I'm a little surprised that Sykes and Platt have been publicly shamed by being given the 28 and 29 squad numbers. Is this in relation to playing form, or training/off-field misdemeanors?



IIRC wasn't Sykes one of the first players given a new contract by Potter? Also, Platt seemed to be earning himself something of a better reputation playing at centre last season, at least from what I have been reading on this forum. Bit odd that he's been seemingly shown the door.



Is it just the case that Potter has brought in better players in Lulia and Purtell, or is he using two of McNamara's backline stalwarts as a scapegoat for a poor first season in charge?



Anyone think either of them will play for the Bulls in 2012? Should they?

You hear that apparently they were told they were free to talk to other clubs. What is the source of that suggestion?



The fact that they haven't done so appears to be either:



They want to fight for their place.

They are happy to take the cash for doing nowt.

They couldn't find any other takers.

The rumour is not true.

No reason to believe it is anything other than he believes the other players are better. Nothing to indicate off-field misdemeanors at all.



Platt was better at centre, but his defence was still not the best, although for me, he always appeared to be putting the effort in. Sykes is a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time at the wrong club. He's a jack-of all trades, master of none. Another who's effort cannot be faulted, and last year against Huddersfield at home by all accounts (as I missed that game

) looked top class, followed by mediocrity straight afterwards.



Both will probably play at some point this coming season if they remain at the club once the usual injuries kick in to Walker, Ainscough, Kearney etc

The rumour about them being told they could leave seemed a bit odd given that Potter gave both new contracts less than a year earlier. Having said that Sykes hardly figured last year and Platt was in and out, I'm not sure how much of that was down to injury but I got the impression they hadn't impressed the coach.



At the post season fans forum Potter mentioned how some players on the fringes "weren't good enough" and lets be honest I think he was talking about these two. Defensively they've never inspired confidence and in attack rarely threaten. They're both capabale of the odd good game but seem to lack consistency.



It does beg the question as to why they were given lengthy new deals only to then see us sign players from the NRL to play in those same positions. I sometimes wonder if we actually have a plan when it comes to recruitment or if we just make it up as we go along.

I think the reason for them getting longer deals is down to having the whole Orford thing having over last year's recruitment.



We had a large chunk of the salary cap that we didn't know if we could use it or if it was taken. So offering extending deals to utility players who are likely not on large wages to begin with makes sense.

I think giving them 28 and 29 is simply a way of signalling to everyone - including the two players - that they aren't in the coaches plans for the new season.



I expect that once we get close to the season they'll either end up signing for someone like Wakefield or London, be shipped out on a season long loan to Halifax or Fev. There's really no point in having disaffected and/or unwanted people hanging around the camp.

I was going to be fair to MP by saying the re-signing was done whilst he was still at Stains, so he wouldn't have been, shall we say, quite up to speed with events at Odsal, however, even as boss at Knowsley Rd he would, or you would expect he would, have a reasonable idea about regular SL players (as they then were under Macca) in order to coach his own team, so maybe that thought doesn't hold water.



It probably is fair to ask whether it was [ientirely[/i Potter's decision though, or whether it was taken under advice from elsewhere.



At the end of the day though, the problem was the previous decision ie. to award them long contracts, not the current one. I suppose, I go along with most, who believe it means they are on the outer as far as Mick's thinking on the line up is concerned and despite the clowns who will, no doubt be screaming that we should have 'got rid', as though contracted players could be simply 'magicked' away, I think Potter has done as much as is possible with the situation, which I agree isn't really a lot.

Platt signed a new 2 year deal in April this year, Potter will have had at least 4 months of working directly with him before that announcement. He surely must have known what he was doing then? On Sykes I can see how he was re-signed pewrhaps due to his status as quite versatile, home grown and (hopefully) not a high earner.

Platts the one I dont understand. Sykes was re-signed before Potter arrived, although with his approval, so presumably he's had a look at him over season and decided he doesnt fit into his plans. Platt on the other hand was re-signed by Potter after he'd had a pre-season and a few months of gametime to observe him. Then a couple of months later he no longer deems him good enough. Dont think anyone would argue that Platt is good enough to be a starting player but as a backup player dont see him as such a bad player to have on the books.

The Sykes deal was very odd. At the time we were signing lots of players on 1 year deals and releasing 10-12 players. Sykes' previous contract had only been a 1 year deal so the jury was out and then, after another season where he was poor he gets a 3 year contract. It didn't take Mick Potter to know he wasn't up to it at either centre or stand off.



Platt, on the other was doing relatively OK until he was subbed off against Wigan in the cup, dropped for a number of games and never really regained Potter's confidence.

Well there's definitely something odd going on.



Maybe Sykes has got "those photos" that McAvoy had all those years?

I didn't realise it was quite as late as that when Platty re-signed, sort of makes it difficult to let MP off the hook I guess. I wouldn't expect that he's on vast amounts though so maybe the coach feels he can do a job in the squad. To be fair to Platty he's looked decent at centre on occasions (with ball in hand, at least) and if he's not blocking the path of a younger player maybe it's for the best. It would be interesting to know the rationale behind it.