: Sun May 31, 2009 5:49 am  

af wrote:

that a side that has already beaten Leeds and Saints this year has

This is become the most overused cliche on here amongst the PT. Maybe you should adopt it as your motto?

The reason I cannot see us doing anything in the play-offs is simple - I cannot see us making the play offs because we are just not good enough. Leeds, Saints, ull KR, Wire and Wigan, I believe will certainly finish above us, and I expect Huddersfield, Cas and possibly Wakefield and Quins too TBH.

Seeing as you mentioned Leeds and Saints however, did you notice that Salford got duffed again this week and Celtic got utterly slaughtered at home?

af wrote:

offer some odds.

The usual af argument - you must provide a counter argument to the case! Sadly, I am not a bookie so making odds is not an ability I can pretend to have. I did, however, notice one bookie offering 50/1 against us winning the GF as opposed to only 25/1 to finish bottom. (i.e. twice as likely to finish bottom as top)

The poster reckons we can challenge for Old Trafford and, sorry if this upsets anyone, but that is a bit of an absurd suggestion IMO. We might bump our gums about Leeds and Saints but Salford have beaten ourselves and Leeds (which would not have been expected at the start of the season) but does anyone think that they can challenge for Old Trafford?

: Sun May 31, 2009 6:11 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

:) The usual af argument - you must provide a counter argument to the case!

Fancy...

: Sun May 31, 2009 6:53 am  

af wrote:

Fancy...

Indeed - so why did you avoid the point about Salford and Celtic then?

: Sun May 31, 2009 7:26 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

Indeed - so why did you avoid the point about Salford and Celtic then?

Becuase we've gone over this time and time again. Wakey in turn got hammered by Huddersfield, who got slotted at home by Salford. And this means... what exactly?

: Sun May 31, 2009 7:52 am  

af wrote:

Becuase we've gone over this time and time again. Wakey in turn got hammered by Huddersfield, who got slotted at home by Salford. And this means... what exactly?

It means that once again I am confused by double standards then. You are freely admitting that, on certain days, anyone can beat anyone, yet look at wins against Leeds and St Helens as some form of indication that we have got what it takes.

I realise that you are desperately searching for positives now and accept your need to take every crumb of comfort you can but constantly pointing to the two good results we have had whilst seemingly ignoring the plenty more bad results is hardly formulating a balanced argument.

The problem is that plenty of other sides are taking defeats on the chin then getting a few good results in the bag. We seem to be incapable of doing that.

: Sun May 31, 2009 8:18 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

It means that once again I am confused by double standards then. You are freely admitting that, on certain days, anyone can beat anyone, yet look at wins against Leeds and St Helens as some form of indication that we have got what it takes.

I realise that you are desperately searching for positives now and accept your need to take every crumb of comfort you can but constantly pointing to the two good results we have had whilst seemingly ignoring the plenty more bad results is hardly formulating a balanced argument.

The problem is that plenty of other sides are taking defeats on the chin then getting a few good results in the bag. We seem to be incapable of doing that.

You've forgotten what we're arguing about. You accused someone of being 'out in the sun too long' for suggesting we might have a say in the play-offs. Looking at our form - some good wins, some shocking defeats and a load of narrow ones - it seems far from inconceivable we'll put enough wins together to make the eight, then pull something out in the post-season. Again, we're not talking certainties or even likelihoods but possibilities. And the reason I posted first of all was that I was just finding your habit of adding a snide 'aren't we cr.p?' comment to every thread a bit tedious.

: Sun May 31, 2009 10:26 am  

af wrote:

...Again, we're not talking certainties or even likelihoods but possibilities. And the reason I posted first of all was that I was just finding your habit of adding a snide 'aren't we cr.p?' comment to every thread a bit tedious.

I shouldn't bother. It was good while it lasted, but ME has a very short attention span, and thus has forgotten the Guinness-record-sized portion of humble pie he (TBF very gracefully) ate after proclaiming long and loud just how stuffed we would be at Saints.

: Sun May 31, 2009 2:45 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

1. Because we'd have to pay a seven-figure sum back to the council when we left Odsal.

2. Because we don't own the ground so we can't sell it.

3. Because we don't have the cash nor the ability to raise cash to fund such a project.

Other than that, its a cracking idea!

Who does own it then?
If we don't own it, why do we have to pay for the upkeep?

I would expect to have to pay to maintain my house, coz I own it, but not the street outside that doesn't belong to me.

: Sun May 31, 2009 2:59 pm  

debaser wrote:

:?:
Who does own it then?
If we don't own it, why do we have to pay for the upkeep?

I would expect to have to pay to maintain my house, coz I own it, but not the street outside that doesn't belong to me.

Bradford Metropolitan District Council.

: Sun May 31, 2009 3:03 pm  

redeverready wrote:

Bradford Metropolitan District Council.

I don't get it then.
Are the Bulls tenents then or what?
Why do they have to pay to maintain it?