: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:16 pm  

batleyrhino wrote:

There would be an almighty scramble, Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Warrington would all be interested. I'd bet you would easily clear £250k.

I don't think this would be the answer though, you would be better off keeping him and other younger players and ditching the more experienced average or non performers. Over the next two or three years you must have a few well paid loafers (Solomona etc) coming off contract, just replace them with harder working hungrier (lol) players as they come up and you will get back to where you were a few years ago.

ps, am I right in saying that the Bulls dropped their youth system for a while some years ago? Maybe this is paying back a bit now? If I imagined the whole thing just pretend I never raised it.

pps, you should seriously look at getting shut of Michael Platt, he's a total liability.

He has not been great but last week against Wigan I thought he was one of our better players. His reward was a spot on the bench I am unsure what this will do for his slowly improving confidence.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:20 pm  

eddievan wrote:

He has not been great but last week against Wigan I thought he was one of our better players. His reward was a spot on the bench I am unsure what this will do for his slowly improving confidence.

If he wasn't injured it's another piece of brilliant man management by the boss.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:26 pm  

redeverready wrote:

If he wasn't injured it's another piece of brilliant man management by the boss.

He was limping throughout the Wigan game, I assumed this was why he was on the bench today.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:29 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

He was limping throughout the Wigan game, I assumed this was why he was on the bench today.

He didn't look injured when he came on or in the warm up.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:35 pm  

redeverready wrote:

If he wasn't injured it's another piece of brilliant man management by the boss.

That's quite a hard POV to refute! Must admit I'd assumed it was cos he defo picked up an injury last week. Or maybe the Boss listened to what Eddievan's "Committee" (love it! ) have been screaming for, and followed their instructions? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:49 pm  

one thing I did notice was when Sykes was at fullback and made errors ( fumbled bombs, passing in poor positions, gifting Hall the ball for the hull try etc) people around me didnt comment. yet when Platt came on and made similar errors they were instantly on his back. One thing yesterday proved is that Sykes isn't a massively better fullback option than Platt, in fact on yesterdays and last weeks performances Platt looks the better option.

Can only assume Platt was carrying an injury as based on wigan performances Platt did nothing to deserve dropping with Sykes being much poorer and deserving the drop. With Crookes putting in a decent showing yesterday then maybe it'll be Paul's turn for a bench spot next week.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:57 pm  

mat wrote:

one thing I did notice was when Sykes was at fullback and made errors ( fumbled bombs, passing in poor positions, gifting Hall the ball for the hull try etc) people around me didnt comment. yet when Platt came on and made similar errors they were instantly on his back. One thing yesterday proved is that Sykes isn't a massively better fullback option than Platt, in fact on yesterdays and last weeks performances Platt looks the better option.

Can only assume Platt was carrying an injury as based on wigan performances Platt did nothing to deserve dropping with Sykes being much poorer and deserving the drop. With Crookes putting in a decent showing yesterday then maybe it'll be Paul's turn for a bench spot next week.

I'll go along with that, although I'd keep Sykes starting in the centres. He quietened Yeaman down when he reverted there, a task which proved a bit too much for Crookes at this early stage in his career. Think we need to get some of the other issues sorted first so we don't load too much on Crookes right now?

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:04 am  

mat wrote: one thing I did notice was when Sykes was at fullback and made errors ( fumbled bombs, passing in poor positions, gifting Hall the ball for the hull try etc) people around me didnt comment. yet when Platt came on and made similar errors they were instantly on his back. One thing yesterday proved is that Sykes isn't a massively better fullback option than Platt, in fact on yesterdays and last weeks performances Platt looks the better option. Can only assume Platt was carrying an injury as based on wigan performances Platt did nothing to deserve dropping with Sykes being much poorer and deserving the drop. With Crookes putting in a decent showing yesterday then maybe it'll be Paul's turn for a bench spot next week. I was also surprised Platt was left out until i read this T&A Academy product Crookes came in and started at late notice, with Paul Sykes switching to full back in place of the off-colour Michael Platt.

mat wrote: one thing I did notice was when Sykes was at fullback and made errors ( fumbled bombs, passing in poor positions, gifting Hall the ball for the hull try etc) people around me didnt comment. yet when Platt came on and made similar errors they were instantly on his back. One thing yesterday proved is that Sykes isn't a massively better fullback option than Platt, in fact on yesterdays and last weeks performances Platt looks the better option. Can only assume Platt was carrying an injury as based on wigan performances Platt did nothing to deserve dropping with Sykes being much poorer and deserving the drop. With Crookes putting in a decent showing yesterday then maybe it'll be Paul's turn for a bench spot next week. I was also surprised Platt was left out until i read this T&A Academy product Crookes came in and started at late notice, with Paul Sykes switching to full back in place of the off-colour Michael Platt.

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:11 am  

Moral - people are far too quick to jump to conclusions.

Re: Who Would you have replace Macca ? : Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:29 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Can't argue with that one bit. Irrefutable argument.

Just need some dosh to do it

Its too bloody depressing being an accountant, I've decided. Should have been a lawyer...

No No No - the only guarantees in life are death & taxes. Therefore you need to be an accountant or an undertaker.

Shakespeare knew what to do with lawyers (Henry VI (Part 2))

Although looking at what I have just written - the lawyers might have been involved in the drafting of the guarantees - so you could be right