Are you sure? I mean about being a sports journalist that is. Perhaps Bulla supporters should do to the T&A what Liverpool supporters did (and are still doing to The Sun).

What absolute unjustified propensity.



Do you have your degree in Journalism, know how a newspaper or written print work?



For the record I converse and hold conversation with Ross Heppinstall at Rugby League games.



So let me tell you that until Saturday he had been doing the job and hours of Two people - reporting on not only the financial and pledge side of the club, but also on the sporting side of the Bradford Bulls (for no extra financial remuneration).



If your not certain what the above entails then I'm certain you'd be pleased to learn that you would be working Twelve hour days (some longer) to meet non-negotiable deadlines, working your days off because you are required at press conferences etc ...



So Saturday comes the welcome solace and news that your heavy workload of the past ten days is to be curtailed to just the job you are paid to do.



Now the extra pressure of reporting on the clubs financial and pledge concerns has been removed and handed to the T&A's news desk journalists - Hannah Baker & Johnathan Redhead.



You are now young Hannah trying to do an honest job of reporting on the major concerns of Bradford's top flight Rugby League club, who only last night attracted a healthy attendance of 20,821.



Chris Caisley & Gerry Sutcliffe phone up the T&A's news desks hotline proclaiming to have a juicy exclusive fresh and readily available for Mondays edition.



Do you for one minute consider any moral ground about any perceived bias/accusations aimed at the T&A



Or



Do you run the story knowing that the headline "MP DEMANDS BULLS COME CLEAN OVER CASH CRISIS" will help to sell unprecedented copies on what is generally a slow news day (Bank Holiday Weekend).



I certainly know which action I'd take.

Mick, the Gerry Sutcliffe (if everybody didn't already mistrust mps for whatever reason) could have derailed the pledge scheme. It mentioned that the club was losing £100 000 pounds a month, if any pledgers were to take this at face value it could have completely put them off donating to a "lost cause". This could in turn could have damaged the chances of the clubs survival irreparably. I have not seen the £100 000 figure mentioned anywhere apart from the article, surely if the T and A is to publish a story like this it should question the validity of the things it chooses to publish, when the outcomes are so precious to many of us.

I admire your loyalty, Mick.



However, I feel that Ross provides poor quality work (I have documented this on here before) and that, coupled with his long hours for little reward, suggests I'd be looking for a new career if I was him.



Your explanation is plausible and may be entirely true, but such is the biased tone of the T&A, I simply cannot believe that is the case. Either they have some kind of vested interest in Caisley taking control or they simply want to take a contrary position to that of the club to generate controversy and, hopefully, sales.

The T&A have not done themselves and favors. The late reporting on the pledge amount, together with them locking the article, so no-one could post any positive comments. Then allowing the other article, which wasn't as positive, unlocked for people to display their discontent.



The removal of the recent comments about the T&A's agenda (which i saw, and it wan't that bad) made me think they were only allowing 'certain' comments to showed online, did make me think they had picked a side.



On Ross's articles, I have actually thought they picked up over the last 2 months, and were actually a good read. I have noticed the most recent stuff has been shared between a couple of journalists.



All in all, I have been a little surprised that the T&A seemed to support the whole pledge thing, to then [i(for whatever reason)[/i almost not care, and give half stories on the most important issues.

The T and A have reported unsubstantiated news ie the club was losing £100 000 a month without questioning it or asking the other side for a view. They have failed to mention / discuss the allegation that CC tried to put the club into administration last July due to him not been paid the interest on a director loan that all other directors waived. The T and A have portraid CC in a very positive light throughout the clubs current crisis like someone riding in on a white charger to save the club from oblivion when in reality he has brought nothing to the party. The T and A have not mentioned in any great detail the fact that it was to some large degree CC's actions which have lead to the financial mess the club is currently in. In my opinion the the T and A's reporting over this issue has tried to make out that Hood is the bad guy and CC is the hero. A number of posts critical of the "biased" reporting of this issue were removed from the T and A website, whilst those critical of Hood were allowed to remain. I also think that the timing of some of the negative articles were specifically published to harm the pledge scheme.

The T and A , along with a local MP have joined a conspiracy to misinform the Bradford public about the BOD of Bradford Bulls?

I doubt it.

The T & A is a media news outlet and sells on two main premises Bad News and Hype, and on the political front has very few morals. Even Sadler at TRL has realised reporting salient facts is much better especially as it's an RL media outlet. Don't forget how the local reporters get the news and what the facts are in it depends on what bias the Editors want to spin etc, one would think there is an agenda against the present board, probably due to unseen so far promises of wrongdoing emerging, dangerous game to play with the media cause if it doesn't pan out certain parties will instantly become villans and get hammered in print!

Would potential pledgers be put off by an article suggesting we are losing £100,000 per month when they weren't put off by the Bulls announcement that we needed to raise £500,000 immediately and a further £500,000 very soon after?



Bearing in mind that these are clearly very rounded ballpark figures, they dont seem hugely contradictory. £100,000 per month isn't that far off the £500k that is needed to run the club for the rest of the season once the immediate debts are paid off.



Clearly the more financially sophisticated would appreciate that accounting losses of £100k per month are quite different to negative cashflow averaging £100k per month. But by the standards of newspaper reporting generally, the reporting doesnt seem that misleading. It certainly doesnt seem to me to be evidense of bias. Dumbing down perhaps.

Beginning to think it might be poor reporting and the BOD losing the media battle.