Seymour - I am given to understand (and NOT from the club) that Seymour was far,far from a "non-story". Maybe drop one of the directors a line to ask them?



Orford - I have said previously that I have seen no evidence of anything that the Bulls could or should have "been held to account" for over what happened there. Indeed, quite the opposite; the club was in an extremely difficult position, and one day, eventually, the truth will come out. And I too will not write something without foundation. Maybe if you had a quiet word with one of the directors, they might tell you more than they can say publically, to perhaps allay some of your concerns?



Neither of these points have a direct bearing on the shambolic, demoralising display we saw again in the second half on Saturday. But, nevertheless, it is all too easy to have a go at the club over matters where, for whatever reason, they are precluded from properly responding (Harrisgate was of course another)

TBF I have not read or heard anything of the Bulls super youth policy apart from via those on here who were using it as a deflection for Maccas increasingly depressing results. There might have been things in the T&A but as I never buy it I wouldn't know.

So somebody (NOT from the club) told you something? But you don't write 'something without foundation'?



And I should contact the directors so they could privately explain why what appears in the T and A, presumably with the assent of the press department at Odsal, is inconsistent?



The club should, indeed must be held to account for not signing a SL standard half back. Who else could possibly be responsible and how is this not directly related to what happened on the field, not just this weekend but only too often this season?



On Orford, a poster no less than FA, hardly an ally of mine, summed it up perfectly at the time and I'm not sure what your seeing no evidence is meant to tell us.

On Sundays performance i am afraid to say it Season over unless somebody can convince me otherwise

My comment about Seymour did not come from the club. It came from someone who I regard as being both qualified to comment and very likely to know more of the facts than pretty well anyone on here.



I said nothing about the T&A. I suggested you should go ask the club directly if you want more chance of getting facts, since you implied it was a club smokescreen. Go ask, rather than snipe from the sidelines? That is what I have done in the past. Unless of course you are not interested in learning any inconvenient truths?



I did not say the club should not be held to account over not signing a SL-standard half back. And neither did you. You referred to "The Orford story", and it was that to which I was responding.



Not having Pryce, Seymour or Orford in the squad on Saturday cannot have had a direct bearing on what we saw.



Anything else disingenuous you want to attribute to me?

I have concluded that as a team we turn out to be not good enough to make the playoffs, and that for a side like Bradford Bulls is a disaster. We are in a re-building phase, and no realists expected any better than a low end playoffs position, but we expected I think a big improvement on the standard of play (chiefly ball retention, discipline, organisation in defence) and taking the season as a whole, we have not got it. Neither the league table, or the points Against column, lie.



Having said that, you'd have to be pretty churlish to moan at the value of a £60 season ticket. When the team crashes and burns itself like against Catalans then there are many moans but be honest, there was plenty of good stuff during the game that had the crowd up on its feet. The result puts the dampers, I realise that, but are you saying it somehow extinguishes the enjoyable parts of the game, as if they had never happened? I don't think so.



More to the point, it's easy to forget that we don't in fact lose every week, or play badly all the time.



Bulls 14-14 St Helens - did you not get any value from that?



Bulls 22 - 30 Lucky, lucky Leeds - nevertheless a touch of value received there I suggest?



We beat Harlequins at home. We beat Salford. We beat Castleford. We beat Wakefield.



I am as frustrated and disappointed as most at the season as a whole, but one thing that is unfair is to whinge at the value to be had from a £60 season ticket. You are paying £60 for a reason, even if that reason isn't officially proclaimed. You are not getting a ticket to watch Barca or Manchester United. I am sure that a similar offer would next season have a similar take-up. And I cite the case of Bradford City, who continue to sell the tickets despite being terminally useless, year after year.



Against Catalans, did you applaud the team off at half time? Most seemingly did. If so - why?

Was it the same person who told you about Steve Parkin?



I have contacted the club asking about what happened vis a vis Orford and was told it could not be discussed for legal reasons. I am not sniping from the sidelines, I am a long standing season ticket holder and purchaser of merchandise.



You have previously stated that recruitment was held up because of the Orford situ. The lack of credible halves was evident on saturday.



I don't understand the 'disingenuous' comment.

I would gladly pay £60 to watch Keighley for a season if circumstances allowed me to watch them regularly. I would want them to win but wouldn't be too concerned if they didn't as I love the sport more than a team. Even though Bradford's tactics are pretty defensive, concentrated around the PTB rather than flowing rugby, there have been some exciting, close results, as well as good displays from the opposition, well worth £60 of anyone's money.

Well said, and although it causes me real pain to say it, watching Menzies play on Saturday was worth the price of admission alone.

No-one sells a product on that basis though, do they?



Persil washes whiter than white, really?

McLeans toothpaste leaves your mouth fresher than a mountain stream fed by a glacier? Yeah, right! And the rest.

You can't run any business by turning up your cards so they can be seen by your competitors, so that means that sometimes you have to be - I think the expression was - [ieconomical with the actualité[/i. It's just a fact of life and I'm more amazed that some people can't see this, than I am by the fact it goes on.



Btw, I forgot the bloke who says "it does what it says on the tin", he does just tell the truth, but there always is an exception which proves the rule, is there not.

Ronseal "Quick drying woodstain" - Does exactly what it says on the tin

If you want to advertise on the site you need to speak with the Site admin and cross their palm with silver first. HTH