Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:15 pm  

thepimp007 wrote:

As desperate as we are for bodies I hope not

What's the alternative? Play Joe Lumb who made around 7 appearances form the bench last year play 80 gminutes every game?

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:16 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

What's the alternative? Play Joe Lumb who made around 7 appearances form the bench last year play 80 games every game?

Exactly this

Besides, although it seems to be de rigour to bag Halafihi on this forum I don't think we've seen enough of the lad to know whether he's any good or not

[Bullseye]

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:16 pm  

We obviously need more than one hooker.

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:18 pm  

Yeah even I'm not gonna be picky.

I'd take Ryan Bailey in a Bulls shirt if necessary.

(But we're not desperate enough for Jordan Tansey though)

[Bullseye]

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:19 pm  

hindle xiii wrote:

(But we're not desperate enough for Jordan Tansey though)

We could pay him in beer and fags. He'd be happy with that

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:20 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

What's the alternative? Play Joe Lumb who made around 7 appearances form the bench last year play 80 gminutes every game?

The prerogative word being hope meant hope we dont have to. Campbell at 1 Leon 6 Thomas 7 Keyes/Lumb 9? Joseph to spell if someone is injured

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:41 pm  

For the sake of one or two seasons, Halafihi will be good enough. Lumb to start, Vila off the bench. Would not put Keyes anywhere near 9. He is the long term halfback for this side so keep him there. Joseph we need in the pack more than ever, otherwise we will be light up front.

In reality this season we are a bottom 4 Championship side. We won't attract big name hookers or halves. Pryce/Keyes with Thomas/Trueman as back up. Lumb/Halafihi as hookers with Joseph there as a last resort.

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:44 pm  

Bulls Boy 2011 wrote:

I think the foreign players won't be offered anything as they will be on more than most plus additional costs of housing etc. Other players will have been wanting the same deals they were on. Owners want to negotiate for a smaller wage perhaps. Player says no and goes.

Do you think possibly,what is happening now is a distraction to hide what is actually going on behind the scenes.

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:45 pm  

atomic wrote:

Do you think possibly,what is happening now is a distraction to hide what is actually going on behind the scenes.

What do you mean?

Re: Dane Chisholm : Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:05 pm  

I mean it's obvious contracts are being either accepted or declined.Do you think something is already in place behind the scenes to cater for the fall-out. Smith wasn't part of the plan thats pretty obvious,are the ones declining contracts being offered something playing on their immediate vulnerabilities.

As in, yes I'm unemployed and will have to take whats on offer.Do you think the new owners are prying on vulnerable personnel? Knowing they have a back-up on stand-by.