Agree with you on that, just look at Wakefield.

Glover does not own our ground, just a rental/lease agreement but we have invested in roofing for the open terraces (partly because we had to to get the franchise, and partly to encourage more fans to attend).
The result of this investment is higher attendances and therefore more revenue. Don't see why the new owner of Bradford would be considered out of his mind to do the same.

Putting a roof on the Popular side would not be cheap for all sorts of technical and engineering reasons and is not a short term development, but if there is a chance of a full Stadium redevelopment down the road it negates it, that’s the Catch 22 situation the Club has always had!

To be fair the last bit applies equally to Wakefield, unless they've rowed back on the decision to re-build elsewhere. Not even sure if it was the current management who made that decision or the previous lot, to be honest, so maybe they're not as totally wedded to the idea of moving as the previous regime?

For the Bulls, I thought the 'engineering problems' related to the main stand side to be honest, I know that was mentioned when lengthening the playing area was being discussed a couple of seasons back. Have to agree it wouldn't seem to be a sensible way to spend money on the face of it but, so far as I know, there is no scheme 'in the pipeline' or even on the horizon at the minute. If the 'issues' are about foundations (I think it was the stand's foundations at the other side) then I'd guess a simple cover, as against a full blown stand, [imight[/i be a goer. OK certainly did put the idea forward, so we can only assume he's thinking about it, even if he's not had any building surveys done.

Though I can recall being literally frozen to the steps at Thrum Hall during a memorable Boxing Day encounter with our neigbours I am starting to be a bit more appreciative of creature comforts. So It could be we do lose out at the turnstiles if it threatens to persist it down during a game of summer rugby in February!
If this gives enough roi to justify putting a roof on the stand I am nit sure; but I guess it would strengthen any future licence bid and better stadia seem to have improved the gates for other teams, though mainly the ones doing better on the pitch.

Log in and press 'Report Post' on all offending posts. When asked for reason cite 'really weird stalker type ' and they'll send email to the person and give a warning

He's been doing it since April at least so I imagine that's not that effective.

Done that any number of times, albeit slightly differently-worded. And talked to Ross about it. Told them I am sure their advertisers will be well impressed with the reputational damage, as well as the loss of traffic from sensible readers. Who knows if they did anything, cos the things from under the bridge are still there, and I never had any feedback.

Apart from the creature comforts angle, there is also the point that when snow falls it's more likely to cause a postponement due to to being unable to properly clear standing areas more than problems with the pitch. I guess a cover over a decent sized bit of the terraces would possibly almost pay for itself with that aspect alone.

"He"? All trolls are "It". Any fule kno that.

Perhaps therein lies a small peice of the problem though, the balance between cost and design. The loads from wind and snow might have made any viable cover difficult. I'm just thinking out loud, I might be wrong, but from working in design and build construction, snow can get heavy, especially on inaccessible roofs (rooves?).

Snow can indeed be very heavy, which to be honest, I only know from trying to shovel it clear! You may well be correct.

It used to be rooves (and hooves) when I was at school, though that's not so say it hasn't been "improved" since then....

There is a standard allowance for snow load on roofs. Odsal makes no difference. At it's simplest this is just half of an industrial shed that goes up by the thousand. The sloping site & ground conditions make it slightly more tricky but it is absolute peanuts as a building operation, given that major contractors build multi-storey developments in the middle of major city centres, compared to an empty ground with space for plant & storage.

Reported it many times, nothing seems to be done except when it goes too far and becomes slanderous, then it`s removed and it reappears in a different guise. The T&A is a joke.

Oh really, that's disappointing as ifallwerelikemumby is saying the same. I haven't posted on it in years but it always did have a different 'crazier' tone to it - more funny though and not the stuff you're reporting.

Haven't seen this linked elsewhere yet, sorry if it has been, but in answer to the op question, looks like Nothus was right;

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9946617.Bradford_Bulls____Super_League_spot_secured_by_RFL_funding_cut/SL spot from funding cut[/url

"[iMr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap, but told the Telegraph & Argus: “It’s true to say that we have given up some of our central funding to guarantee Super League status and it’s likely to be a sizeable portion.” [/i

So its our penace for being naughty, and a deterrent to others, and placates other clubs who will benefit from a weaker Bulls for the next 2 years.

