WiganWarriorsFans.com

thats if he gets a permit, like the guy giants tried to sign. the only 12 month contract bird might get is in the nick

Very true

Looking back at this now he has signed for Bradford am glad Wigan did not land him.

Players that signed for teams half way through last year to play in the 09 are still waiting to come over here. If it takes a month for his VISA to come throught thats 2 games into the season. He won't get up to speed with brads system and super league in genral for another month. By the time that it is his trail. He goes over there gets charge and he won't be allowed back for a while. He may have to re-apply for his VISA. in which case it may get rejected like craney. He may never come back.

cpwigan wrote:1 year contract with an option for a further 2

He could make Bradford a far better team in 2009

I think at 24 years old he will do 12 months here and return to the NRL so if that does happen I am glad we did not sign him.

And if he likes it and stays for the extra 2 years this will be another quality player we have missed out on. He'd only be 27 with plenty of time to go back to the NRL. Trent did it when he was older.

It is not as if we were not interested, we were but it seems Bradford decided to move for him and had no trouble getting him and they have supposedly been in financial trouble.

It isn't as if the club can blame paying too much for existing contracts to the likes of Bailey and Fielden because we have spent money on re-signing Phelps and bringing Roberts over a year early.

Who would be more useful to club, Bird or a utility back and an winger? I think given the young players coming through it was obviously Bird.

We have not signed a single truly top class player for 2009 and there have been plenty available before Bird such as Ryles.

We do have to think of Tomkins development but I thinks it would be one of TL and TS who would be moved on in 2010 if we had signed Bird if he had chosen to take the extra two years.

Dave

DaveO wrote:

cpwigan wrote:1 year contract with an option for a further 2

He could make Bradford a far better team in 2009

I think at 24 years old he will do 12 months here and return to the NRL so if that does happen I am glad we did not sign him.

And if he likes it and stays for the extra 2 years this will be another quality player we have missed out on. He'd only be 27 with plenty of time to go back to the NRL. Trent did it when he was older.

It is not as if we were not interested, we were but it seems Bradford decided to move for him and had no trouble getting him and they have supposedly been in financial trouble.

It isn't as if the club can blame paying too much for existing contracts to the likes of Bailey and Fielden because we have spent money on re-signing Phelps and bringing Roberts over a year early.

Who would be more useful to club, Bird or a utility back and an winger? I think given the young players coming through it was obviously Bird.

We have not signed a single truly top class player for 2009 and there have been plenty available before Bird such as Ryles.

We do have to think of Tomkins development but I thinks it would be one of TL and TS who would be moved on in 2010 if we had signed Bird if he had chosen to take the extra two years.

Dave

As I understand it, a lot of our freed-up cap money went on improved contracts for many of the youngsters, which is the right way to go, IMO.

If Wakefield made Bird a £100,000 offer and he turned it down then I would surmise his Bradford contract is worth £100,000 minimum per season.

If we had £100,000 + spare on the cap as the season started I would argue that is poor management. The £20,000 contingency we have seems better.

I was really gutted when we did not sign Mat King but maybe that offers a lesson because hindsight says he was not the earth shattering capture many of us thought. It would be churlish to dent that Greg Bird is not a good player BUT I personally do not rate him overly highly. He played a lot of loose forward and can only play stand off. When he does play stand off he is very left sided, he is short, stocky and his ket ploy from when I have watched him is to go himself. He combined well with Kimmorley who is a very dominant 7 but if he has to lead a team as the key playmaker? I have not seen anything special re passing nor kicking. The big plus re Bird is his age. Deacon is a good half back for Bird to play with. I think they are tailor made for each other.

With all these options etc I just believe that the Tim Smith's, Greg Bird's will return ASAP to he NRL. Worse case scenario, players like Tomkins leave too seeing little hope of playing.

A quote from one aussie fan

One of the games greatest talents? One of the most overrated more like it. He was undeservedly given those positions in both the Australian and Origin Teams, when another underrated 5/8th was overlooked. I am glad the Sharks came to their senses and booted him out. Why has a club bought him up though? This guy might be sentenced to gaol in a few months!

