'm not aware of anything specific that could justify such a sanction, and I struggle to see how such a charge could justifiably be levelled at a practising lawyer anyway.
In response to an email Andrew Bennett said something along the lines that he did not think that CC would be judged a fit and proper person by the RFL. The person put it up on facebook(?) and if I recall Bulls4Champ posted it on here. Stand to be corrected on any/all of this.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