I also found this article whilst wandering around the web which is a well written piece on the subject;

[url=http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/rugby-league-general/other-rugby-league/2012/09/22/bulls-look-safe-but-trouble-lies-ahead-100252-31883811/Bulls safe, trouble ahead for SL[/url


[i"Up until quite late in the piece, it appears there was a fair number of clubs ready to give Bradford the bum's rush.
But by the time the final show of hands was taken, there was only one chairman who felt the Bulls should get the boot


But in the end, the rest decided Bradford should stay.
The most vocal of the majority was St Helens chairman Eamonn McManus.
He too believes Super League should be reduced to 12 clubs, but takes what might be considered a more pragmatic stance.
He points out that under the right ownership, Bradford has a better chance of being a viable commercial entity than most.
To sum up McManus's position, he thinks the Bulls should be part of the elite, even if it was cut to 12.

The RFL's position is a sticky one. They have the clubs that are trying to get into Super League keeping a beady eye on them.

Suppose they stick to their word that a Championship club gets promoted for 2015 AND there is a consensus to reduce the top-flight to 12 teams!

That would mean losing THREE from the current set-up.
In the words of the song – there may be trouble ahead.[/i"


May we live in Interesting Times.....and thank you very much indeed Mr McManus.

If the article is correct then come the next licencing round then either mergers are back on the agenda or the fans of Salford, Wakefield, Cas and maybe those in East Hull should be getting nervous

I still cant work out how a club that previously was losing a shed load of cash and has now had its funding cut, apparently significantly, can still afford to spend up to the salary cap. Not unless the owners were prepared to fund enormous losses or our previous non playing staff salaries were off the scale, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Better management?

So in effect we are getting punished twice?
Not only do we get a 6point deduction this season, we get punished for the next two seasons as well. One rule for Wakefield, etc. One rule for us.

Indeed, to me there does seem an almost inevitable move towards reducing the number of SL clubs, plus the rfl have said (and put in the current operational rules and by laws) that one non SL club will be admitted in 2015, so in a 2015, a possible 12 team SL with the irreplacable clubs plus a current non sl club it leaves us and a few others with some work to do for what could be 3 or 4 spots;

1 Wigan
2 Saints
3 Warrington
4 Leeds
5 Hull
6 Catalan
7 Shuddersfield
8 (non SL club)

9 Widnes

10 Wakefield?
11 Bradford/Hull KR??
12 Castleford/Salford???

I suspect the rugby league landscape will have changed significantly before then though, with some aspect of promotion and relgation brought back at the very least, so any licence considerations now for 2015 might as well be a work of science fiction at the moment.

Bit off a difference between new owners saying full cap is available and actually spending it. according to one of hoods interviews we were 100k under cap last year. Combine that with 17 players leaving should give you an idea of our cap spend so far for next year. Admittedly a lot of the players retained will be at higher end of pay scale but should still be possible to guage how much of cap we're spending when we quality and number of players added to squad in coming weeks. Despite the public comments from new owners can't see us being anywhere near full cap spend next year.

I agree, and just cannot understand why they are saying it. It would be perfectly understandable if they said that we would be spending well under the cap for the next two years. The risk is that people buy their seson tickets, see that the squad is relatively under strength and feel conned.

Other problem we have is we're coming into player market very late this year. Most of quality players will already be sorted. Inevitabily we're going to have sign some average players just to give us squad depth but beyond that do you carry on and sign below average players just so you can say you've spent full cap?. I'd say its better keeping any money available in reserve for any decent players that become available during season, which always seems to happen, rather than filling squad out with dross.

I definitely hope we're not going to be signing 'dross', however the truth is that, outside the top four or five, squads are bulked out with solid super league players who could not really be called 'stars', and I'm sure we'll have a few of these.

I agree with the argument for 'keeping some powder dry' for later in the season though, it seems common sense in our position. We can never know just when or where we are likely to need to bolster the squad but if a decent player becomes available in a position where we need quality (or even just bodies, given recent injury levels) then it would be good to be able to go ahead.

I wonder how close the amount of withheld TV money is to the amount of rent the RFL are owed?