Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:16 am  

The mantra should surely have been 'The only way is up'..going down would certainly challenge support and from a business point of view, not very savvy. Then, under budget restraints, would we become a part-time outfit? Without knowing what the plan was this season, it's difficult to class it as being successful.Glad to have lived to fight another day, but the lack of any forth coming strategy leaves me thinking, surely, there has to be more than this.Still waiting for news on how to make the Stadium pay, which again must be a priority, even before any investment in the playing squad I would have thought. The youth development policy is definitely a bonus, but only if the Club is stable and strong enough financially to hang on to our homegrown talent. We need somehow stop being a feeder Club when it is noticeable it is so often to our own detriment. For me, still too many unanswered questions.

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:23 am  

Bullseye wrote:

The smoke and mirrors and lack of clarity has just turned me off this season. I'll be back when I know what the hell is going on, probably.

Yep, same here. Lost my rag a while back about the total lack of communication, and nothing had changed. I know the two guys on here tried to get some answers, but there still wasn't really anything of substance that came from those answers.

The last I heard was Chalmers telling Gledhill there wasn't a plan for being relegated as they weren't even considering that as a possibility. I've heard nothing since, so if they're still not considering it, it means they know something we don't, or they're total idiots. If they are now considering it, bloody well tell us the plan! I don't want full details, I just want a basic outline of what the chuff is going on. Until I get it, I won't waste my time.

[Bulliac]

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:42 am  

paulwalker71 wrote: The Squad list post has been updated this week viewtopic.php?f=19&t=601941 We're up to No 41, with another player with no number listed. Number 12 unused for some unknown reason, so that equates to 41 players used so far (Tonga will take us up to 42 if he actually gets onto the field) Can we get to 50 by the end of the shield? Frankly I wouldn't bet against it! I have a spreadsheet for the squad and appearances and, at the moment, I've got 40 names showing at least one appearance. I'd better check out the 'new' squad list as it's been a total joke so far with more than one player turning out in different numbers. Just looked at the Bulls' site and still we have Mathew Storton, Ted Chapelhow, Sam brooks ,Ed Chamberlain, and Cory Aston, all of whom have played at least once, without a number. The highest is Cameron smith on 37.

paulwalker71 wrote: The Squad list post has been updated this week viewtopic.php?f=19&t=601941 We're up to No 41, with another player with no number listed. Number 12 unused for some unknown reason, so that equates to 41 players used so far (Tonga will take us up to 42 if he actually gets onto the field) Can we get to 50 by the end of the shield? Frankly I wouldn't bet against it! I have a spreadsheet for the squad and appearances and, at the moment, I've got 40 names showing at least one appearance. I'd better check out the 'new' squad list as it's been a total joke so far with more than one player turning out in different numbers. Just looked at the Bulls' site and still we have Mathew Storton, Ted Chapelhow, Sam brooks ,Ed Chamberlain, and Cory Aston, all of whom have played at least once, without a number. The highest is Cameron smith on 37.

[Bulliac]

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:59 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

Yep, same here. Lost my rag a while back about the total lack of communication, and nothing had changed. I know the two guys on here tried to get some answers, but there still wasn't really anything of substance that came from those answers.

The last I heard was Chalmers telling Gledhill there wasn't a plan for being relegated as they weren't even considering that as a possibility. I've heard nothing since, so if they're still not considering it, it means they know something we don't, or they're total idiots. If they are now considering it, bloody well tell us the plan! I don't want full details, I just want a basic outline of what the chuff is going on. Until I get it, I won't waste my time.

Are you sure we're not being run by Theresa May and the brexit committee?

[Bullseye]

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:05 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Are you sure we're not being run by Theresa May and the brexit committee?

There are some depressing parallels.

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:11 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Are you sure we're not being run by Theresa May and the brexit committee?

Could be Bradxit...it has been known!

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:41 am  

PHILISAN wrote:

Could be Bradxit...it has been known!

Bullsxit is maybe more appropriate to sum it up.

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:36 am  

Errol Stock wrote:

Taken from Totalrl.com thread - a question raised by someone but answered by a former poster on here AdeyBull - I tend to agree with his summary below:

Q. "Who is funding the Bulls now Adey? as looking at the potential cash flow through gates/other revenue it does not stack up could the RFL actually have a financial stake in the club and its just being fronted."

Really no idea. We are TOLD it is ChaLo. And it is implied that their limited funds explains, inter alia, why they were not able to sign players sufficient to avoid the near-inevitable relegation.

Can't be official central funding (effectively zero) or sponsorship (most went to Green) and gate receipts will be limited, given the club honoured season tickets where Green received the funds. Or anything much else, as far as I can see. None of the finances stack up to me. But they never did anyway, over recent years. There was never any way the Khan or Green regimes were ever going to make anything other than big losses.

The mood in the limited corridors of power at the club seems to be far more upbeat than the seeming impending latest disaster facing the club would suggest. But I really have no idea what the role of Wood and his cabal in all this is - beyond that they made sure the only bidder left standing was the one with seemingly much the least funds, that the new club would be forced to see out the fixture programme and then face almost certain relegation anyway at the end of it (totaly wasting a year, at best), and that - crucially - the RFL kept its hands on the stadium site, which is recorded as a valuable asset in the RFL accounts.

I very much speculate that any involvement the RFL may have has little to do with the Bulls per se, and everything to do with the stadium site. And its (re?)development potential.

This- I have come to the same conclusion as both Adey and Errol.
In addition to the clear optimism of senior figures at the club , which I've witnessed at first hand ,I would add:
1. John Bastian's recruitment - the standard of these new scholarship players seems to be of a good standard. John is a man of integrity and would not be party to conning either the youngsters or their parents.
2. The apparent success of filling the corporate sponsorship portfolio- the companies involved must have been convinced we have a viable future
3. ( less convincing) Widnes' comments when they entered a dual registration agreement

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:13 am  

Bullseye wrote:

The smoke and mirrors and lack of clarity has just turned me off this season. I'll be back when I know what the hell is going on, probably.

Well yeah I'm the same but with the added symptom of not even being bothered about this forum either.This is a wasted year we didn't ask for, and I just want it gone.

Re: Willy Tonga : Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:21 am  

Bulliac wrote:

I have a spreadsheet for the squad and appearances and, at the moment, I've got 40 names showing at least one appearance.

I'd better check out the 'new' squad list as it's been a total joke so far with more than one player turning out in different numbers.

Just looked at the Bulls' site and still we have Mathew Storton, Ted Chapelhow, Sam brooks ,Ed Chamberlain, and Cory Aston, all of whom have played at least once, without a number. The highest is Cameron smith on 37.

Chapelhow has been wearing 39 for the last few games so has essentially been assigned that number. Similarly Chamberlain 40 and Aston wore 41 on Sunday (Bulls tweeted his shirt out). Fair to assume those numbers have been assigned to those players. 38 seems to have been missed out, although Chapelhow did wear that previously for a game or two. Storton & Brooks only ever wore someone else's shirt (like 25 while Tomlinson was on loan to Skolars).

There has definitely been 40 players used so far this season though. Everyone in the squad has played at least once, except for Josh Rickett. Numbers 1 to 37 have been used, minus 12 and 27, which is 35 players. Then Storton, Brooks, Chapelhow, Chamberlain & Aston on top of those.


(I should give credit to my source on these, my "man with the stats" haha, but I'm not gonna....)