[Bullseye]

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:07 am  

Rarebreed wrote:

So this quicksand was OK for you to stand in over all the years from 1996 when you were the vice chair of the sinking ship. And unlike the fact of your tenure the democracy was in place under Caisley's regime because we had a full board of directors who presumably were in favour of our club being the iconic growth of Super League at Odsal?

Are you suggesting Peter was just as culpable as Caisley for the mess we got in from 96 until 2006?

Heaven forbid!

All those decisions made by the board were just made by Caisley who locked the rest of them in a cupboard or something.

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:48 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Are you suggesting Peter was just as culpable as Caisley for the mess we got in from 96 until 2006?

Heaven forbid!

All those decisions made by the board were just made by Caisley who locked the rest of them in a cupboard or something.

Well it's a shame we didn't enjoy those years, because we were so worried about this imagined crisis that was looming in 2010 when the said Mr Hood reported that our team were not playing good rugby, and our turnover had dropped from 4 million plus to 3.9 million with a loss of some £200k plus from 2009, but we still were spending up to the salary cap presumably on Aussie players who were going to go back home after doing sod all for the club?

I suppose that was CCs fault as well?

It's the season of Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas Mr Scrooge! and who's the Christmas Turkey?

[Bulliac]

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:49 pm  

I think there is a combination of short memories and maybe some wishful thinking going on here.

The club was already a busted flush and running up debts by 2006; we'd been losing around £500K per annum [according to the published accounts] for around four seasons by then. My recollection from that time was that, Chairman Caisley said the fault lay with 'stop at home fans who didn't turn up to support the club'. The club, built on the 'Odsal Settlement' money [actually from the council and handed over to defray the cost of ground upkeep and development which the club had taken on from the council] had been letting star players leave since the previous season, along with Nobby and the managing director - who had previously admitted that his major task was to rein in the costs - then made himself redundant.

Chris had a dream. We all went for it, me included, and were delighted when he brought star after star to the club and then we won title after title. Initially, his idea that whenever he added stars to the team, crowds would grow and grow worked. Crowds did grow - who'll ever forget that 24k? But Chris, and presumably his board, thought it would go on forever. We all know nothing goes on forever, however despite big money being spent, eventually the plan hit the buffers. More and more money went in but the crowds didn't rise inexorably and the losses mounted.

After CC left, all the others, and yes some were the same others who voted through the earlier plans, were just fire fighting - trying to get costs down to a manageable level and keep the club on an even keel. For sure there were some terrible decisions made, but desperate times lead to desperate measures and just like the earlier regimes, decisions made with the best of intentions just fell apart. There is no doubt in my mind that the major decisions which set in train the demise of the club were made before Peter Hood became chairman.

I'm sure he's going to tell us.....

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:17 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

I think there is a combination of short memories and maybe some wishful thinking going on here.

The club was already a busted flush and running up debts by 2006; we'd been losing around £500K per annum [according to the published accounts] for around four seasons by then. My recollection from that time was that, Chairman Caisley said the fault lay with 'stop at home fans who didn't turn up to support the club'. The club, built on the 'Odsal Settlement' money [actually from the council and handed over to defray the cost of ground upkeep and development which the club had taken on from the council] had been letting star players leave since the previous season, along with Nobby and the managing director - who had previously admitted that his major task was to rein in the costs - then made himself redundant.

Chris had a dream. We all went for it, me included, and were delighted when he brought star after star to the club and then we won title after title. Initially, his idea that whenever he added stars to the team, crowds would grow and grow worked. Crowds did grow - who'll ever forget that 24k? But Chris, and presumably his board, thought it would go on forever. We all know nothing goes on forever, however despite big money being spent, eventually the plan hit the buffers. More and more money went in but the crowds didn't rise inexorably and the losses mounted.

After CC left, all the others, and yes some were the same others who voted through the earlier plans, were just fire fighting - trying to get costs down to a manageable level and keep the club on an even keel. For sure there were some terrible decisions made, but desperate times lead to desperate measures and just like the earlier regimes, decisions made with the best of intentions just fell apart. There is no doubt in my mind that the major decisions which set in train the demise of the club were made before Peter Hood became chairman.

I'm sure he's going to tell us.....