Strangely, most seem happy for him (and his girlfriend) to be leaving their shores.

Hate to say this but does his girlfriend come with the package because if she does there could be some rough times ahead for the bulls if the last 12 months has been anything to go on, got a feeling it's going to be a case of Bonnie and Clyde all over again

DaveO wrote:

cpwigan wrote:1 year contract with an option for a further 2

He could make Bradford a far better team in 2009

I think at 24 years old he will do 12 months here and return to the NRL so if that does happen I am glad we did not sign him.

And if he likes it and stays for the extra 2 years this will be another quality player we have missed out on. He'd only be 27 with plenty of time to go back to the NRL. Trent did it when he was older.

It is not as if we were not interested, we were but it seems Bradford decided to move for him and had no trouble getting him and they have supposedly been in financial trouble.

It isn't as if the club can blame paying too much for existing contracts to the likes of Bailey and Fielden because we have spent money on re-signing Phelps and bringing Roberts over a year early.

Who would be more useful to club, Bird or a utility back and an winger? I think given the young players coming through it was obviously Bird.

We have not signed a single truly top class player for 2009 and there have been plenty available before Bird such as Ryles.

We do have to think of Tomkins development but I thinks it would be one of TL and TS who would be moved on in 2010 if we had signed Bird if he had chosen to take the extra two years.

Dave

The player is using bradford during the interim period of suspension

Bradford Bulls' controversial new signing Greg Bird's stay in Super League could be a brief one after it emerged that the player will be given the chance to resurrect his career in Australia in 2010.

The 24-year-old State of Origin star and Australia international has signed a 12-month deal, with an extra two-year option, with the Bulls after securing a release from his four-year contract with Cronulla Sharks.

As part of the severance deal, Bird was prevented from playing for another NRL club in 2009, forcing him to turn to England, but he will welcomed back to the Sharks next year by coach Ricky Stuart.

Writing in his Sydney Sunday Telegraph column, Stuart said: "Both Greg and the club needed this.

"He is a young man whose life has been football. He needs the game but he also needs to go away and understand what he had and what he lost.

"A year playing in England will give him time to think and time to realise the opportunities he had and lost.

So it appears he will only be at the bulls for one season, despite their hype

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/18012009/ ... early.html

cpwigan wrote:If Wakefield made Bird a £100,000 offer and he turned it down then I would surmise his Bradford contract is worth £100,000 minimum per season.

If we had £100,000 + spare on the cap as the season started I would argue that is poor management. The £20,000 contingency we have seems better.

So how come we were interested at all? We didn't seriously offer him £20K did we?

I was really gutted when we did not sign Mat King but maybe that offers a lesson because hindsight says he was not the earth shattering capture many of us thought.

Well hindsight is a wonderful thing and you can't dismiss every failed signing based on the chance they may turn out to be crap!

It would be churlish to dent that Greg Bird is not a good player BUT I personally do not rate him overly highly.

That is fair enough but my main concern is not that we have not signed Bird specifically but we have not signed a truly class player in any position. Do we have a player with that something special who will be the difference in some games? It is as if we are already hoping S Tomkins will be the man.

GeoffN suggested the money has gone on improved contracts for some players and while some young players have improved deals IMO that isn't strictly true to say its all gone that way (if that is what he meant).

We have three players in Phelps, Riddell and Roberts who will have taken a good chunk of our available spend and two of those, Phelps and Roberts who we really didn't need IMO compared to addressing weaknesses elsewhere. I also doubt Riddell has come over for less than Higham.

The biggest mystery is why we gave Phelps a deal given the young players on the books and it seems with Roberts we got him a year early due to his Aussie club needing to offload his wage. Why did we do this? We were not planning on him coming until 2010 so what the club has ended up doing is taking an unexpected hit into 2009's salary cap needlessly.

That will have reduced our ability to sign other players.
Is Roberts such a class player that was worth doing given everyone including IL says we need another prop?

Our recruitment in the off season looks haphazard and event driven rather than planned.

Dave

Maybe we have more than £20,000 available Dave. One of my sources believes we do.