[Bullseye]

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:38 am  

Bull Mania wrote:

Apologies Bullseye and Bulliac, as i thought Bulliac had posted it i read it as Bulliac was using Cameron Scott as an example of it being pointless signing talented 16 year olds

tigertot wrote:

You after a game?

I can see Toovey shedding more than a few tears if he had the privilege of seeing a player of my ability out there.

billypop wrote:

We've tried that with the grown ups.

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:05 pm  

If we'd played 2017 in C1 like we all wanted, had a decent year and were now looking forward to the Championship, i reckon there's a decent chance Bentley and Ryan would've stayed with us for 2018, if they felt the club was going somewhere and we didn't mess them about.

With the best will in the world, though, even if you thought we were going to rip up C1 (which would be a rather ambitious thought at this point), surely nobody can expect lads with that sort of talent to trot out in C1 for a shambolic club with admittedly no money and no sign of finding any?

All this is the fault of the RFL. The insolvency happened and the previous management are to blame for thta, but who got the new club, and where it played, and on what terms, was 100% up to the RFL and they failed us miserably. No money from half the season tickets, no money from the RFL, no money from the new owners, forced to compete way above our level with a -12pt handicap. Starting from scratch in C1 was the only sensible choice but we were sacrificed on the RFL's altar and that's where we are where we are.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:57 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Eh? Couldn’t disagree more. Have you been on the sauce?

Haha, no. Just idle thoughts, which may, or may not, have much merit!

More or less working on the principle that clubs like Fax or Fev, or any other club in our position, don't seem to be chasing the standouts but concentrating on local youngsters and bringing them through. I'd say the major difference is probably that we have genuine hopes of getting back to SL where they, maybe, don't.

Truth is though, that much as I take quite a bit of pride in our academy, our owners don't seem to be even remotely 'minted' and the bottom line is that it costs a lot of money to run and we don't seem to get that much benefit from it. I'd seriously suggest that Fax etc get far better returns to cost figures than we do. Like it or not, we maybe should be comparing ourselves to clubs in a similar position as ourselves and not to such as Leeds, Wigan and Saints.

Cutting the cloth and all that?

[Bullseye]

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:46 pm  

No. I think cutting the academy would signal the end of ambition and would be the end for me without question.

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:36 am  

Clearly the academy was kept in place to act as some kind of academy for the whole league and was conditional of ChaLo getting the Bulls. Can't really understand why ChaLo didn't realise the amount they would be spending on the academy would not offer any returns to the Bulls. Especially as they were the preferred bidders due to their rugby knowledge.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:06 am  

rugbyreddog wrote:

Clearly the academy was kept in place to act as some kind of academy for the whole league and was conditional of ChaLo getting the Bulls. Can't really understand why ChaLo didn't realise the amount they would be spending on the academy would not offer any returns to the Bulls. Especially as they were the preferred bidders due to their rugby knowledge.

Which begs the question; "why would the RFL be so bothered about our academy"?.

It's definitely one of the better ones, according to independent assessment, but obviously, it's far from being unique or in any way so 'vital' to the future of the whole game that the governing body would get involved. Let's be honest, if the Bulls academy hadn't existed ALL he lads who came through it would have accepted offers from Leeds, Wigan, Saints or wherever and would have received a quality RL education and most probably be somewhere close to where they are now. So why is the RFL playing its current role?

I really don't want to go into all the 'other stuff', which has its own thread, but there has to be a reason.

[Bullseye]

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:13 am  

Does there? Maybe you're looking for sensible rationale where there is none?

Remember we're talking about the RFL here.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:31 am  

True enough, Bullseye!

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:35 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Does there? Maybe you're looking for sensible rationale where there is none?

Remember we're talking about the RFL here.

I just thought it was about RFL self-interest. Grassroots & youth development pathways are one of the criteria that Sport England check. (Along with governance.....)
So allowing 1 of the top 8 graded academies in the game to disappear may knock a few £££ off the next funding go-around for the RFL.

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:39 am  

Bets'y Bulls wrote:

I aren't sure why people are getting upset, out of contract players move on from big clubs, it happens, not just to us

Its probably because its the first time in many years that Bradford will be viewed as a feeder team to SL clubs. Obviously that is how the RFL views all teams at this level but when that feeling actually sinks in it can be a bit disheartening. You do get used to it eventually and learn to know your role.