Reardon Released : Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:30 pm  

After only 11 days at Hull Clearly Hull were just a little too eager to get him in and didn't do a full medical. Now, I know he's due in court tomorrow, but I don't think we're currently in a position to turn down the signing of a player on a moral standing, however he's a decent enough player, and I think, should he not go down, that the club should at least have a look at him. If he's going to be another Tupou then fine, bye bye stu, best of luck. But if theres a chance he could return to Bradford and recapture the form he had when he first broke in the it'd be win win for us

After only 11 days at Hull Clearly Hull were just a little too eager to get him in and didn't do a full medical. Now, I know he's due in court tomorrow, but I don't think we're currently in a position to turn down the signing of a player on a moral standing, however he's a decent enough player, and I think, should he not go down, that the club should at least have a look at him. If he's going to be another Tupou then fine, bye bye stu, best of luck. But if theres a chance he could return to Bradford and recapture the form he had when he first broke in the it'd be win win for us

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:37 pm  

Why would we want him, if he failed the medical though

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:39 pm  

Makes you wonder what they "found" . . . .

. . . . . .anyone think it may have been recent press cuttings that hadn't made it across to the East Coast

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:48 pm  

Bullpower wrote:

Makes you wonder what they "found" . . . .

. . . . . .anyone think it may have been recent press cuttings that hadn't made it across to the East Coast

Nah, they should be getting that news around Wed/Thur of next week

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:59 pm  

Visage wrote:

Why would we want him, if he failed the medical though

Well he was actually due back this weekend and was included in the Hull squad. So I think the club should find out exactly what his situation is

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:15 pm  

VERY strange timing.

Why did they not just wait till tomorrow, then if still necessary release him on medical grounds then?

I'm not going to speculate more given the sub judice rules, and I suggest others are careful too?

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:16 pm  

2 years me thinks.
So if he keeps off the crack inside his ankle should be ok by then.

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:17 pm  

Visage wrote:

Why would we want him, if he failed the medical though

Maybe the same "medical" wouldn't fail him on Friday?

Assuming he's not got a career ending injury, and assuming he's available for a medical next week, looking at Reardon on a pay as you play basis might not be totally out of the question for me given our current shortage in the backs.

Long shot though.

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:17 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

VERY strange timing.

Why did they not just wait till tomorrow, then if still necessary release him on medical grounds then?

I'm not going to speculate more given the sub judice rules, and I suggest others are careful too?

That was my initial thought too. Aren't the defendents usually informated before the actual hearing as to what they're going to be sentenced to?

Just a general question by the way, the question has no implied speculation towards tomorrows court case.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:23 am  

Do you think Bradford will have him back. You didn't have a problem with Mr Bird