: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:14 pm  

they should never have let reardon go to warrington

proves my point we sell a full back who was home grown and bought platt who isn't as good ... bad move from the bulls

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:16 pm  

Daz_4 wrote:

proves my point we sell a full back who was home grown and bought platt who isn't as good ... bad move from the bulls

Impossible to say not knowing what their respective wage demands are.

If Readon wanted 250k a year and Platt wanted 50k a year would we still have been correct keeping Readon?

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:17 pm  

Daz_4 wrote:

proves my point we sell a full back who was home grown and bought platt who isn't as good ... bad move from the bulls

Well I know we bought Platt. But I don't remember SELLING Reardon.

I thought he left because his contract was up and he rejected a new one in favour of a bigger one on offer?

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:18 pm  

The-original-&-best-V wrote:

But historically, Bradford haven't signed BIG name players. The likes of Danny Peacock, Hape, Henderson, and even Robbie Paul and Vainikolo weren't accomplished stars when they signed (how else would Les have signed for a mere £80k pa?). Jimmy lowes couldn't even get a start at Leeds when he came and Radford and Spruce were both unproven.

We have successfully relied on lesser names to bring in the silverware such as Loughlin, Dwyer, Vaikona etc.

The only real BIG name signings of note in the last 10 years have been Henry Paul and Iestyn Harris. I need not dilate on any comparison between the two but one is a RL legend who went on to success at both club and international level in RU before a high profile return to League. The other one is Iestyn Harris.

Spruce unproven? Loughlin a lesser name? Eh? For example. Although I agree with the general thrust of your argument - Bulls developed players to achieve their potential - not sure I agree with all your player categorisation. And anyway, on the subject of we don't sign "Big Names", you missed out the hugely-successful signing of Penguin's best mate Shaun Edwards...

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:20 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Spruce unproven? Loughlin a lesser name? Eh? For example. Although I agree with the general thrust of your argument - Bulls developed players to achieve their potential - not sure I agree with all your player categorisation. And anyway, on the subject of we don't sign "Big Names", you missed out the hugely-successful signing of Penguin's best mate Shaun Edwards...

We shouldnt have let Nick Zisti leave the club. Bad move by Bradford IMO.

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:20 pm  

Daz_4 wrote:

proves my point we sell a full back who was home grown and bought platt who isn't as good ... bad move from the bulls

You seem to be disregarding the significant time that elapsed between the two events? Hardly cause-and-effect?

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:22 pm  

Jimmybull wrote:

We shouldnt have let Nick Zisti leave the club. Bad move by Bradford IMO.

Was it ever...!

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:24 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Was it ever...!

Some could argue it was the start of the end.

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:30 pm  

Jimmybull wrote:

Some could argue it was the start of the end.

Some saw letting the great Zisti go as the tipping point, after which Bulls would never again achieve greatness.

Me, I'm not sure it was the end; nor even the beginning of the end. But it was, maybe, the end of the beginning...? with apologies to Winston...

: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:31 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Spruce unproven? Loughlin a lesser name? Eh? For example. Although I agree with the general thrust of your argument - Bulls developed players to achieve their potential - not sure I agree with all your player categorisation. And anyway, on the subject of we don't sign "Big Names", you missed out the hugely-successful signing of Penguin's best mate Shaun Edwards...

I liken that signing to that of Terry Holmes and for the same reason have blocked it from memory.

Spruce wasn't accomplished, had had a brief shine but was, at the time, playing in National 1 in a struggling Widnes side. he had far more potential than pedigree at the time. As for Loughlin, OK he was an established international player but compared with what went the other way in terms of Star, he wasn't a signing to set the pulse racing, particularly as Saints at the time rated him less than one third (and a bucketful of cash) of a Paul Newlove.

Anyway at least you got the jist of what I was trying to say.