OK. I didn't live in Bradford during his previous spell (and I don't now) so I didn't see his work then.



To me, his work seems to be uninspired and formulaic - I accept your point about there being nothing to write - and dotted with poor English. His work reads like the half-witted correspondents at the bottom of the page.



I get the impression that he would rather be doing anything other than reporting on the Bulls. Still, I don't care, I just won't read it.

I do find his articles boring and lots have bin laden with errors.

Christ almighty, is Stul not allowed an opinion on this then? If he thinks the coverage is poor then he is quite entitled to say so IMO.



Bloody ridiculous the people who seem to want to censor opinion sometimes.

FFS Eddie, nobody has censored opinion anywhere. One person offered his opinion, another offered theirs. It's a discussion forum. It's a not a series of isolated opinions on their own shiny pedestals that float in space and never come into contact. People discuss things, and suprisingly enough sometimes disagree. Disagreement is not suppression.

In his latest piece on the debut of Keith Lulia he refers to him as 'former Penrith....'. Considering he's the designated Bradford Bulls reporter on a Bradford paper it's not very good is it?

Read it again, you're reading it wrong.

It reads "The former Penrith centre tore his pectoral muscle during last weekend’s victory at Castleford and a specialist in Manchester has revealed the extent of the injury"



Which is reffering to Purtell NOT Lulia

Apologies to Mr Heptenstall, Mick's right about him

Never said it was. The problem is that the lad made an opinion that others seem to want to quieten down. Pretty sad really.



Still, I guess those with agendas need to be seen to support their sources.

But they're not, they're expressing a contrary opinion of their own that happen to be inspired the opinion of someone else. Surely this is allowed?

Jesus Christ. Lock this thread