I'm sure he is, but it's a simple question isn't it...which regime did you prefer? Because our performance under austerity certainly lost us an average crowd figure of 8,400 in 2010 ( in PH report as pasted in the previous topic re Odsal.) That meant our average crowd was reduced from 15k plus averages. So someone wasn't getting it exactly right were they?

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:22 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

I'm sure he is, but it's a simple question isn't it...which regime did you prefer? Because our performance under austerity certainly lost us on the average crowd figure of, 8,400 in 2010 ( in PH report as pasted in the previous topic re Odsal.) That meant our average crowd was reduced from 15k plus averages. So someone wasn't getting it exactly right were they?

That statement should have read: see above alteration sorry!

[Bullseye]

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:05 am  

I always thought that the Bulls rested on their laurels with the marketing after 2003. Things needed freshening up to maintain the crowds. What was new and worked in 96 needed constantly revamping rather than re-gurgitation.

On the field we seemed to reap the benefit of our academy in the years 98-2003 but after that year we seemed to have less talent coming through or we allowed some to leave. It may be hindsight but I know that we could’ve still built a top 5 side and on less money had it been invested in the academy rather than signing a lot of costly antipodeans. Look at how Leeds did it.

Obviously the deal with the Odsal money left us on a cliff edge financially and with Odsal being such a blackhole for money savings had to be made. I feared when we allowed the likes of Fielden, Peacock, Pryce etc go we were beginning the path to oblivion and so it proved. Mistakes like appointing McNamara when he wasn’t ready and him signing heaps of below standard players (Sykes, Godwin, Nero, Finnegan, Tupou, Evans, Feather, Tadulala, Platt, Sheriffe, Worrincy etc) were only going to increase the decline. We should have (hindsight again) done all we could to keep our own products who had been part of a winning culture and not signed so much dross.

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:26 am  

This thread just so much mirrors the tenure of Peter Hood at Bradford. FAR more questions than answers.

[Bulliac]

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:48 am  

Rarebreed wrote:

I'm sure he is, but it's a simple question isn't it...which regime did you prefer? Because our performance under austerity certainly lost us an average crowd figure of 8,400 in 2010 ( in PH report as pasted in the previous topic re Odsal.) That meant our average crowd was reduced from 15k plus averages. So someone wasn't getting it exactly right were they?

I don't see how anyone's 'preference' is relevant, to be honest.

I guess we were all happier, in blissful ignorance, under Caisley and winning everything but, to repeat the expression used before, it was all built on sand because the financial model [ever more money into the team would equate to ever more fans in the ground] didn't stack up. As mentioned before, the chairman went into the T&A blaming fans for not turning up. Whether it was the fans' fault or the board's, when the 'Settlement' money ran out, as it did around 2005, the waste matter hit the quickly revolving blades, pretty quickly. There is blame all round. No-one comes out smelling of roses, though my sympathies are probably more with those trying to clear up.

[Bullseye]

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:20 am  

That theory that we’d keep getting higher crowds was based on a lazy assumption. If you look at the figures crowd numbers fell between 97 and 99 despite the club being “on the up”. They recovered in 2000 and then fell again while we were at VP. There was a big rise in 2003 but then things levelled out again around the 11-12k mark.

Why anyone thought they would keep going up from the high of 2003 when we won everything is beyond me. The board had surely been around long enough to realise that the season you win the lot will see the highest crowds and anything less will attract a lower crowd unless you do something new to bring in more fans.

Simply expecting people to turn up by doing what you’d done 6 or 7 years earlier was never going to work. What the club needed was another marketing expert. That might have got a few thousand more but I’d say a 15k average would be the upper end of what could be expected.

1997 – 14,327
1998 – 13,026
1999 – 12,912
2000 - 14,052
2001 – 12,086
2002 – 11,542
2003 – 15,284
2004 – 11,459
2005 – 13,523
2006 - 10,783
2007 – 12,786

I think certain decisions taken by the board in 2003/4 sowed the seed for disaster. This was made worse by further bad decisions made in haste such as back office cuts and the appointing of McNamara years before he was ready. By the time we had an experienced coach in Potter it was too late and admin was around the corner.

Re: Peter Hood Q&A Thread : Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:19 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

On the field we seemed to reap the benefit of our academy in the years 98-2003

Probably because the academy went part time at the end of the 2002 season other than a few chosen one's.